weighs

Maria worked cleaning schools in Florida for $13 an hour. Every two weeks, she’d get a $900 paycheck from her employer, a contractor. Not much — but enough to cover rent in the house that she and her 11-year-old son share with five families, plus electricity, a cellphone and groceries.

In August, it all ended.

When she showed up at the job one morning, her boss told her that she couldn’t work there anymore. The Trump administration had terminated the Biden administration’s humanitarian parole program, which provided legal work permits for Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans like Maria.

“I feel desperate,’’ said Maria, 48, who requested anonymity to talk about her ordeal because she fears being detained and deported. “I don’t have any money to buy anything. I have $5 in my account. I’m left with nothing.’’

President Trump’s sweeping crackdown on immigration is throwing foreigners like Maria out of work and shaking the American economy and job market. And it’s happening at a time when hiring is already deteriorating amid uncertainty over Trump’s tariffs and other trade policies.

Immigrants do jobs — cleaning houses, picking tomatoes, painting fences — that most native-born Americans won’t, and for less money. But they also bring the technical skills and entrepreneurial energy that have helped make the United States the world’s economic superpower.

Trump is attacking immigration at both ends of the spectrum, deporting low-wage laborers and discouraging skilled foreigners from bringing their talents to the United States.

And he is targeting an influx of foreign workers that eased labor shortages and upward pressure on wages and prices at a time when most economists thought that taming inflation would require sky-high interest rates and a recession — a fate the United States escaped in 2023 and 2024.

“Immigrants are good for the economy,’’ said Lee Branstetter, an economist at Carnegie-Mellon University. “Because we had a lot of immigration over the past five years, an inflationary surge was not as bad as many people expected.”

More workers filling more jobs and spending more money has also helped drive economic growth and create still more job openings. Economists worry that Trump’s deportations and limits on even legal immigration will do the reverse.

In a July report, researchers Wendy Edelberg and Tara Watson of the centrist Brookings Institution and Stan Veuger of the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute calculated that the loss of foreign workers will mean that monthly U.S. job growth “could be near zero or negative in the next few years.’’

Hiring has already slowed significantly, averaging a meager 29,000 a month from June through August. (The September jobs report has been delayed by the ongoing shutdown of the federal government.) During the post-pandemic hiring boom of 2021-23, by contrast, employers added a stunning 400,000 jobs a month.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, citing fallout from Trump’s immigration and trade policies, downgraded its forecast for U.S. economic growth this year to 1.4% from the 1.9% it had previously expected and from 2.5% in 2024.

‘We need these people’

Goodwin Living, an Alexandria, Va., nonprofit that provides senior housing, healthcare and hospice services, had to lay off four employees from Haiti after the Trump administration terminated their work permits. The Haitians had been allowed to work under a humanitarian parole program and had earned promotions at Goodwin.

“That was a very, very difficult day for us,” Chief Executive Rob Liebreich said. “It was really unfortunate to have to say goodbye to them, and we’re still struggling to fill those roles.’’

Liebreich is worried that 60 additional immigrant workers could lose their temporary legal right to live and work in the United States. “We need all those hands,’’ he said. “We need all these people.”

Goodwin Living has 1,500 employees, 60% of them from foreign countries. It has struggled to find enough nurses, therapists and maintenance staff. Trump’s immigration crackdown, Liebreich said, is “making it harder.’’

The ICE crackdown

Trump’s immigration ambitions, intended to turn back what he calls an “invasion’’ at America’s southern border and secure jobs for U.S.-born workers, were once viewed with skepticism because of the money and economic disruption required to reach his goal of deporting 1 million people a year. But legislation that Trump signed into law July 4 — and which Republicans named the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — suddenly made his plans plausible.

The law pours $150 billion into immigration enforcement, setting aside $46.5 billion to hire 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and $45 billion to increase the capacity of immigrant detention centers.

And his empowered ICE agents have shown a willingness to move fast and break things — even when their aggression conflicts with other administration goals.

Last month, immigration authorities raided a Hyundai battery plant in Georgia, detained 300 South Korean workers and showed video of some of them shackled in chains. They’d been working to get the plant up and running, bringing expertise in battery technology and Hyundai procedures that local American workers didn’t have.

The incident enraged the South Koreans and ran counter to Trump’s push to lure foreign manufacturers to invest in America. South Korean President Lee Jae Myung warned that the country’s other companies might be reluctant about betting on America if their workers couldn’t get visas promptly and risked getting detained.

Sending Medicaid recipients to the fields

America’s farmers are among the president’s most dependable supporters.

But John Boyd Jr., who farms 1,300 acres of soybeans, wheat and corn in southern Virginia, said that the immigration raids — and the threat of them — are hurting farmers already contending with low crop prices, high costs and fallout from Trump’s trade war with China, which has stopped buying U.S. soybeans and sorghum.

“You’ve got ICE out here, herding these people up,’’ said Boyd, founder of the National Black Farmers Assn. “[Trump] says they’re murderers and thieves and drug dealers, all this stuff. But these are people who are in this country doing hard work that many Americans don’t want to do.’’

Boyd scoffed at Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ suggestion in July that U.S.-born Medicaid recipients could head to the fields to meet work requirements imposed as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. “People in the city aren’t coming back to the farm to do this kind of work,’’ he said. “It takes a certain type of person to bend over in 100-degree heat.’’

The Trump administration admits that the immigration crackdown is causing labor shortages on the farm that could translate into higher prices at the supermarket.

“The near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens combined with the lack of an available legal workforce results in significant disruptions to production costs and [threatens] the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers,’’ the Labor Department said in an Oct. 2 filing to the Federal Register.

‘You’re not welcome here’

Jed Kolko of the Peterson Institute for International Economics said that job growth is slowing in businesses that rely on immigrants. Construction companies, for instance, have shed 10,000 jobs since May.

“Those are the short-term effects,’’ said Kolko, a Commerce Department official in the Biden administration. “The longer-term effects are more serious because immigrants traditionally have contributed more than their share of patents, innovation, productivity.’’

Especially worrisome to many economists was Trump’s sudden announcement last month that he was raising the fee on H-1B visas, meant to lure hard-to-find skilled foreign workers to the United States, from as little as $215 to $100,000.

“A $100,000 visa fee is not just a bureaucratic cost — it’s a signal,” said Dany Bahar, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. “It tells global talent: You are not welcome here.”

Some are already packing up.

In Washington, D.C., one H-1B visa holder, a Harvard graduate from India who works for a nonprofit helping Africa’s poor, said Trump’s signal to employers is clear: Think twice about hiring H-1B visa holders.

The man, who requested anonymity, is already preparing paperwork to move to the United Kingdom.

“The damage is already done, unfortunately,’’ he said.

Associated Press writers Wiseman and Salomon reported from Washington and Miami, respectively. AP writers Fu Ting and Christopher Rugaber in Washington contributed to this report.

California lawmakers want Gov. Gavin Newsom to approve bills they passed that aim to make artificial intelligence chatbots safer. But as the governor weighs whether to sign the legislation into law, he faces a familiar hurdle: objections from tech companies that say new restrictions would hinder innovation.

Californian companies are world leaders in AI and have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to stay ahead in the race to create the most powerful chatbots. The rapid pace has alarmed parents and lawmakers worried that chatbots are harming the mental health of children by exposing them to self-harm content and other risks.

