Category World News

A Tennessee law that forbids hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers for transgender minors is still in effect, according to the US Supreme Court.

The high court’s six conservative judges voted for Tennessee and its three left-leaning judges joined together to argue their case on Wednesday, which splintered ideologically.

The majority’s opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. He explained in it that the plaintiffs, three transgender minors, their parents, and a doctor, had failed to successfully challenge the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

The plaintiffs claimed that because of their sex and gender, Tennessee’s SB1 law discriminated against them.

Roberts, however, disagreed. He noted that young men and women are equally subject to the ban.

He claimed that “SB1 does not conceal sex-based classifications.” The law does not forbid sexual activity that would otherwise be permitted. No minors may receive hormones or puberty blockers as part of SB1 to treat gender incongruence, gender identity disorder, or dysphoria.

Roberts also made the point that the Tennessee law still allows the use of puberty blockers to treat early puberty, disease, or injury in children. He wrote that any sex could submit that application.

According to Roberts, “SB1 does not exclude anyone from receiving medical care because of their transgender status, but rather removes one set of diagnoses from the spectrum of treatable conditions: gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence,”

Sometimes transgender youth receive hormone inhibitors to prevent the onset of puberty, preventing the development of secondary sexual traits like breasts, deeper voices, and facial hair.

According to LGBTQ advocates, this gender-affirming care is sometimes required to lessen the strain of such changes and lessen the need for additional surgeries in the future. Generally accepted, potenty blockers are safe and have a temporary effect.

Roberts noted that some medical professionals are urging more research into the drug’s long-term effects and citing “open questions” in the field.

According to Roberts, “Health authorities in a number of European countries have expressed serious concerns about the potential harms associated with the use of hormones and puberty blockers in the treatment of transgender minors.”

Recent developments only serve as further evidence that this area needs more flexibility in laws, he said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a fierce dissent in opposition to the majority’s position. Given that transgender youth are more likely to commit suicide, self-harm, and bullying, puberty blockers can save lives, she argued.

The majority contorts logic and precedent to say otherwise, bizarrely declaring that it must support Tennessee’s categorical ban on lifesaving medical care as long as “any reasonably conceivable state of facts” might support it, Sotomayor wrote.

The Court “abandones transgender children and their families to political whims by reversing from meaningful judicial review precisely where it matters most.” I disagree with you in sadness.

She emphasized that there is general agreement in the US medical community regarding the use of puberty blockers when gender dysphoria is suspected of being diagnosed with comprehensive and accurate diagnosis.

According to Sotomayor, “transgender adolescents’ access to hormones and puberty blockers (also known as gender-affirming care) is not based on their appearance at all.” “As opposed to that, access to care can be a matter of life or death.”

She questioned why Tennessee lawmakers should be able to regulate medical decisions and why transgender youth could still use puberty blockers to combat issues like unwanted facial hair in adolescence but not gender equality.

No regard for the child’s parents or doctors’ opinions, Tennessee’s ban is in effect regardless of the minor’s medical history.
the extent to which a minor’s mental health conditions or individual child’s need for medical care,” Sotomayor said.

The transgender community in the US is at a precarious time as a result of Wednesday’s decision.

US President Donald Trump has taken steps to restrict transgender people’s rights since taking office for a second term in January. The Republican leader announced that the federal government would only recognize both sexes, male and female, on his first day back in the White House.

He then issued an additional executive order on January 27, effectively establishing a ban on transgender military personnel. Trump said that transgender people were “expressing a false “gender identity” and that their identity “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.”

That ban was also upheld by the Supreme Court. For transgender soldiers to self-identify and voluntarily leave the military, June 6 was the first day after that.

Trump has also stated that his administration will not fund transgender girls and women’s sports programs in schools. In states like Maine, where Democratic Governor Janet Mills has pledged to stand up to Trump, this decision has caused unrest.

The controversy over Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers comes as a result of a string of similar laws. According to the ACLU, some 25 states have laws enforcing gender-affirming laws for transgender youth.

According to the group, those laws prevent around 100,000 transgender minors from receiving the medical care they might need.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday was initially challenged by a lower court, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling while an appeal was pending.

The ACLU defended the Supreme Court’s decision as a setback but pledged to file legal challenges in the future. It made the claim in a statement that the Supreme Court had not overturned the general rule that transgender people should not be discriminated against.

The ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project co-director, Chase Strangio, described today’s ruling as a “devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution.”

After the Japanese company struggled for 18 months to close the deal, Nippon Steel’s $ 14 billion acquisition of US Steel has given him an unusual amount of power.

According to the companies, the deal came to an end on Wednesday.

Nippon purchased 100% of US Steel shares for $55 per share, which was the company’s original price at December 2023, according to the agreement terms. A non-economic golden share and a national security agreement signed with the Trump administration are also disclosed in a press release about the filing.

The chairman and CEO of Nippon Steel, Eiji Hashimoto, thanked the president for his service. After a difficult path to approval, which high-level political opposition sparked, he claimed Nippon Steel agreed to represent an unusual level of control conceded by the companies to the government to save the deal.

As noted in a weekend social media post by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the golden share grants the US&nbsp, government veto power over a number of corporate decisions, including those regarding shutting down factories, reducing production capacity, and moving jobs overseas.

According to the release, the share gives the government a veto over any potential acquisitions of rival businesses, including a potential relocation of US Steel’s headquarters from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as well as job transfers abroad, name changes, and possible acquisitions of rival companies.

National security lawyers said on Monday that the inclusion of the golden share would require the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US to approve it in order for it to be approved.

Through the acquisition, US Steel will have $11 billion in investment through 2028, including $1 billion for a new US mill, which will increase by $3 billion in the future.

While its foreign competitors are subject to steel tariffs of 50%, it will also allow Nippon Steel, the fourth-largest steel producer in the world, to make money off of a number of infrastructure projects in America.

Additionally, the Japanese company can avoid paying the $565 million in breakup costs if the businesses don’t get their approvals.

Nippon Steel announced on Wednesday that its annual crude steel production capacity is expected to reach 86 million tonnes, which is more in line with its global strategic goal of 100 million tonnes of capacity.

Nippon Steel was referred to as a “great partner” by the president. In their campaign efforts to woo voters in Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state, both the Democratic Party and Trump, a Republican, came out against the deal last year.

Biden allegedly halted the deal on national security grounds shortly before he left office in January, causing lawsuits from the businesses, who argued the unbiased national security review they received. The charge was refuted by the Biden White House. The Trump administration’s opening of a new 45-day national security review into the proposed merger in April presented a new opportunity for the steel industry.

Trump’s comments in the press, which ranged from welcoming a straightforward “investment” by the Japanese company to vouching for Nippon Steel, created confusion.

Trump’s May 30 rally sparked hopes of approval, and a sign-off was finally achieved on Friday with an executive order allowing the businesses to combine if they signed an NSA grant to the US&nbsp, government, which they did.

Two confidence votes, each fewer than seven days apart, tell much of the story of Israel’s political transformation since it launched attacks on longstanding regional nemesis Iran on Friday.

Early on Thursday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government narrowly survived a vote that ensured its continuation after an 11th-hour deal was reached with ultra-Orthodox parties who are a key force within it. Had a deal not been found, then parliament would have been dissolved and new elections called, leaving Netanyahu vulnerable as opposition against him grew.

But then on Monday, a similar attempt to dissolve parliament failed miserably after no confidence motions brought forward by parties led by Palestinian citizens of Israel failed to attract any support from the centre and the right.

Of course, in between, Israel had launched its attacks on Iran, upending domestic Israeli politics as well as regional geopolitics.

Rejecting Monday’s no confidence motions, opposition politician Pnina Tamano-Shata – who has been critical of Netanyahu in the past – told lawmakers the efforts were “disconnected from reality”.

That is now the mainstream view in Israeli politics, with opposition parties falling into line behind Netanyahu and a war against Iran that the prime minister has been promoting for at least two decades.

Writing in Israeli media the day after Israel’s strikes on Iran began, former Prime Minister and self-styled centrist Yair Lapid, who less than a month earlier had been calling upon the prime minister to seek a truce in Gaza, wrote of his full support for the attacks on Iran while urging the United States to participate in the war. He was then pictured shaking Netanyahu’s hand with a map of Iran on a wall behind the two men.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met today with Leader of the Opposition MK Yair Lapid for a security update. pic.twitter.com/dvCMEjivXb

Former right-wing Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, whom polls have shown to be a favourite to replace Netanyahu if early elections were called, also told Israeli media: “There is no right, no left, no opposition and no coalition” in regard to the attacks on Iran.

