The Dictatorship

At least 11 dead, 180,000 forced to flee their homes as L.A. wildfires rage

Published

2 years ago

January 11, 2025

Blue Light Newsroom

At least 11 dead, 180,000 forced to flee their homes as L.A. wildfires rage

Jan. 10, 2025, 2:57 PM UTC/Updated Jan. 11, 2025, 2:45 PM UTC

By Clarissa-Jan Lim

At least 11 people have died and 180,000 residents have been forced to evacuate as devastating wildfires continue to scorch the Los Angeles area for a fifth day.

A series of wildfires have sparked since Tuesday because of extreme dry conditions and powerful Santa Ana winds. Two of the biggest blazes — the Palisades Fire and the Eaton Fire — have destroyed a total of 35,000 acres, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection(Cal Fire).

Officials have said the true death toll remains unknown, as the fires continue to sweep through several areas.

Here are the latest numbers from Cal Fire:

The Palisades Fire has consumed more than 21,000 acres and is still growing in sizeforcing officials to extend evacuation orders. It is 11% contained. City Fire Chief Kristin M. Crowley has called it “one of the most destructive fires in the history of Los Angeles.”
The Eaton Fire has burned through more than 14,000 acres and is 15% contained. L.A. County Fire Chief Deputy Jon O’Brien said more than 5,000 structures are estimated to have been destroyed.
The Hurst Fire has destroyed 771 acres and is 70% contained.
Further north, the Lidia Firenear Acton, has swept through 395 acres and is 98% contained.
The Kenneth Firewhich began Thursday afternoon in the Woodland Hills area near Calabasas, has razed through more than 1,000 acres so far. It is 50% contained.
The Archer Firesparked Friday, has burned through 19 acres and is 0% contained.

Several emergency alerts were mistakenly sent to millions of L.A. residents who were far from where the wildfires were burning, setting off panic.

Although officials had hoped that weaker winds late Friday would help to slow the spread of the blazes, the Palisades Fire tore through dry terrain overnightmoving closer to residential areas. Strong gusts are expected to resume later on Saturday.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Clarissa-Jan Lim

Clarissa-Jan Lim is a breaking/trending news blogger for BLN Digital. She was previously a senior reporter and editor at BuzzFeed News.

The Dictatorship

Trump imposes double-digit tariffs on countries before Friday deadline

Published

57 minutes ago

July 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump imposes double-digit tariffs on countries before Friday deadline

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is going ahead with new double-digit tariffs on dozens of U.S. trading partners just as the clock runs out Friday on stopgap levies he imposed after a stinging defeat at the Supreme Court.

The United States will slap taxes of 10% to 12.5% on imports from 60 trading partners accounting for 99% of U.S. imports, charging that they have inadequately enforced bans on goods produced by forced labor.

“The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it; it’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same,” said U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.

The new tariffs will take effect just as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs expire at 12:01 a.m. Friday. Trump had turned to those temporary levies after the Supreme Court struck down his biggest and boldest tariffs in February.

Now he’s tapping more durable tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974which permits the president to impose import taxes and other sanctions against countries found to engage in “unjustifiable,” “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” trade practices. Trump used Section 301 to impose big tariffs on China in his first term, and they survived court challenges.

More Section 301 tariffs are likely coming: The U.S. Trade Representative’s office has launched a probe into whether 16 countries — accounting for 70% of U.S. imports — have overproduced goods, pushing down prices and putting U.S. companies at a disadvantage in global markets. The administration has yet to complete that investigation.

Trump, who argues that high tariffs will revive American manufacturing, last year overturned decades of U.S. policy that favored lower tariffs and ever-freer trade. Invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, he imposed double-digit tariffs on imports from almost every country on Earth, saying America’s longstanding trade deficit amounted to a national emergency.

But the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA did not authorize tariffs. The decision forced the administration to pay refunds to importers that had paid the tariffs.

In response, Trump announced 10% worldwide tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. But he can only use Section 122 levies for 150 days; time runs out on them Friday.

Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

The administration initially proposed the forced labor tariffs last month. Since then, some countries have tightened forced labor enforcement and qualified for lower tariffs, said a senior administration official who spoke under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. For example, the official said, the tariff on imports from India initially was set at 12.5% but now will be 10%.

Some products — including oil and gas and fertilizer — are exempted from the new tariffs announced Thursday. Also being spared are products that qualify for duty-free status under the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the North American trade pact Trump negotiated in his first term.

The tariffs drew immediate fire from critics.

“Today’s forced labor justification is too convenient to be taken seriously,” said U.S. Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. “Forced labor is a real and pervasive problem in our supply chains and demands serious enforcement. It should never be cheapened into a pretext for a tariff policy built on dubious legal theories and personal grievances.’’