Parents who allege chatbots encouraged their teens to harm themselves before they died by suicide have sued tech companies such as OpenAI, Character Technologies and Google. They’ve also pushed for more guardrails.

Calls for more AI regulation have reverberated throughout the nation’s capital and various states. Even as the Trump administration’s “AI Action Plan” proposes to cut red tape to encourage AI development, lawmakers and regulators from both parties are tackling child safety concerns surrounding chatbots that answer questions or act as digital companions.

California lawmakers this month passed two AI chatbot safety bills that the tech industry lobbied against. Newsom has until mid-October to approve or reject them.

The high-stakes decision puts the governor in a tricky spot. Politicians and tech companies alike want to assure the public they’re protecting young people. At the same time, tech companies are trying to expand the use of chatbots in classrooms and have opposed new restrictions they say go too far.

Meanwhile, if Newsom runs for president in 2028, he might need more financial support from wealthy tech entrepreneurs. On Sept. 22, Newsom promoted the state’s partnerships with tech companies on AI efforts and touted how the tech industry has fueled California’s economy, calling the state the “epicenter of American innovation.”

He has vetoed AI safety legislation in the past, including a bill last year that divided Silicon Valley’s tech industry because the governor thought it gave the public a “false sense of security.” But he also signaled that he’s trying to strike a balance between addressing safety concerns and ensuring California tech companies continue to dominate in AI.

“We have a sense of responsibility and accountability to lead, so we support risk-taking, but not recklessness,” Newsom said at a discussion with former President Clinton at a Clinton Global Initiative event on Wednesday.

Two bills sent to the governor — Assembly Bill 1064 and Senate Bill 243 — aim to make AI chatbots safer but face stiff opposition from the tech industry. It’s unclear if the governor will sign both bills. His office declined to comment.

AB 1064 bars a person, business and other entity from making companion chatbots available to a California resident under the age of 18 unless the chatbot isn’t “foreseeably capable” of harmful conduct such as encouraging a child to engage in self-harm, violence or disordered eating.

SB 243 requires operators of companion chatbots to notify certain users that the virtual assistants aren’t human.

Under the bill, chatbot operators would have to have procedures to prevent the production of suicide or self-harm content and put in guardrails, such as referring users to a suicide hotline or crisis text line.

They would be required to notify minor users at least every three hours to take a break, and that the chatbot is not human. Operators would also be required to implement “reasonable measures” to prevent companion chatbots from generating sexually explicit content.

Tech lobbying group TechNet, whose members include OpenAI, Meta, Google and others, said in a statement that it “agrees with the intent of the bills” but remains opposed to them.

AB 1064 “imposes vague and unworkable restrictions that create sweeping legal risks, while cutting students off from valuable AI learning tools,” said Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California and the Southwest, in a statement. “SB 243 establishes clearer rules without blocking access, but we continue to have concerns with its approach.”

A spokesperson for Meta said the company has “concerns about the unintended consequences that measures like AB 1064 would have.” The tech company launched a new Super PAC to combat state AI regulation that the company thinks is too burdensome, and is pushing for more parental control over how kids use AI, Axios reported on Tuesday.

Opponents led by the Computer & Communications Industry Assn. lobbied aggressively against AB 1064, stating it would threaten innovation and disadvantage California companies that would face more lawsuits and have to decide if they wanted to continue operating in the state.

Advocacy groups, including Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that sponsored AB 1064 and recommends that minors shouldn’t use AI companions, are urging Newsom to sign the bill into law. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta also supports the bill.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation said SB 243 is too broad and would run into free-speech issues.

Several groups, including Common Sense Media and Tech Oversight California, removed their support for SB 243 after changes were made to the bill, which they said weakened protections. Some of the changes limited who receives certain notifications and included exemptions for certain chatbots in video games and virtual assistants used in smart speakers.

Lawmakers who introduced chatbot safety legislation want the governor to sign both bills, arguing that they can both “work in harmony.”

Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista), who introduced SB 243, said that even with the changes he still thinks the new rules will make AI safer.

“We’ve got a technology that has great potential for good, is incredibly powerful, but is evolving incredibly rapidly, and we can’t miss a window to provide commonsense guardrails here to protect folks,” he said. “I’m happy with where the bill is at.”

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), who co-wrote AB 1064, said her bill balances the benefits of AI while safeguarding against the dangers.

“We want to make sure that when kids are engaging with any chatbot that it is not creating an unhealthy emotional attachment, guiding them towards suicide, disordered eating, any of the things that we know are harmful for children,” she said.

During the legislative session, lawmakers heard from grieving parents who lost their children. AB 1064 highlights two high-profile lawsuits: one against San Francisco ChatGPT maker OpenAI and another against Character Technologies, the developer of chatbot platform Character.AI.

Character.AI is a platform where people can create and interact with digital characters that mimic real and fictional people. Last year, Florida mom Megan Garcia alleged in a federal lawsuit that Character.AI’s chatbots harmed the mental health of her son Sewell Setzer III and accused the company of failing to notify her or offer help when he expressed suicidal thoughts to virtual characters.

More families sued the company this year. A Character.AI spokesperson said they care very deeply about user safety and “encourage lawmakers to appropriately craft laws that promote user safety while also allowing sufficient space for innovation and free expression.”

In August, the California parents of Adam Raine sued OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT provided the teen information about suicide methods, including the one the teen used to kill himself.

OpenAI said it’s strengthening safeguards and plans to release parental controls. Its chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote in a September blog post that the company believes minors need “significant protections” and the company prioritizes “safety ahead of privacy and freedom for teens.” The company declined to comment on the California AI chatbot bills.

To California lawmakers, the clock is ticking.

“We’re doing our best,” Bauer-Kahan said. “The fact that we’ve already seen kids lose their lives to AI tells me we’re not moving fast enough.”

NCIS: Tony & Ziva has been a hit with fans and a second season is yet to be confirmed, but star Michael Weatherly has spoken out about the possibility of a crossover

NCIS: Tony & Ziva has already got viewers completely captivated and fresh episodes are being released each week on Paramount+.

The offshoot of the enduring crime drama NCIS features Michael Weatherly and Cote de Pablo returning to their beloved characters Tony DiNozzo and Ziva David.

The fresh series represents their first joint appearance in 12 years following NCIS season 11, and the original reveal drove supporters absolutely wild.

Weatherly, who additionally served as executive producer on the programme, chatted exclusively to Reach publications regarding a possible collaboration with the main cast.

When questioned about whether any character from the original NCIS might feature, he responded: “I think that’s a great question for everybody, whether that’s feasible.”

READ MORE: NCIS Tony and Ziva release date, cast, trailer and what to expect from NCIS spin-offREAD MORE: NCIS: Tony and Ziva spin-off to star Bridgerton and Ted Lasso alumni

“For me the answer is of course, I would love to see that and really it’s just about making it the most quality appearance.

“You don’t want to just stunt cast, somebody with Mark Harmon’s haircut who walks by in the background and they are like ‘Oh, is that Gibbs?'”

“Or somebody with black pigtails with a spiderweb tattoo on her neck – that would have to be Abby.

“I think that would have to be heavily negotiated by all the powers that be, of which I am just a little micro contributor.”

The debut season comprises 10 episodes and is anticipated to wrap up on October 23.

Regarding the possibility of a second season, showrunner John McNamara revealed to TV Insider: “I try never to count my chickens before they’re hatched.