Speaking to Al Jazeera on Tuesday, Aida Touma-Suleiman, a member of parliament representing the Hadash-Ta’al Party, said: “Politically, the switch to supporting the war by the main opposition isn’t surprising. It took them a year and a half to say it’s forbidden to kill children. It will probably take them another year and a half to realise they don’t automatically have to fall in behind Netanyahu every time there’s a new crisis.”

“There are no voices in Israel questioning this, apart from us, and we’re Palestinians and leftists, so apparently not to be trusted,” Touma-Suleiman said. “Even those who call themselves the Zionist left are supporting the war.”

“Israelis are raised being told they’re in danger and that they’re going to need to do everything they can to survive,” she added.

Changed fortunes

Only last week, things seemed very different. Domestically, Netanyahu and his coalition were under pressure from a parliament, public and even military that appeared to have grown tired of the country’s seemingly endless war on Gaza.

Open letters protesting the burden that the war was imposing upon Israeli lives and, in some cases, Palestinian ones had come from members of the military and from within its universities and colleges. Large numbers of reservists were also believed to be refusing to turn up for duty.

There was also pressure to hold an inquiry into Netanyahu and his government’s failure to prevent the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, and a corruption trial that has haunted Netanyahu since 2019 rumbled on.

Now, the prime minister leads a public and parliament that, apart from a few notable exceptions, appears united behind his leadership and its new attacks upon an old enemy, Iran. That is despite the unprecedented attacks that Israel has faced over the past week with ballistic missiles crashing into Tel Aviv, Haifa and other Israeli cities – killing at least 24 Israelis.

On Monday, a poll conducted by Israel’s Channel 14 showed “overwhelming” public support for the prime minister with editorials and coverage across much of the Israeli media similarly supportive of the prime minister.

On Tuesday, one of the country’s leading newspapers, The Times of Israel, echoed the claims of politicians, such as Lapid, that Iran was committing war crimes in response to Israel’s unprovoked attacks on Friday, itself deemed illegal by some legal scholars. No mention was made of the accusations of genocide against Israel being considered by the International Court of Justice or the warrants for war crimes issued against Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant by the International Criminal Court.

“Through a [long] campaign led by Netanyahu and others, the idea that Iran is the source of all anti-Israeli sentiment in the region, not the plight of the Palestinians, who are occupied and subjected to ethnic cleansing, has largely become entrenched within Israeli politics,” Israeli political analyst Nimrod Flaschenberg said of the dramatic political unity that has followed on the heels of Friday’s attacks. “The idea that Iran is the source of all evil has become embedded across Israeli society.”

Uncertain future

However, Netanyahu has squandered support before, and he may do so again.

Much like in Gaza, Netanyahu has set maximalist war aims. In Gaza, it was a “total victory” over Hamas while with Iran he has said Israel will end Iran’s nuclear programme and even suggested the possibility of regime change in Tehran.

Netanyahu may find once again that it is easy to start wars but not to finish them in a manner that is satisfactory to his political base.

“Netanyahu is making a big gamble,” Dov Waxman, professor of Israel studies at the University of California-Los Angeles, told Al Jazeera. “If the war doesn’t succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear programme or forcing Iran to make unprecedented concessions to reach a new nuclear agreement, then it will be considered a failure in Israel, and this will no doubt hurt Netanyahu politically. And if the war drags on and Israeli casualties continue to mount, then Israeli public opinion may well turn against the war and blame Netanyahu for initiating it.”

However, the degree to which a change in the public and political mood may act as a check upon Netanyahu and his government is unclear. Netanyahu has repeatedly ignored the public pressure to find a deal to secure the release of Israeli captives held in Gaza with some government members even directly criticising family members of captives.

Santa Barbara, California – Far away from US President Donald Trump’s public confrontations with elite universities like Harvard and Columbia, students at the bustling University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) are finishing up their final exams under the sunny skies shining above the nearby beach.

Despite the distance and pleasant weather, students here still feel the cloud of uncertainty hanging over them, created by Trump’s rhetoric and policies towards foreign students.

