NPR sues Trump administration for cutting US federal funding

A lawsuit against US President Donald Trump and three of its local stations, National Public Radio (NPR), alleges that an executive order that would cut off the organization’s funding is unlawful.

The lawsuit alleges that Trump’s executive order to cut public subsidies for PBS and NPR is in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution and was filed in federal court on Tuesday in Washington, DC, by NPR and three local Colorado stations Colorado Public Radio, Aspen Public Radio, and KUTE Inc.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other federal agencies were instructed by Trump to “stop Federal funding for NPR and PBS” earlier this month and to work to eradicate any indirect sources of public funding for the news organizations. Trump later claimed that the broadcasters’ reporting was biased. He issued the order.

Every year, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting invests about $500 million in public television and radio. Federal grants, which amount to 17 and 2 percent, respectively, support PBS and NPR.

The lawsuit claims that the Order’s goals “could not be clearer: the Order aims to stifle NPR for the president’s disliked news and programming, and impede NPR’s and individual public radio stations’ free exercise of First Amendment rights.”

The Order “violates the First Amendment and textbook retaliation, and it interferes with the editorial discretion and freedom of NPR’s,” it said.

According to the White House’s executive order, editorial choices, such as NPR’s alleged refusal to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story and its “Valentine’s Day feature around “queer animals,” were some of the reasons it wanted to reduce federal funding.

NPR CEO Katherine Maher stated in a statement that this discrimination is retaliatory and based on one’s opinion, violating the First Amendment.

NPR is protected by both government attempts to restrict private speech and retaliation intended to defame and demonize protected speech, according to the First Amendment. The Executive Order asks NPR to change its journalistic standards and editorial choices in accordance with the government’s wishes if it is to continue receiving federal funding by basing its directives on the substance of NPR’s programming.

The two systems will contest this separately because PBS hasn’t yet filed in court, but it will likely do so soon, as the absence of PBS indicates.

Court fights have also been sparked by the US president’s attempts to shut down government-run news outlets like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Okocha, Eto’o, Adebayor, Play Exhibition Game In Somalia

For an exhibition game aimed at restoring the country’s reputation, three African football legends, including Jay-Jay Okocha, Samuel Eto’o, and Emmanuel Adebayor, took to the field in Somalia on Tuesday.

The three superstars are a part of a “peace tour” that Somalia hopes will enable it to once again host international competitions.

Since 1991, Somalia has been at the center of a near-constant internal conflict, and its national team currently has to travel to Djibouti or Morocco.

After Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Shabaab insurgents used the national stadium in Mogadishu as a base in 2008, and then by African Union peacekeepers who drove them out of the city, the stadium suffered significant damage.

In 2020, it underwent renovations and reopened for play.

The sports ministry referred to Eto, o, former Togo striker Adebayor, and former Nigeria player Okocha as “a historic day” for what the sports ministry called the “historic day”

Security Minister Mohamed Ali Haga characterized the event as an opportunity to “show the world that Mogadishu is peaceful and capable of hosting other African matches” and “change the perception of the world toward Somalia.”

Erik Ten Hag, former Man Utd coach, Resigns As Coach of Leverkusen

In southern Mogadishu, there was limited security around the stadium.

Numerous fans gathered hours before the game to show up, many of whom wade the Somali flag.

“To watch a player like Eto, who has inspired me so much, is a great day for me,” Eto said. “I cannot miss such a great occasion. One fan, Mowlid Ali, told AFP, “It feels like I’m sitting in the Barcelona stadium.”

Another player, Abdirahman Dhere, said, “The game here today is not a simple football match; it will undoubtedly demonstrate how Somalia is recovering from the long-running civil war.”

Apparently, Somalia has requested that FIFA and CAF review its security situation in order to host upcoming games.

US Supreme Court rejects Native American case against large copper mine

A Native American advocacy group’s bid to stop the construction of a large copper mine on land that many Apache people regard as sacred has been turned down by the US Supreme Court.

On Tuesday, the court reversed a lower court’s decision that would allow the project to advance, and the group’s appeal was denied by the court.

A portion of the state of Arizona, known as the Tonto National Forest, is at the center of the case.

The land is referred to as Oak Flat or Chi’chil Bildagoteel in the Apache language by the San Carlos Apache tribe. The land, which has its ancient oak groves, has long been used as a place of prayer, ceremony, and burial, according to tribe members.