Brazil, which faces a 12.5% forced-labor tariff, called the U.S. move “arbitrary and unjustified” in a statement. It plans to trigger its reciprocity law — which could call for retaliatory tariffs on the United States — and take a complaint to the World Trade Organization. The United States, the Brazilian government said, “chose to manipulate an issue of great importance to human rights and the struggles of workers worldwide in order to accuse 59 countries and the European Union of unfair practices.”

Chile’s Undersecretary for International Economic Relations Paula Estévez said that the country has “solid labor institutions, a robust regulatory framework and a firm commitment to the prevention and eradication of forced labor.” Chile faces a 12.5% rate.

“The Government of Chile considers that the application of this measure to our country is inconsistent with these standards, as well as with the technical, political, and legal background presented throughout the investigation process,” she said.

Tariffs are paid by companies in the United States that import foreign products. The importers usually try to pass along the cost by charging consumers higher prices. Americans are already frustrated by the high cost of living. So the administration is taking a risk in rolling out new tariffs ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections.

Human rights watchers say that it’s reasonable to be skeptical of the motivation behind the tariffs. But they say the levies could make an impact on the problem of forced labor.

The tariffs are being imposed on countries that the U.S. found either failed to impose or failed to effectively enforce a ban on importing goods made with forced labor.

Forced labor is defined by the International Labor Organization Forced Labor Convention of 1930 as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself (or herself) voluntarily.”

According to the latest statistics from the ILO, which is a U.N. agency focused on human and labor rights, about 27.6 million people were in forced labor worldwide on any given day in 2021.

“We’ve gone on record for years now advocating for import bans, not as a magic bullet, it’s not a silver bullet, but as a potentially effective tool in combating forced labor across the globe,” said Martina Vandenberg, founder and president of The Human Trafficking Legal Center.

“It’s possible to be extremely critical of tariffs, as we are, and to be very concerned about blanket tariffs used as bludgeons against countries,” she said. “And yet I think it’s undeniable that there is a significant response in terms of the adoption of import bans.”

However, Vandenberg and her organization urged in testimony that the tariffs be implemented in a phased approach to give countries time to implement a ban or a plan for enforcement.

“Our concern is that the import bans will be thin slips of paper with no enforcement,” she said. “Countries need time to build import ban mechanisms that are meaningful and enforceable.”

In a statement, Dominic LeBlanc, the Canada-U.S. Trade Minister, said the move “is not unexpected.”

LeBlanc said Canada shares the U.S.’s objective of ensuring that goods produced with forced labor don’t enter the supply chain.

“We will continue engaging constructively with the United States on this matter, as well as other outstanding issues, over the coming weeks to the mutual benefit of our citizens,” LeBlanc said.

Kenya Davis, partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, said the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Acta U.S. federal law passed in 2021 that prohibits the importation of goods made wholly or in part in China’s Xinjiang region or by designated entities, is the most significant legislation related to forced labor that the U.S. has passed before the tariffs.

“The level of effectiveness is certainly up for debate, but it certainly has drawn attention to the issue of labor trafficking and forced labor,” she said. “And so, if nothing else, these import bans will serve that function of bringing greater awareness to forced labor.”

But without a “comprehensive approach” that provides transparency about what the investigations consisted of, and programs that provide countries aid in enforcing bans, “I’m very cautious in my enthusiasm about the (tariffs),” she said.

Isabelle Glimcher, senior research scientist for global labor at the NYU Stern Center for Human Rights, said one flaw in the tariffs is that they focus on levying the tax on countries based on goods they import — not goods they make domestically.

But she said the impending tariffs threat has spurred several countries — such as India — to amend their foreign trade policies to include a forced labor import ban. European Union forced labor regulations due to go into effect later next year are also contributing, she said.

“Not all of these things are necessarily or wholly attributable to the Section 301 investigations, but does seem like countries are responding and starting to take all of this seriously,” she said.

___

Anderson reported from New York. AP Writers Nayara Batschke in Santiago, Chile, Mauricio Savarese in Sao Paulo and Jim Morris in Vancouver, Canada, contributed to this story.

The Dictatorship

Loomer meets with Zelensky in Ukraine after major U-turn…

Published

57 minutes ago

July 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Loomer meets with Zelensky in Ukraine after major U-turn…

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Laura Loomeran ardent ally of President Donald Trump with a reputation for incendiary social media commentary, sat down with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Thursday after a dramatic turnaround on the war that could have political reverberations back in Washington.

Loomer had spent years minimizing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and amplifying Russian propaganda to her nearly 2 million followers. This week she had a change of heart.