“I’m just focused on finishing this season and trying to make it as good as possible.

“And honestly, it is going to be entirely up to the fans and the subscribers to Paramount+ and ultimately to Paramount and CBS. It’s their property and it’s their money.”

The programme has received glowing feedback from both audiences and critics, with IMDb describing it as “both a nostalgia trip and a compelling continuation”.

Given this reception, supporters can stay optimistic about a second series and potentially even a crossover episode.

NCIS: Tony & Ziva airs on Thursdays on Paramount+.

MIAMI — A federal judge on Monday considered whether detainees at a temporary immigrant detention center in the Florida Everglades have been denied their legal rights.

In the second of two lawsuits challenging practices at the facility known as “Alligator Alcatraz,” civil rights attorneys sought a preliminary injunction to ensure that detainees at the site have confidential access to their lawyers, which they say hasn’t happened. Florida officials dispute that claim.

The civil rights attorneys also wanted U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz to identify an immigration court that has jurisdiction over the detention center so that petitions can be filed for the detainees’ bond or release. The attorneys say that hearings for their cases have been routinely canceled in federal Florida immigration courts by judges who say they don’t have jurisdiction over the detainees in the Everglades.

At the start of Monday’s hearing, government attorneys said they would designate the immigration court at the Krome North Service Processing Center in the Miami area as having jurisdiction over the detention center in the Everglades in an effort to address some of the civil rights attorneys’ constitutional concerns. The judge told the government attorneys that he didn’t expect them to change that designation without good reason.

But before delving into the core issues of the detainees’ rights, Ruiz wanted to hear about whether the lawsuit was filed in the proper jurisdiction in Miami. The state and federal government defendants have argued that even though the isolated airstrip where the facility was built is owned by Miami-Dade County, Florida’s Southern District is the wrong venue since the detention center is located in neighboring Collier County, which is in the state’s Middle District.

The hearing ended without the judge making an immediate ruling. Ruiz suggested that the case against the federal defendants might be appropriate for the Southern District, but the case against the state defendants might be better in the Middle District.

Court for the Southern District is held in Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Pierce, Key West, and West Palm Beach, while Middle District courthouses are located in Tampa, Fernandina, Fort Myers, Jacksonville, Live Oak, Ocala, Orlando and St. Petersburg.

All parties have agreed that if the complaints against the state are moved to another venue, then the complaints against the federal government should be moved as well. It wasn’t immediately clear how Ruiz, a Trump appointee, handing the case off to another judge would affect the ultimate outcome of the case.

The hearing over legal access comes as another federal judge in Miami considers whether construction and operations at the facility should be halted indefinitely because federal environmental rules weren’t followed. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams on Aug. 7 ordered a 14-day halt to additional construction at the site while witnesses testified at a hearing that wrapped up last week. She has said she plans to issue a ruling before the order expires later this week.

Meanwhile, Gov. Ron DeSantis announced last week that his administration was preparing to open a second immigration detention facility dubbed “Deportation Depot” at a state prison in north Florida. DeSantis justified building the second detention center by saying President Trump’s administration needs the additional capacity to hold and deport more immigrants.

The state of Florida has disputed claims that “Alligator Alcatraz” detainees have been unable to meet with their attorneys. The state’s lawyers said that since July 15, when videoconferencing started at the facility, the state has granted every request for a detainee to meet with an attorney, and in-person meetings started July 28. The first detainees arrived at the beginning of July.

But the civil rights attorneys said that even if lawyers have been scheduled to meet with their clients at the detention center, it hasn’t been in private or confidential, and it is more restrictive than at other immigration detention facilities. They said scheduling delays and an unreasonable advance-notice requirement have hindered their ability to meet with the detainees, thereby violating their constitutional rights.

Civil rights attorneys said officers are going cell to cell to pressure detainees into signing voluntary removal orders before they’re allowed to consult their attorneys, and some detainees have been deported even though they didn’t have final removal orders. Along with the spread of a respiratory infection and rainwater flooding their tents, the circumstances have fueled a feeling of desperation among detainees, the attorneys wrote in a court filing.

The judge promised a quick decision.

Fischer and Schneider write for the Associated Press.

Aug. 9 (UPI) — U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy and U.S. Vice President JD Vance met with Ukrainian officials and others to discuss ending the war when Russia attacked its neighbor in February 2022.

Ukraine Presidential Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak and Ukraine Defense Secretary Rustem Umerov joined Lammy and Vance on Saturday to discuss matters in Ukraine and its defensive war with Russia.

“The U.K.’s support for Ukraine remains ironclad as we continue working toward a just and lasting peace,” Lammy said Saturday in a post on X.

The meeting occurred at Lammy’s official residence in Kent, England, where Vance is staying with his family through the weekend.

Yermak and Umerov were invited to join Lammy and Vance on short notice and ahead of Friday’s scheduled summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also might join the meeting with Trump and Putin, but he has not been invited as of Saturday evening.

Officials from the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Italy and NATO also attended Saturday’s meeting at Lammy’s official residence, the BBC reported.

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer did not join the meeting, but he talked with Zelensky by phone before it occurred.

Starmer and Zelensky agreed the meeting at Lammy’s residence is an important prelude to Friday’s scheduled summit in Alaska, Starmer’s office said in a news release.

Zelensky afterward told Ukrainians Putin is the only one standing in the way of ending the war.

“His only card is the ability to kill, and he is trying to sell the cessation of killings at the highest possible price,” Zelensky said during a national address.

He also dismissed the notion of a cease-fire instead of ending the war.

“What is needed is not a pause in the killings but a real, lasting peace,” Zelensky said.

He said Trump supports an immediate cessation of hostilities and said the United States has the “leverage and determination” to make it happen via sanctions against Russia.

Putin “fears sanctions and is doing everything to bail on them,” Zelensky said.

“He wants to exchange a pause in the war, in the killings, for the legalization of the occupation of our land,” Zelensky told Ukrainians.

“We will not allow this second attempt to partition Ukraine.”

The president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, has denied that her government has any evidence linking Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro to the Sinaloa Cartel, a criminal network based in her country.

Sheinbaum’s statements on Friday were prompted by an announcement one day earlier that the United States would double its reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest, putting the current reward at $50m.

The administration of US President Donald Trump claimed Maduro was “one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world” and that he had direct ties to the Sinaloa Cartel, as well as two other Venezuelan gangs.

Sheinbaum was asked about those allegations in her morning news conference on Friday. She answered that this week was the first time she had heard of such accusations.

“On Mexico’s part, there is no investigation that has to do with that,” Sheinbaum said. “As we always say, if they have some evidence, show it. We do not have any proof.”

A history of ‘maximum pressure’

Mexico has long maintained diplomatic relations with Venezuela, while the US has broken its ties with the government in Caracas over questions about the legitimacy of Maduro’s presidency.

Instead, the US has recognised candidates from Venezuela’s opposition coalition as the country’s rightful leaders, and it has also heavily sanctioned Maduro and his allies.

Trump, in particular, has had a rocky relationship with Maduro over his years as president. During his first term, from 2017 to 2021, Trump pursued a campaign of “maximum pressure” against Maduro, which included an initial reward of $15m.

That amount was later raised to $25m during the final weeks of President Joe Biden’s presidency, in reaction to Maduro’s hotly contested re-election to a third term in 2024.