However, Rio Tinto and BHP, Rio Tinto’s and BHP’s subsidiary, believes the site is atop the second-largest copper deposit in the world.

Under former US President Barack Obama, the US Congress approved a land swap in which Resolution Copper exchanged 9.71 square kilometers (3.75 square miles) of the Oak Flat forest for other parcels of land in Arizona.

Members of the San Carlos Apache tribe of Arizona claimed that construction on the Oak Flat site would violate their religious rights after the legal dispute broke out. They referred to Oak Flat as a “direct corridor to the Creator” in their petition to the Supreme Court.

On June 3, 2023, the sun sets over Oak Flat Campground, a sacred site for Native Americans, which is located 113 kilometers (70 miles) east of Phoenix.

Western Apaches and other Native peoples have gathered at Oak Flat, outside of modern-day Superior, Arizona, for sacred religious ceremonies that are unmatched anywhere else, according to Apache Stronghold in a news release in early May.

The group also argued that the project would contravene an 1852 agreement between the US government and the Apaches, which stipulated that the government would “secure the permanent prosperity and happiness of the tribe.”

However, President Donald Trump’s administration has promised to pass the land transfer. According to the US Forest Service, the mining project could result in the equivalent of nearly 40 billion pounds of copper, or more than 18 billion kilogrammes.

However, opponents anticipate that the result would be a crater nearly 304 meters (1, 000 feet) deep and 3 km (2 miles) wide.

The Supreme Court allows a decision to stand from the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by refusing to review the Apache Stronghold’s appeal.

That appeals court made the decision in ideological terms in March 2024, allowing the land transfer to proceed: Five judges chose to support and five against.

However, the Apache Stronghold continued its legal fight to the highest court on May 9 when a federal judge in Arizona temporarily halted the government’s request to transfer the land.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who is reportedly financially connected to the companies involved, chose not to participate in Tuesday’s decision. However, two justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, disagreed and criticized the Supreme Court’s decision as “a grave mistake.”

While this Court has the option to pick the cases it will hear, the decision to shuffle this one off our docket is unfortunate.
Without a full explanation, Gorsuch wrote, “It is a grievous mistake that threatens to have lasting effects for generations.”

“Just imagine if the government attempted to destroy a historic cathedral based on a string of contradictory legal arguments. Without a doubt, we would think that the case was worthwhile.

‘No path forward’ – Orie announces shock retirement

Images courtesy of Getty
  • 19 Comments

After a brief break in the professional ranks, Heavyweight Delicious Orie has left the sport.

Orie, 27, made his professional debut in April, defeating Bosniac Milos Veletic in points, but he has since decided to leave the sport.

The Russian-born Briton represented Great Britain at the Paris Olympics and won gold at the Commonwealth Games in 2022.

Orie said on Instagram, “I’ve decided to hang up my gloves and leave boxing to pursue my degree and work in the corporate world.”

“Over time, I’ve come to terms with the loss of the fire and love I once had for boxing.

As I’ve grown, I’ve prioritized being truthful with myself above all else.

“I hoped turning professional would rekindle my passion,” he said, “but it hasn’t.”

Orie graduated from Aston University with a first-class honours degree in Economics and Management in addition to boxing.

Orie turned down an offer from the WWE to continue boxing after 39 amateur fights.

Every fighter is aware that a deep love for the craft is necessary for success, and without it, there is no way to go.

It’s time to step aside with integrity out of respect for both the sport and my own.

He won the heavyweight title in Paris, but he unexpectedly dropped out of the competition too soon.

The Briton, who was once hailed as the “next Anthony Joshua,” was predicted to compete for the title in the coming years.

JavaScript must be enabled in your browser to play this video.

related subjects

  • Boxing

MPs call for equal treatment for rugby regions

A group of MPs is urging the Welsh Rugby Union to pledge to treat all four of its regions equally, amid splits over WRU plans for a two-tier funding system.

Scarlets and Ospreys did not join Cardiff and Dragons in signing the new Professional Rugby Agreement.

After meeting WRU chair Richard Collier-Keywood and chief executive Abi Tierney on Friday, nine Welsh MPs issued a statement saying it was “imperative” no club is “handed an advantage at the expense of others”.

Wales has four professional regional rugby teams: Cardiff, Newport-based Dragons, the Ospreys in Swansea and the Scarlets in Llanelli.

The Professional Rugby Agreement (PRA) deal runs out in 2027, but was due to be superseded by a new five-year deal that Ospreys and Scarlets have not signed.