“Just experienced my first air raid in Ukraine. Sirens blaring. This is everyday for every Ukrainian,” Loomer wrote on X during her visit to the country. “I often said I don’t care. Looking back, that wasn’t very nice of me to say.”

“We need to have moral clarity,” she added Thursday.

It was a stunning reversal for a woman who had spent years criticizing U.S. support for Ukraine’s defense, declaring it “a country full of Nazi apologists” — a claim used by Russia to justify its yearslong invasion — and “led by a Jihadi apologist.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addresses a press conference after the Coalition of the Willing summit on security guarantees for Ukraine in Paris, Monday, July 13, 2026. (Teresa Suarez/Pool Photo via AP)

The skepticism of Ukraine has been shared by other major conservative influencers, including former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The issue became a major point of contention between more traditional Republicans, like former Vice President Mike Pence, and Trump’s MAGA base. Vice President JD Vance was among the earliest and most vocal critics of continued U.S. military aid to the country, and he and Trump clashed with Zelenskyy in a heated Oval Office meeting.

It was unclear what had prompted Loomer’s trip or how she had arranged the meeting with Zelenskyywhich she plugged as an interview for her Rumble show, “Loomer Unleashed.”

She posted a photo of the two and later a clip from the interview in which she asked Zelenskyy about the Oval Office confrontation and how his relationship with Trump seemed to have improved since then. Zelenskyy credited a brief conversation at the Vatican for the detente — one he called a “historic moment, because we changed the relations during 15, 20 minutes.”

Loomer and the White House did not respond to requests for comment on the trip, but Trump gave his stamp of approval on social media.

“Very good!!!” he wrote on Thursday evening.

The meeting was confirmed earlier by Dmytro Lytvyn, a spokesperson for the president, who said that no Ukrainian government institution had organized the visit. He added that Zelenskyy’s office first learned that Loomer was in Ukraine through social media.

“It is really important that @LauraLoomer is in Ukraine and sees things with her own eyes as they are,” Zelenskyy’s office had written Tuesday.

“It takes courage to come to Ukraine and not be deterred by Russian propaganda or air raid sirens. Thank you, Laura,” the office added Thursday.

Laura Loomer attends a dedication ceremony for a portion of Southern Boulevard, which the Town of Palm Beach Council recently voted to rename, “President Donald J. Trump Boulevard,” Jan. 16, 2026, at President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)

In addition to the meeting with Zelenskyy, Loomer also visited the Dormition Cathedral of Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, one of the country’s most significant religious landmarks, which came under Russian attack last month.

The attack on the monastic complex of golden domes in the heart of Kyiv, which is also known as the Monastery of the Caves, sparked a fire that caused significant interior and exterior damage, according to UNESCO. Zelenskyy had called it Moscow’s “biggest crime yet against Christian culture.”

Russia denied responsibility for the attackclaiming, without offering evidence, that the complex was hit by one of Ukraine’s U.S.-made Patriot air defense missiles — saying that it might have veered off course due to its age.

In a video recorded from inside the church, Loomer accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of hypocrisy by portraying Russia as pro-Christian.

“I just don’t think that you should be allowed to say that you’re protecting Christianity if you’re trying to drone strike Jesus Christ,” she said.

Sergiy Kyslytsya and Tetyana Berezhna, two top Ukrainian officials, were among those who met with Loomer and joined her for the visit.

The meeting comes amid continued hostilities between Russia and Ukraine that have been overshadowed in recent months by the war with Iran.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday at an annual gathering of foreign ministers in Manila that the administration is poised to help end the “senseless war” in Ukraine but acknowledged there was no quick path to a deal.

___

Colvin reported from New York.

The Dictatorship

Government withdraws subpoenas of 3 reporters for The New York Times

Published

57 minutes ago

July 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Government withdraws subpoenas of 3 reporters for The New York Times

NEW YORK (AP) — Criticized by a federal judge for sloppy legal work, the government on Thursday grudgingly withdrew subpoenas that would have compelled three New York Times reporters to testify about their sources for articles about President Donald Trump’s Qatari-gifted Air Force One jet.

The withdrawals in U.S. District Court followed a remarkable back-and-forth between a visibly irritated Judge Arun Subramanian and government lawyers. They come at a time when the Trump administration is vigorously going after news organizations whose reporting and coverage it doesn’t like — and also trying to crack down on leaks inside the government.

The government’s turnabout in the face of vigorous legal opposition and a stern reprimand from a judge marked the latest instance of the Justice Department making aggressive moves to compel journalists to identify their sources before a grand jury — only to later retreat. The administration recently withdrew similar subpoenas that sought to compel testimony from journalists for The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal related to separate national security coverage.