Election observers said that the vote had not been “democratic“, and the opposition coalition published raw vote tallies that appeared to contradict the government’s official results.

But as Trump began his second term on January 20, critics speculated that the Republican leader would soften his approach to Maduro in order to seek assistance with his campaign of mass deportation.

Venezuela has a history of refusing to accept deportees from the US.

Since then, Trump has sent envoy Richard Grenell to the Venezuelan capital of Caracas and secured deals that saw US citizens released from Venezuelan custody. Venezuela has also accepted to receive deportation flights from the US in recent months.

But the Trump administration has maintained it has no intention of recognising Maduro’s government.

Legitimising claims of an ‘invasion’

The accusations against Maduro further another Trump goal: legitimising his sweeping claims to executive power.

Since returning to office in January, Trump has invoked emergency measures, including the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to facilitate his policy goals, including his campaign of mass deportation.

Trump was re-elected on a hardline platform that conflated immigration with criminality.

But in order to use the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime law, Trump had to show that either the country was engaged in a “declared war” or that it faced an “invasion or predatory incursion” from a foreign nation.

To meet that requirement, Trump has blamed Venezuela for masterminding a criminal “invasion” of the US.

On Thursday, Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi also accused Maduro of working hand in hand with the cartels to profit from their drug-smuggling enterprises.

“Maduro uses foreign terrorist organisations like TdA [Tren de Aragua], Sinaloa and Cartel of the Suns to bring deadly drugs and violence into our country,” Bondi said in a video.

“To date, the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] has seized 30 tonnes of cocaine linked to Maduro and his associates, with nearly seven tonnes linked to Maduro himself, which represents a primary source of income for the deadly cartels based in Venezuela and Mexico.”

But in May, a declassified intelligence memo from the US government cast doubt on the allegation that Maduro is puppeteering gang activity in the US.

“While Venezuela’s permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States,” the memo said.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil responded to Bondi’s claims on Thursday by calling them “the most ridiculous smokescreen ever seen”.

WASHINGTON — Fallout from President Trump’s historic gamble to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities reverberated across the Middle East Sunday, as Washington braced for an unpredictable response from a cornered but determined Islamic Republic.

While the Iranian government downplayed the impact of the U.S. attack, noting the depths of its nuclear know-how built over decades of study, U.S. military officials said its precision strikes against Iran’s three main nuclear facilities caused “extremely severe damage and destruction.”

A senior Israeli official told The Times that Jerusalem was so satisfied with the operation that it was prepared to suspend hostilities if Iran ends its missile salvos against Israeli territory.

“We are ready to be done,” the Israeli official said, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

As the dust settled, the sun rose and satellite imagery emerged of the wreckage, the main question among Trump administration officials became how Tehran would respond — both militarily, against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and around the world, as well as with the remnants of its nuclear program, with so much of it destroyed.

Tehran’s nuclear-armed allies, in Russia and North Korea, have been critical of the military campaign, with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev raising the prospect of Moscow giving Iran a nuclear warhead in response to the attacks.

The Israeli official dismissed that idea, alluding to direct talks with Moscow over the Iranian program. “We are not concerned,” the official said.

President Trump addresses the nation Saturday night about the U.S. military strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. He is accomapnied by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

(Carlos Barria / Pool via Associated Press)

Trump’s military action, dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” was a contingency years in the making, prepared and much feared by Trump’s predecessors over two decades as a desperate last resort to a nuclear Iran.

Ever since Tehran resumed its fissile enrichment program in 2005, Republican and Democratic presidents alike have warned that the Islamic Republic could never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. But a constellation of diplomatic talks and complex agreements have failed to dissuade Tehran from a fundamental principle of a “right to enrich” uranium — near to weapons grade — on its own soil.

Despite the dramatic nature of the U.S. air raid, few in Washington expressed an appetite for a prolonged U.S. war with Iran and echoed Israel’s interest in a truce after assessing its initial operations a success. Vice President JD Vance denied that the United States was “at war” with Iran on Sunday, telling CBS that the nation is, instead, “at war with Iran’s nuclear program.”

But the prospect of another full-scale U.S. war in the Middle East, made palpable by the weekend strikes, shook Capitol Hill on Sunday, compelling Democrats who have long advocated a tough approach to Iran to push for a vote to restrict Trump under the War Powers Act.

More than 60 members of Congress, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, called on the Trump administration to seek congressional authorization for any further action. At least one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, joined in the call.

The Pentagon said that seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers deployed a total of 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrators — 30,000-pound bombs known as “bunker busters,” for their ability to destroy facilities buried deep underground — against Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

The U.S. operation followed an Israeli campaign that began last week with strikes against Iranian air defenses and nuclear facilities, scientists and research facilities, as well as against military generals, ballistic missile launch pads and storage depots.

While the United States and Israel believe that Saturday’s strikes were a strategic victory, some concern remains that Iran may have removed critical equipment and materiel from its site in Fordow — an enrichment facility that had been burrowed into the side of a mountain — to an undisclosed location before the U.S. operation began, the Israeli official said.

“That remains a question mark,” the official added, while expressing confidence that Israeli intelligence would be aware of any other significant nuclear facilities.

Addressing the nation on the attacks on Saturday night, Trump warned Iran that U.S. attacks could continue if it refuses to give up on its nuclear program.

“There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,” Trump said, flanked by his vice president, national security advisor and secretary of defense. “Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight’s was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.”

Satellite image shows the Natanz enrichment facility in Iran after U.S. strikes.

(Maxar Technologies via Associated Press)

Across the region Sunday, the question paramount on observers’ minds was what shape Iran’s response would take.

Iranian officials downplayed the strikes’ impact, acknowledging damage to nuclear facilities but that the know-how remained intact.

“They [the United States and Israel] should know this industry has roots in our country, and the roots of this national industry cannot be destroyed,” said Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, according to a Sunday interview with the semi-official Tasnim News Agency.

“Of course, we have suffered some losses, but this is not the first time that the industry has suffered damage. … Naturally, this industry must continue and its growth will not stop.”

Hassan Abedini, the deputy political director of Iran’s state broadcaster IRIB, said the three targeted nuclear sites had already been emptied some time before the attacks and that they “didn’t suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out.”

Other officials, including leaders in the targeted areas in Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, reassured residents there was no nuclear contamination as a result of the strikes and that they could “go on with their lives,” according to a statement Sunday from government spokesperson Fatemah Mohajerani.

The U.S. attacks drew swift pleas for restraint from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of which issued statements calling on all parties to de-escalate. Iraq, meanwhile, said the U.S. escalation “constitutes a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East,” according to an interview with its government spokesman on Qatari broadcaster Al-Jazeera.

Oman, a key mediator in the negotiations between Tehran and Washington, was more scathing, expressing what it said was its “denunciation and condemnation” of the U.S.’s attacks.

In Europe, as well, governments urged caution and affirmed support for Israel.

“We have consistently been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and can no longer pose a threat to regional security,” France, Germany, and Italy, known as the E3, said in a statement. “Our aim continues to be to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

The last significant face-off between Iran and the United States happened during Trump’s first term, when he ordered the assassination of top Iranian commander Gen. Qassem Suleimani in 2020.

Satellite image shows a close view of the Isfahan nuclear technology facility in Iran after U.S. strikes.