The four regions were given a deadline to sign the new PRA by 8 May, but only WRU-owned Cardiff and privately-owned Dragons did so.

Last week, Ospreys and Scarlets said they had asked the governing body for assurances the takeover “will not disproportionally benefit Cardiff and disadvantage the independent clubs”.

The four sides are expected to continue to exist in their current form until at least June 2027 when the PRA runs out.

The WRU posted a loss of £7.5m for the year ending June 2024.

The statement, issued by Labour MPs Stephen Kinnock, Tonia Antoniazzi, Torsten Bell, Nia Griffith, Henry Tufnell, Carolyn Harris and Chris Elmore as well as Plaid Cymru MPs Ann Davies and Ben Lake, says it is “imperative that the WRU treats each of Wales’ professional clubs with respect and fairness and that no club is handed an advantage at the expense of others”.

“Without our professional clubs everyone – schools, local rugby clubs and the wider community – suffers,” the statement continues.

“The uncertainty that the WRU’s actions and announcements have caused is leading to further destabilisation of Welsh rugby and everything which relies upon it.

“Both clubs have both assured us they remain committed to working collaboratively with the WRU to reach an agreement that gives fair treatment to all.

The Welsh Rugby Union said its latest position is represented in its statement on the agreement on 18 May, in which it said it will “work closely with all four professional clubs to agree the way forward beyond June 2027, with an open mind to all constructive and realistic proposals”.

Within that statement, WRU chief executive Abi Tierney said the governing body was “continuing to talk to all four clubs about what the future will hold”.

‘We recognise this will be time of uncertainty and are committed to treating all the clubs, players, and supporters with respect and fairness throughout this process,” she said.

“We acknowledge the continued commitment of each club to Welsh rugby and will formulate a new plan with the best interests of the whole game in Wales at the forefront of our thinking.”

Ms Tierney added that the “continued aim is to build a resilient and world-class structure that will support Welsh rugby’s next generation and beyond”.

The WRU had continually insisted maintaining four professional sides on an equal footing was at the heart of its long-term strategy launched in 2024.

The governing body says that was the preference from the outset, but the system will not return to the model “given seismic changes in the rugby landscape”.

How common is Israel’s use of human shields in Gaza and the West Bank?

A recent report by The Associated Press that exposed the Israeli military’s “systematic” use of Palestinians as human shields has shone a light on an illegal practice that has become commonplace over the 19-month war in Gaza and parallel offensives in the West Bank.

The report, published on Saturday, featured the testimonies of seven Palestinians who had been used as human shields in Gaza as well as the occupied West Bank, with two Israeli military officers confirming the ubiquity of the practice, which is considered a violation of international law.

Responding to the allegations, Israel’s military told the news agency that using civilians as shields in its operations was strictly prohibited and that several cases were under investigation.

So what are human shields? How widely have they been used by the Israeli military? And is Israel likely to launch a crackdown any time soon?

What are human shields, and how has Israel used them?

Under international humanitarian law (IHL), the term “human shields” refers to the use of civilians or other protected persons, whether voluntary or involuntary, in order to shield military targets from attacks.

The use of human shields in warfare is prohibited under IHL, but Israeli soldiers have allegedly employed it widely during the Gaza genocide.

Earlier this year, Israeli newspaper Haaretz published the first-hand testimony of an Israeli soldier who said that the practice had been used “six times a day” in his unit and that it had effectively been “normalised” in military ranks.

Back in August, the newspaper had revealed that Palestinians used as human shields in Gaza tended to be in their 20s and were used for periods of up to a week by units, which took pride in “locating” detainees to send into tunnel shafts and buildings.

“It’s become part of [Israel’s] military culture,” said Nicola Perugini, co-author of Human Shields: A History of People in the Line of Fire, noting the “huge archive” of evidence provided, not only by human rights groups, but also by soldiers, who were until recently posting evidence of Palestinians being used as “fodder” on social media with an apparent sense of total impunity.

“Israeli army investigations have proven throughout the decades to be non-investigations,” Perugini said, noting that documentation of the practice, forbidden by Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions, started during the second Intifada of the early 2000s.

“What we have now in the live-streamed genocide is the most documented archive of human shielding in the history of the different wars between Israel and the Palestinians,” he said.

“What we have discovered is precisely that it is a systematic practice.”

How has Israel responded to allegations?

Throughout the conflict, the Israeli military’s response to allegations has been to withhold comment, to point to a lack of details, or, when faced with undeniable proof, to announce a probe.