Subramanian said he otherwise would have granted the newspaper’s request to reject the subpoenas because regulations pertaining to subpoenas served on journalists maintain that they should be issued as a last resort in an investigation.

“Subpoenas are the last step, not the first step, but the last step,” the judge said, citing rules set to protect against violations of the First Amendment. He said the government’s actions had turned the law and the regulations “on its head.”

“When you see something like this, if this were a civil proceeding, what I would normally do is ask the parties to show causes why sanctions should not be issued,” the judge said, referencing punishment for lawyers for egregious actions.

After the hearing, the Justice Department lashed out at Subramanian in a statement, saying he “threatened our attorneys with sanctions unless subpoenas were withdrawn, and blocked us from presenting the meticulous process of this investigation.”

“The grand jury has a right to hear testimony from all material witnesses in a federal criminal investigation. This judge’s conduct overrides clear longstanding principles and common sense — blocking the grand jury from receiving core evidence in a national security investigation,” the statement said.

“Make no mistake,” it added, “this investigation remains ongoing, and we will pursue justice against those threatening national security by leaking classified information, a serious federal crime.”

Government attorneys upbraided by judge

Subramanian noted that with protections for journalists at stake, the government was required to ensure it could not obtain what it needed from any other sources before issuing subpoenas to journalists.

A Justice Department lawyer, Sean Buckley, cast the government’s missteps as inadvertent errors and said: “No one was trying to pull a fast one.” Buckley apologized for other subpoenas that sought records for phone numbers belonging to one reporter’s mother and two of the journalists’ spouses.

Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

“That was an error, judge, which we own,” Buckley said. “It was a consequence of trying to move quickly.”

“These things are starting to pile up,” Subramanian said, becoming increasingly testy.

The hearing was held publicly despite efforts by the Trump administration to keep secret the litigation spawned by subpoenas it served on the Times’ journalists to try to get them to divulge their sources.

The newspaper’s lawyers had challenged the validity of the grand jury subpoenas, along with subpoenas issued for phone records of several Times journalists and some of their relatives. Senior Times officials, including the paper’s managing editor and general counsel, sat in the gallery watching during Thursday’s proceedings.

The request for phone records raised questions about the extent of the investigation being carried out by the Justice Department.

David McCraw, the Times’ chief newsroom lawyer, said after the hearing in a statement that it “was an important affirmation of our country’s commitment to a free press.”

“We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place,” he said. “We will not be deterred in the face of tactics like these.”

Court action comes after reporting on new Air Force One jet

The new jet in question, a present from Qatar that Trump’s administration spent $400 million to retrofit and upgrade, recently entered service. But Trump used an older model Air Force One jet to leave a NATO summit in Turkey earlier this month.

The Times, citing anonymous sources, reported that the switch had come at the urging of the Secret Service and that the newer plane lacked some of the advanced security features of the older Air Force One aircraft, including antimissile capabilities. On social media, Trump rejected claims of security concerns.

The Times wrote in a letter to the judge several days ago that two subpoenas seek records beginning on Jan. 1, long before the newspaper published articles on July 8 and July 9 that became the basis for the grand jury subpoenas.

It said that lengthy stretch of records sought would indicate that the purpose of the subpoenas might have been “to forage for information about the Journalists’ source relationships more broadly.”

The Times argued for the phone records subpoenas to be disallowed on the grounds that the government had acted in “bad faith” and ignored its own protocols by not giving the journalists advance notice that records were being sought and by demanding the information “without first conducting any serious investigation.”

The Justice Department has justified the grand jury subpoenas by saying that “reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are.” The department also said it had complied with its own regulations in issuing the subpoenas and had taken “certain” investigative steps before seeking them. It said it was authorized to delay disclosure of the phone records subpoenas but decided to alert the journalists’ lawyers “so that counsel could advance any arguments—regardless of merit—in furtherance of their motion.”

In fighting the subpoenas, the Times’ lawyers highlighted how the government’s carelessness could have exposed sensitive information that had nothing to do with the journalists. The mother whose phone records were mistakenly sought is a mental health professional with confidential client relationships and one of the two spouses is the general counsel of a law firm, the lawyers said.

At Thursday’s hearing, a final rebuke from the judge to the government came when he asked its lawyers to assure him that it won’t repeat a scenario that left one journalist being served a subpoena by an FBI agent while he was home watching the family-friendly movie “The Sheep Detectives,” about sheep on a quest to solve the murder of their shepherd.

Said the judge, to loud courtroom laughter: “I can’t think of anything more inconsistent with ‘Sheep Detective’ than an FBI agent showing up at your door.”

___

Associated Press Writer Eric Tucker reported from Washington