(Maxar Technologies via Associated Press)

That attack spurred predictions of a furious retaliation, with fears of Tehran deploying its missile arsenal or activating its network of regional militias to attack U.S. forces and interests across Washington’s footprint in the region. Instead, Tehran reacted with little more than an openly telegraphed ballistic missile barrage on a U.S. base in Iraq.

Iran’s options are even more limited this time. Much of that network — known as the “Axis of Resistance” and which included militias and pro-Tehran governments in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Afghanistan and Yemen — lies incapacitated after more than 20 months of Israeli attacks.

Allies such as Russia and China, though issuing condemnations of the U.S. attack, appear to have little appetite for involvement beyond statements and offers of mediation. And how much remains of Tehran’s missile capacity is unclear, with the Israeli official estimating roughly 1,000 ballistic missiles – half of their capacity before the most recent conflict started – remaining available to them.

Nevertheless, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned that the United States should expect “regrettable responses.”

“Instead of learning from repeated failures, Washington effectively placed itself on the front lines of aggression by directly attacking peaceful installations,” said a statement from the Guard Corps on Sunday. It hinted that its targets would include U.S. military presence in the region.

“The number, dispersion, and size of U.S. military bases in the region are not a strength, but have doubled their vulnerability,” the statement said.

The United States has more than 40,000 stationed in the region, according to Pentagon figures, and has bases in at least 10 countries in the region, not to mention a significant presence at sea.

Yet experts say the likeliest scenario would involve disruptions to shipping lanes, with Iran leveraging its control of the Strait of Hormuz, an oil transit chokepoint handling a fifth of the world’s energy flows, that is 30 miles wide at its narrowest point; or calling on Yemen’s Houthis to intensify their harassment campaign of merchant vessels on the Red Sea.

It a situation in which Iran has experience: During its conflict with Iraq in the eighties, Tehran engaged in the the so-called “Tanker War,” attacked hundreds of Iraqi ships near Hormuz and entering into direct confrontations with the U.S. Navy.

Shippers are already girding themselves for disruptions. But Danish shipping giant Maersk said it was continuing to use the Strait of Hormuz for the time being.

“We will continuously monitor the security risk to our specific vessels in the region and are ready to take operational actions as needed,” Maersk said in a statement.

Wilner reported from Washington, Bulos from Beirut.

Trump’s base is splintering from GOP hawks over possible US strikes on Iran. While some Republicans push for military action and regime change, key MAGA allies warn war could derail Trump’s domestic agenda. Trump says he’ll decide within two weeks on action in Iran.

June 18 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump was weighing overnight whether to take the country to war with Iran after an emergency meeting of his national security team in the White House.

The 80-minute Situation Room meeting of Trump’s key Cabinet officials Tuesday evening concluded without a clear consensus, CBS News reported, but one option on the table was sending U.S. bombers to destroy underground nuclear sites that are impenetrable to Israeli warplanes.

The network said senior intelligence and Defense Department officials had told it that Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow uranium enrichment plant, 300 feet under a mountain near Qom and 85 miles south of Tehran, was one possible target.

Fordow was believed to be the facility most likely to reach a critical threshold where Iran’s nuclear development program — which it has always insisted is for civilian purposes only — crosses into a program capable of producing a nuclear warhead.

However, there was disagreement at the meeting attended by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and CIA Director John Ratcliffe over exactly what the United States’ next step should be.

Israeli airstrikes on the facility with bunker-busting bombs have thus far failed to penetrate the facility, with the International Atomic Energy Agency saying it had sustained no damage as of Monday.

“No damage has been seen at the site of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant or at the Khondab heavy water reactor, which is under construction. Bushehr nuclear power plant has not been targeted nor affected by the recent attacks, and neither has the Tehran Research Reactor,” IAEA Secretary General Rafael Grossi told the agency’s board.

However, he said Israeli strikes had caused considerable damage to above-ground facilities at Esfahan and Natanz, with one of the plants having produced U-235 uranium enriched up to 60%.

Naturally occurring U-235 uranium contains only a tiny proportion of chain-reacting U-235 isotope and must be “enriched” 3% to 5% for nuclear power purposes. To become weapons-grade, U-235 needs to be enriched to above 90%, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, although the super-enriched uranium is also used to produce isotopes used for nuclear medicine scans and radiotherapy.

The United States has powerful weapons that could, with repeated hits, penetrate a facility such as Fordow.

The BBC reported that would require deployment of America’s so-called Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound bomb delivered by the U.S. Air Force’s B-2 stealth bomber, which can carry two of the monster munitions.

As the conflict entered its sixth day, Israel said it launched airstrikes involving 50 fighter jets overnight against a uranium centrifuge production site and multiple weapons facilities critical to Iran’s nuclear weapons and missile programs.

In a post on X, the Israel Defense Forces said the centrifuges made at the plant were for enriching uranium beyond civilian levels. Other sites hit included a facility making parts for surface-to-surface missiles used against Israel and another plant making surface-to-air missile components used to target aircraft.

The IDF said the strikes “directly degraded” Iran’s ability to threaten Israel and the wider region.

“We have delivered significant blows to the Iranian regime, and as such, they have been pushed back into central Iran. They are now focusing their efforts on conducting missile fire from the area of Isfahan. We are aiming at military targets; they are attacking civilian homes,” IDF spokesman Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin said.

Air raid sirens sounded across large swathes of central and northern Israel just before midnight local time after Iran launched a salvo of missiles at the country, including so-called “Fattah-1” hypersonic missiles.

Warnings sounded again across a smaller area in the north-east about 4.30 a.m. due to what the IDF called “hostile aircraft infiltration.”

Trump and Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei embarked on a war of words Tuesday with the Trump saying Khamenei would be an “easy target” if the United States and Israel chose to take him out. Trump also called for Tehran’s “unconditional surrender.”

“The battle begins,” Khamenei threatened in a social media post invoking Shia Islam’s Haider, the first Shia Imam and cousin of the Prophet Muhammad, accompanied by an image of fire raining down on a city.

We must give a strong response to the terrorist Zionist regime. We will show the Zionists no mercy.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Tuesday questioning both President Trump’s decision to deploy federal troops to Los Angeles and the court’s right to review it, teeing up what is likely to be a fierce new challenge to presidential power in the U.S. Supreme Court.

A panel of three judges — two appointed by President Trump, one by President Biden — pressed hard on the administration’s central assertion that the president had nearly unlimited discretion to deploy the military on American streets.

But they also appeared to cast doubt on last week’s ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that control of the National Guard must immediately return to California authorities. A pause on that decision remains in effect while the judges deliberate, with a decision expected as soon as this week.

“The crucial question … is whether the judges seem inclined to accept Trump’s argument that he alone gets to decide if the statutory requirements for nationalizing the California national guard are met,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.

The questions at the heart of the case test the limits of presidential authority, which the U.S. Supreme Court has vastly expanded in recent years.

When one of the Trump appointees, Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, asked if a president could call up the National Guard in all 50 states and the District of Columbia in response to unrest in California and be confident that decision was “entirely unreviewable” by the courts, Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett Shumate replied unequivocally: “Yes.”

“That couldn’t be any more clear,” Shumate said. “The president gets to decide how many forces are necessary to quell rebellion and execute federal laws.”

“It’s not for the court to abuse its authority just because there may be hypothetical cases in the future where the president might have abused his authority,” he added.