Last year, Israel declined to respond to a range of allegations put to it by Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit, which examined thousands of photos and videos – the bulk of them posted online by Israeli soldiers – and testimonies pointing to a number of potential war crimes, including the use of human shields.

Among the atrocities revealed by the team in the resulting documentary was the case of Jamal Abu al-Ola, a detainee forced to act as a messenger by the Israelis. Footage showed the young man dressed in a white hazmat suit, with hands bound and head wrapped in a yellow cloth, telling displaced people at the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis to evacuate. His mother followed him out, and witnessed him being shot dead by a sniper.

Commenting on the case for the documentary, Rodney Dixon, an international law expert, said that al-Ola had been used as a “military asset”, which was “in many ways the definition of using persons as a human shield”.

This year, the military pushed back on calls to investigate a report on an 80-year-old man forced to act as a human shield in Gaza City, saying that “additional details” were needed.

The joint report from Israeli outlet The Hottest Place in Hell and +972 Magazine revealed a horrific new dimension of the so-called “mosquito procedure”, with anonymous Israeli soldiers recounting that a senior officer had placed an explosive cord around the man’s neck, threatening to blow his head off if he made any false moves.

Ordered afterwards to flee his home in Gaza City’s Zeitoun neighbourhood, the man was shot dead with his wife by another battalion.

However, the military will acknowledge violations when confronted with undeniable evidence provoking widespread outrage, such as last year’s video of wounded Palestinian man Mujahed Azmi, strapped to the hood of an army jeep during a raid on the West Bank city of Jenin.

That particular case was described as “human shielding in action” by Francesca Albanese, the United Nations’ special rapporteur to the occupied Palestinian territory.

In a statement, Israel’s military said its forces were fired at and exchanged fire, wounding a suspect and apprehending him. It added that the “conduct of the forces in the video” did not “conform to the values” of the military and that the incident would be investigated.

However, as Perugini observes, the very reason why the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes in Gaza is because legal experts doubt Israel’s ability to investigate itself.

Who issues the orders to use human shields?

Despite vast evidence, the question of whether the military will be launching a crackdown aimed at banishing the apparently systematic practice is moot. Even so, pressure for accountability is growing.

Rights groups say the practice of using human shields has been going on in the occupied Palestinian territories for decades. Breaking the Silence, a whistle-blower group gathering testimonies of former Israeli soldiers, cites evidence of what one high-ranking officer posted to Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank back in 2002 called “neighbour procedure”.

“You order a Palestinian to accompany you and to open the door of the house you want to enter, to knock on the door and ask to enter, with a very simple objective: if the door blows up, a Palestinian will be blown up, and soldiers won’t be blown up,” said the officer, ranked as a major.

In 2005, an Israeli Supreme Court ruling explicitly barred the practice. Five years later, two soldiers were convicted of using a nine-year-old boy as a human shield to check suspected booby traps in the Gaza City suburb of Tal al-Hawa.

It was reportedly the first such conviction in Israel.

But the military’s use of human shields appears to have been normalised since then, particularly over the past 19 months of war in Gaza.

Indeed, there are indications that orders may be coming from the very top.

Haaretz’s investigation from last August cited sources as saying that former Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi was among the senior officers aware of the use of Palestinians in Gaza as human shields.

And this week’s report by the AP cited an anonymous Israeli officer as saying that the practice had become ubiquitous by mid-2004 in Gaza, with every infantry unit using a Palestinian to clear houses by the time he finished his service, and with orders “to bring a mosquito” often being issued via radio.

The report also cited an anonymous Israeli sergeant as saying that his unit had tried to refuse to use human shields in Gaza in 2024, but was told they had no choice, a high-ranking officer telling them they shouldn’t worry about international humanitarian law.

Responding to claims in the AP report, the Israeli military told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday that it would investigate the claims “if further details are provided”.

“In several cases, investigations by the Military Police Criminal Investigation Division were opened following suspicions that the military was involving Palestinians in military missions. These investigations are ongoing, and naturally, no further details can be provided at this time,” it said.

In March, Haaretz reported that Israel’s military police were investigating six cases in which Israeli soldiers were alleged to have used Palestinians as human shields after the publication of a Red Cross report earlier in the year that highlighted the abuses.

In the face of growing evidence that Palestinians are systematically being used as fodder for the Israeli military machine, in a war that has already killed more than 54,000 people, the military may find it increasingly difficult to kick the biggest can of all down the road.