California Deputy Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt said that interpretation was dangerously broad and risked harm to American democratic norms if upheld.

“We don’t have a problem with according the president some level of appropriate deference,” Harbourt said. “The problem … is that there’s really nothing to defer to here.”

The Trump administration said it deployed troops to L.A. to ensure immigration enforcement agents could make arrests and conduct deportations, arguing demonstrations downtown against that activity amounted to “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

State and local officials said the move was unjustified and nakedly political — an assessment shared by Senior District Judge Charles R. Breyer, whose ruling last week would have handed control of most troops back to California leaders.

Breyer heard the challenge in California’s Northern District, but saw his decision appealed and put on hold within hours by the 9th Circuit.

The appellate court’s stay left the Trump administration in command of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines in L.A. through the weekend, when demonstrators flooded streets as part of the nationwide “No Kings” protests.

The events were largely peaceful, with just more than three dozen demonstrators arrested in L.A. Saturday and none on Sunday — compared to more than 500 taken into custody during the unrest of the previous week.

Hundreds of Marines still stationed in L.A.”will provide logistical support” processing ICE detainees, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement Tuesday. Under last week’s executive order, National Guard troops will remain deployed for 60 days.

Arguing before the appellate panel Tuesday, Shumate said the military presence was necessary to defend against ongoing “mob violence” in L.A. streets.

“Federal personnel in Los Angeles continue to face sustained mob violence in Los Angeles,” the administration’s lawyer said. “Unfortunately, local authorities are either unable or unwilling to protect federal personnel and property.”

Harbourt struck back at those claims.

“[Violence] is of profound concern to the leaders of the state,” the California deputy solicitor general said. “But the state is dealing with it.”

However, the three judges seemed less interested in the facts on the ground in Los Angeles than in the legal question of who gets to decide how to respond.

“In the normal course, the level of resistance encountered by federal law enforcement officers is not zero, right?” Judge Eric D. Miller of Seattle asked. “So does that mean … you could invoke this whenever?”

While the appellate court weighed those arguments, California officials sought to bolster the state’s case in district court in filings Monday and early Tuesday.

“The actions of the President and the Secretary of Defense amount to an unprecedented and dangerous assertion of executive power,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta wrote in a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Marines push back anti-ICE protesters in front of the Federal Building during “No Kings Day” in Downtown on Saturday.

(Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times)

“The President asserts that [the law] authorizes him to federalize State National Guard units and deploy armed soldiers into the streets of American cities and towns whenever he perceives ‘opposition’ or ‘disobedience of a legal command,’” the motion continued. “He then asserts that no court can review that decision, assigning himself virtually unchecked power.”

The president boasted he would “liberate Los Angeles,” during a speech to troops at Fort Bragg last week.

In court, Bonta called the deployment a “military occupation of the nation’s second-largest city.”

Los Angeles officials also weighed in, saying in an amicus brief filed Monday by the City Attorney’s office that the military deployment “complicates” efforts to keep Angelenos safe.

“The domestic use of the military is corrosive,” the brief said. “Every day that this deployment continues sows fear among City residents, erodes their trust in the City, and escalates the conflicts they have with local law enforcement.”

The appellate court largely sidestepped that question, though Bennett and Judge Jennifer Sung in Portland appeared moved by Harbourt’s argument that keeping guard troops in L.A. kept them from other critical duties, including fighting wildfires.

“The judges were sensitive to that, and so if they’re ultimately going to land on a ‘no’ for the troops, they’ll do it sooner rather than later,” said professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond. “If they’re persuaded I think they’ll move fast.”

With the issue all but certain to face further litigation and a fast-track to the Supreme Court, observers said the 9th Circuit’s decision will influence how the next set of judges interpret the case — a process that could drag on for months.

“Both sides seem in a hurry to have a decision, but all [the Supreme Court] can do this late in the term is hear an emergency appeal,” Tobias said. “Any full-dress ruling would likely not come until the next term.”

June 12 (UPI) — A federal judge on Thursday might rule on whether or not the Trump administration lawfully deployed National Guard and Marine Corps troops to Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for Northern California Judge Charles Breyer is hearing arguments for and against the federal government deploying troops to quell violence amid Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities in Los Angeles.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday sought the federal court’s intervention to stop the deployments and remove the troops from Los Angeles.

Breyer denied Newsom’s motion for a temporary restraining order and scheduled Thursday’s hearing regarding the governor’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the troop deployments.

More than 4,000 National Guardsmen and about 700 Marines have been deployed to Los Angeles to prevent violence while protecting federal buildings and ICE agents as they enforce unpopular and controversial federal immigration laws.

Newsom did not call up the National Guard and said the Trump administration did not ask him to do so.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass on Tuesday announced an ongoing curfew from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. PDT in a downtown area that is bordered by interstates 5, 10 and 110.

The Los Angeles Police Department on Wednesday arrested 71 people for failure to disperse, seven for violating the curfew, two for assaulting a police officer with a deadly weapon and one for resisting arrest.

Also on Thursday, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., was removed from a late-morning news conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Padilla interrupted the news conference and demanded that Noem answer questions, but event security removed him.

Noem said Padilla’s interruption was “inappropriate” and said she would speak with him after concluding the news conference.

Meanwhile, protests continue with several scheduled in California and 28 in total in locales across the nation, NBC News reported.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Thursday announced he called up 5,000 National Guardsmen and deployed 2,000 Texas Public Safety troopers to maintain peace and arrest those engaged in criminal acts as anti-ICE protests are expected to continue at least through the weekend.

“Anyone engaging in acts of violence or damaging property will be arrested and held accountable to the full extent of the law,” Abbott said in a news release.

“Don’t mess with Texas — and don’t mess with Texas law enforcement,” he added.

Nintendo is in many ways a different company now than it was back in 2017 when it released the Switch. For one, it has sold more than 150 million units of its hybrid TV/on-the-go console, making it the defining game device of the last decade.

Nintendo also expanded its universes beyond its game consoles. At long last, “Super Mario Bros.” became a blockbuster animated film, and there are now three Super Nintendo World theme park properties, including one here in Los Angeles at Universal Studios Hollywood.

That makes the launch of the Nintendo Switch 2 something of an event, and arguably the most important tech instrument of the year.

The Times’ Features Columnist Todd Martens plays Nintendo Switch 2’s upgraded version of “The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom” on the console’s handheld mode.

(Etienne Laurent / For The Times)

So, the good news. The pricey Switch 2 is a worthy successor to the original. And unlike the motion-controlled Wii in 2006 or the dual-screen Nintendo DS in 2004, this play-it-somewhat-safe console takes an if-it-ain’t-broke philosophy to gaming, continuing Nintendo’s legacy rather than redefining it. While it’s bigger, stronger, better feeling, higher-res and comes with a couple new tricks, overall it’s primarily a refinement of the original Switch’s ideas.

The first game company to make interactive characters household names — Donkey Kong, Mario, Link, take your pick — Nintendo has become a full-fledged, cross-media storytelling company. And it has done so via a medium that in its most mainstream form is only about four decades old.

The Switch 2, officially released June 5 and selling for $449.99, is the vessel for which Nintendo will reveal its play-focused worlds for likely the next decade. The reception from consumers may be inspiring but brings with it a host of questions.

The Switch itself is far from obsolete, despite being significantly less powerful than Sony‘s PlayStation and Microsoft‘s Xbox consoles, due largely to its hybrid design. And consumers may be forgiven for wondering why — or when — they should upgrade to a machine that looks, feels and plays similar to the one they currently own, especially when Nintendo is unleashing only one new core game for it this month, the dazzling “Mario Kart World.”

The Nintendo Switch 2 with its accessories, a Pro Controller and camera. Each is sold separately.

(Etienne Laurent / For The Times)

Valid, but I believe those who make the leap will be happy in their investment, even if its lineup of exclusive games is relatively barren for now. There are enough improvements to make the Switch 2 feel fresh.

I’m eager, for one, to see how its controllers, the detachable “Joy-Cons,” evolve, as they now have the ability to act as a mouse. This has already come in handy in the strategy game “Civilization VII,” a title I waited for the Switch 2 to play and one that can utilize the more precise maneuvers mouse controls provide. First-person shooters should benefit even more.

And then there are its chat features, which can be enhanced with an optional Nintendo camera ($54.99). While serious gamers who use services such as Discord may not need a console to facilitate chatting with friends, the Switch 2 makes connecting and conversing safe and easy for the gamer who plays primarily solo. One can can only talk with approved friends, and Nintendo will verify accounts and a phone number to do so. Simply touch a button on the Joy-Con, and the chat feature is enabled.

My circle of connections who own a Switch 2 is currently small, so I haven’t experimented with these accoutrements as much as I would have liked, especially the CameraPlay feature that allows users to overlay their own faces on drivers in the game. Other features will no doubt come in handy during “Mario Kart World,” saving my friends and I from conversing via text. And they would have been a godsend during the worst days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when every Switch owner was eager to share their “Animal Crossing: New Horizons” creations with their pals.

All of this says nothing about how good the Switch 2 simply feels. The Joy-Cons now connect magnetically rather than having to lock into place, and while it’s perhaps an incremental upgrade, snapping them into the console is one of those tech creations that feels like magic, like the first time one uses a touchscreen. It’s slightly larger, and I find a more robust Switch 2 is easier to handle, my arms less likely to grow tired when playing in bed.

The Nintendo Switch 2 controllers — its “Joy-Cons” — now connect magnetically.

(Etienne Laurent / For The Times)

The screen is 1080p, making just about every old game feel brighter, crisper and less fuzzy, and the Switch 2 has support for 4K TVs. “Super Mario Odyssey” has never looked so clear, and $9.99 upgrades to “The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild” and “The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom” will have you wanting to revisit — or jump back into — each of those titles, as refreshed resolutions and frame rates have us seeing the worlds anew.

Battery life, however, might be a challenge. In handheld mode I was able to get about two hours of “Mario Kart World” before needing to recharge. The console fared better with independent and smaller games.

But the real reason to buy a new gaming console is for its next-generation games. Nintendo is counting on “Mario Kart World” to be enough initially to entice buyers. It’s a safe bet, when one considers that “Mario Kart 8” is one of the bestselling games of all time, having sold more than 67 million copies. Many an original Switch was likely a “Mario Kart”-focused machine, and though I prefer my plump plumber when he’s exploring the Mushroom Kingdom on foot — running, jumping and power-upping his way to rescue his friends — I am not immune to the charms of “Mario Kart World.”

“Mario Kart 8” was released back in 2014, meaning these cute-but-vicious races are now nostalgia bait for another generation. And “World” marries some Nintendo weirdness — you can now race as a cow — with its penchant for playful world building. I’m smitten, for instance, with the game’s approach to races, which makes driving among the Mushroom Kingdom landscapes as important as it does wacky tracks that encompass everything from Route 66-inspired hokeyness to careening amid giant ice cream palaces.

The Nintendo Switch 2’s detachable controllers — its “Joy-Cons” — can now be used as a mouse.

(Etienne Laurent / For The Times)

There’s now a so-called “free roam” mode, allowing us to simply drive off course and explore the wonders of the Mushroom Kingdom. Though there could probably be a few more hidden mini-games, I find it relaxing and full of little surprises. Instead of zooming by Yoshi’s Cafe, I can now pull up, enjoy some speed-boosting ice cream, admire the animation work and take in the delightfully down-home soundtrack, an orchestral, slightly upbeat and cartoonish approach to classic American big band, jazz and Western stylings. As an insomnia sufferer, I’ve spent a few recent sleepless nights just roaming around “Mario Kart World,” driving through empty castles-turned-racetracks.

Then there’s “Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour.” This is a $9.99 introduction to what the Switch 2 can do, full of odd little mini games, most of them able to be completed in a minute or two. One shows off the Switch 2’s touch screen, having us use the device as a sort of Twister board for our hands. Others use the Joy-Con as a mouse to swing wildly at a golf ball or dodge falling metallic obstacles. Sometimes they’re not games at all but rather tech demos designed to show off, say, the rumble vibration effects in the controllers.

One simply had me using the Switch 2’s backing stand to try and match the degrees for which it was asking me to place the console. “I’ve never seen such amazing angling!” it told me after completing the task. Why, thank you.

It’s cute. I’ve completed a little more than half of it. It reminds me a bit of mid-’80s PC work “Little Computer People,” as it turns the Switch 2 into a living, theme park-like mall space full of tiny humans. Though I do recommend springing for it if you buy into the Switch 2, it’s ultimately a game-as-tutorial and should have been included with the system, especially since one of its goals is having us better appreciate the tech behind the console.

The most common question I’ve received — understandably so — is if I believe the Switch 2 is “worth it.” While it’s difficult to tell someone to drop close to $500 for a gaming machine and then another $80 for “Mario Kart World” (you’re also probably going to want the $84.99 Pro Controller, as it’s a more ergonomically-friendly way to play via the TV), those with the means and in the market for a new gaming console will likely be pleased. Thankfully, your Switch controllers will work with the Switch 2, saving you some financial upgrade headaches, and with 256 GB of internal storage, you likely won’t need a memory-expanding microSD Express card right away, although you will need a new case due to the console’s bigger size.

The Times’ Features Columnist Todd Martens plays “Nintendo Switch 2: Welcome Tour” in handheld mode.

(Etienne Laurent / For The Times)

Blissfully, upgrading from a prior Switch to the Switch 2 is relatively easy. One logs into their Nintendo account, and places the two consoles next to one another while data is transferred. I brought over a handful of games, which took about half a day. Download speeds varied. “Tears of the Kingdom” was loaded in about 20 minutes, whereas a bigger game such as “Cyberpunk 2077” took about three hours.

Part of buying a new gaming console is the gamble of, betting on new games rolling out over the coming years that will hopefully make the device a worthy investment. Early signs are promising; “Donkey Kong Bananza” is due July 17. I played the game at a Nintendo media event earlier this year and I’m eager to get my hands on it as it embodies Nintendo’s play-as-discovery principles. Our friendly but grumpy banana-crazed ape can essentially power his way through the world, stomping and smashing new pathways to make this a game about exploration as much as it is any challenges.

That’s long been Nintendo’s approach to play and storytelling, and that likely isn’t going to change anytime soon. The Switch became the most popular gaming console of the decade by giving us games that became global phenomena, be it “Animal Crossing: New Horizons” or “Tears of the Kingdom” (I’m most partial to “Super Mario Odyssey”).

And to buy a Switch 2 is to trust the Nintendo design team to continue to deliver. It’s early days, but I feel good about that gamble. After all, I have a cow in a kart waiting for me to get back into a race.

By Tina Teng

Published on
23/05/2025 – 8:14 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

Crude oil prices fell for a third consecutive trading day on Thursday ahead of the US-Iran nuclear talks. Traders are growing concerned about the possible return of oil supply from Iran, which holds around one-third of the world’s oil reserves.

Adding to the pressure, a Bloomberg report stated that the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) is considering a third consecutive production hike in July, compounding fears of an oversupplied market.

Oil prices continued to decline during Friday’s Asian session. As of 4:40 am CEST, Brent futures were down 0.59% to $64.06 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures fell 0.6% to $60.83 per barrel—both touching their lowest levels in over a week.

Potential oversupply overshadows geopolitical tensions

Crude prices have experienced notable volatility in recent weeks as market participants weigh rising geopolitical tensions against mounting supply from major oil-producing nations. Broader macroeconomic factors—such as easing US-China trade tensions and renewed selling in US Treasuries—have also been influencing oil market movements.

Earlier in the week, prices briefly spiked following a CNN report that Israel was preparing to launch strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, citing intelligence from US sources. However, the rally proved short-lived, with analysts suggesting the warning may have been a strategic move by the US to exert pressure on Iran ahead of the nuclear negotiations.

The geopolitical boost was quickly overshadowed on Wednesday by data showing a surge in US crude inventories. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), US oil stockpiles rose to 443.2 million barrels in the week ending 16 May—the highest level since July 2024. The report also indicated that net US crude imports had increased for a third consecutive week, while domestic demand remained weaker than expected.

OPEC+ may accelerate production hike

News about OPEC+’s potential acceleration in production hike sent the oil price down further on Thursday. The oil production cartel is reportedly considering hiking crude output by 411,000 barrels per day (bpd) in July. The decision is yet to be finalised on 1 June when the group holds the next meeting.

The group, which accounts for around 40% of global oil supply, has jointly reduced production by approximately 2.2 million bpd in 2023. The quicker-than-expected phased rollback began with a 135,000 bpd increase in April, tripling to 411,000 bpd in May and June. The acceleration is seen as a punitive measure against members which failed to comply with agreed production quotas, with Kazakhstan and Iraq identified as recent overproducers.

Crude prices have consistently fallen following OPEC+ announcements of larger-than-expected production increases in both April and May. However, the potential July decision may already be priced in by markets—unless the group surprises traders with an even more aggressive supply boost.

Demand outlook remains weak

The demand outlook remains fragile amid ongoing concerns over slowing global growth, particularly driven by the US tariffs. Crude prices had previously dropped to a four-year low on 9 April and again on 5 May. The oil market rebounded following the US and China’s trade talks earlier this month, when the world’s two largest economies reached an agreement to pause high tariffs on each other for 90 days.

While near-term pressure remains supply-driven, there is cautious optimism that a sustained recovery in market sentiment, driven by further progress in US tariff negotiations, could support a rebound in oil demand.

“While the immediate pressure comes from the supply side, I believe that in the longer term, further progress on US tariff negotiations with key partners could revive demand and offer more meaningful support for oil,” Dilin Wu, a research strategist at Pepperstone Australia, said.

WASHINGTON — White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller says President Trump is looking for ways to expand his legal power to deport migrants who are in the United States illegally. To achieve that, he says, the administration is “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus, the constitutional right for people to legally challenge their detention by the government.

Such a move would be aimed at migrants as part of the Republican president’s broader crackdown at the U.S.-Mexico border.

“The Constitution is clear, and that of course is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion,” Miller told reporters outside the White House on Friday.

The White House has maintained that the influx of immigrants amounts to an invasion of the United States.

“So, I would say that’s an option we’re actively looking at,” Miller said. “Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.”

What is habeas corpus?

The Latin term means “that you have the body.” Federal courts use a writ of habeas corpus to bring a prisoner before a neutral judge to determine if imprisonment is legal.

Habeas corpus was included in the Constitution as an import from English common law. Parliament enacted the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which was meant to ensure that the king released prisoners when the law did not justify confining them.

The Constitution’s Suspension Clause, the second clause of Section 9 of Article I, states that habeas corpus “shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.”

Has it been suspended previously?

Yes. The United States has suspended habeas corpus under four distinct circumstances during its history. Those usually involved authorization from Congress, something that would be nearly impossible today — even at Trump’s urging — given the narrow Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus multiple times during the Civil War, beginning in 1861 to detain suspected spies and Confederate sympathizers. He ignored a ruling from Roger Taney, who was the Supreme Court chief justice but was acting in the case as a circuit judge. Congress then authorized suspending it in 1863, which allowed Lincoln to do so again.

Congress acted similarly under President Ulysses S. Grant, suspending habeas corpus in parts of South Carolina under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, it was meant to counter violence and intimidation of groups opposing Reconstruction in the South.

Habeas corpus was suspended in two provinces of the Philippines in 1905, when it was a U.S. territory and authorities were worried about the threat of an insurrection, and in Hawaii after the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor, but before it became a state in 1959.

Writing before becoming a Supreme Court justice, Amy Coney Barrett co-wrote a piece stating that the Suspension Clause “does not specify which branch of government has the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ, but most agree that only Congress can do it.”

Could the Trump administration do it?

It can try. Miller suggested that the U.S. is facing “an invasion” of migrants. That term was used deliberately, though any effort to suspend habeas corpus would spark legal challenges questioning whether the country was facing an invasion, let alone presenting extraordinary threats to public safety.

Federal judges have so far been skeptical of the Trump administration’s past efforts to use extraordinary powers to make deportations easier, and that could make suspending habeas corpus even tougher.

Trump argued in March that the U.S. was facing an “invasion” of Venezuelan gang members and evoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime authority he has tried to use to speed up mass deportations.

His administration acted to swiftly deport alleged members of Tren de Aragua to a notorious prison in El Salvador, leading to a series of legal fights.

Federal courts around the country, including in New York, Colorado, Texas and Pennsylvania, have since blocked the administration’s uses of the Alien Enemies Act for many reasons, including questions about whether the country is facing an invasion.

If courts are already skeptical, how could habeas corpus be suspended?

Miller, who has been fiercely critical of judges ruling against the administration, advanced the argument that the judicial branch may not get to decide.

“Congress passed a body of law known as the Immigration [and] Nationality Act, which stripped Article III courts, that’s the judicial branch, of jurisdiction over immigration cases,” he said Friday.

That statute was approved by Congress in 1952 and there were important amendments in 1996 and 2005. Legal scholars note that it does contain language that could funnel certain cases to immigration courts, which are overseen by the executive branch.

Still, most appeals in those cases would largely be handled by the judicial branch, and they could run into the same issues as Trump’s attempts to use the Alien Enemies Act.

Have other administrations tried this?

Technically not since Pearl Harbor, though habeas corpus has been at the center of some major legal challenges more recently than that.

President George W. Bush did not move to suspend habeas corpus after the Sept. 11 attacks, but his administration subsequently sent detainees to the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, drawing lawsuits from advocates who argued the administration was violating it and other legal constitutional protections.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Guantanamo detainees had a constitutional right to habeas corpus, allowing them to challenge their detention before a judge. That led to some detainees being released from U.S. custody.

Weissert writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.