“The overall mood across the room [among international students] is that people are looking for other options,” said Denis Lomov, a 26-year-old PhD student from Russia who has been at UCSB since 2022 studying climate change politics and energy transitions.

Since coming into office this year, the Trump administration has revoked the student visas of hundreds of foreign nationals, slashed funding for science and research programmes, arrested and tried to deport foreign nationals involved in pro-Palestine campus activism, and suspended student visa appointments.

For international students at universities like UCSB, where nearly 15 percent of all students are from outside the US, the rhetoric and policies have left students wondering about their futures in the country.

“It makes you wonder if maybe you’d rather go somewhere else,” Lomov told Al Jazeera, adding that he is still several years away from completing his PhD.

Like his fellow international students, he said he has started to consider whether his skills might be more valued in places like Canada or Europe after he finishes his programme.

“I think it’s the unpredictability of these policies that makes me fear about the future, both with me being a student, but also after I graduate,” he said.

Lack of certainty

The Trump administration’s actions against universities and foreign students have met mixed results in the courts.

On Monday, in one of the Trump administration’s first significant legal victories in those efforts, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from Columbia University over the government’s cuts to the university’s federal funding, based on allegations that the university had not taken adequate steps to curb pro-Palestine activism in the name of combatting anti-Semitism on campus.

In another ruling, also on Monday, a judge extended a restraining order pausing Trump’s efforts to block incoming international students from attending Harvard as the case makes its way through the legal system. Trump has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and has frozen more than $2.6bn in research grants. Harvard has also filed a lawsuit challenging those cuts.

Several universities in the UC system, including UCSB, have warned international students against travelling outside of the country, a restriction that poses serious complications for their academic work and their personal lives.

“People are considering whether they’ll be able to go home and visit their families during their programme,” said Anam Mehta, a US national and PhD student at UCSB.

“They’re being extra cautious about what they post online out of concern about being questioned at the airport,” added Mehta, who is also involved with the UAW 4811 academic workers union.

These concerns, he said, could also stymie the ability of international students to conduct field work in foreign countries, a common feature of graduate research, or attend academic conferences abroad.

Some students — and even university administrators themselves — have noted that it is difficult to keep up with the raft of policy announcements, media reports, lawsuits, and counter-lawsuits that have unfolded as Trump presses his attacks on higher education.

“There have been frequent changes and a lot of these policies have been implemented very quickly and without a lot of advanced notice,” Carola Smith, an administrator at Santa Barbara City College (SBCC), said, noting that prospective international students have reached out with questions about whether they are still able to study in the US.

Smith says that between 60 and 70 different national identities are represented on campus and that, in addition to international students paying higher tuition fees than US students, their presence on campus provides a welcome exposure to a wider variety of perspectives for their classmates and creates connections with people from other parts of the world.

With student visa appointments currently suspended, Smith predicted the number of foreign student enrollments could drop by as much as 50 percent in the coming year.

Shifting attitudes

The stress of keeping up with shifting developments has also been paired with a more abstract concern: that the US, once seen as a country that took pride in its status as a global destination for research and academics, has become increasingly hostile to the presence of foreign students.

“Harvard has to show us their lists [of foreign students]. They have foreign students, almost 31 percent of their students. We want to know where those students come from. Are they troublemakers? What countries do they come from?” Trump said in March.

The administration has also said that international students take university spots that could go to US students, in line with a more inward-looking approach to policy that sees various forms of exchange with other countries as a drain on the US rather than a source of mutual benefit.

“They’re arguing that they don’t need international students, that this is talent they should be cultivating here at home,” says Jeffrey Rosario, an assistant professor at Loma Linda University in southern California.

“You can see a throughline between this and their tariffs abroad, based on this form of economic nationalism that says the rest of the world is ripping us off,” added Rosario, who has written about the government’s history of trying to exert influence over universities.

For Lomov, the student from Russia, the atmosphere has him wondering if his skills might find a better home elsewhere.

“I left Russia because I didn’t feel welcome there, and my expertise wasn’t really needed. That’s why I left for the United States, because I knew the United States provides amazing opportunities for academics and research,” said Lomov.

Israel’s attacks on Iran initially focused on Iran’s nuclear program, but a rumored “regime change” is being discussed in full. Emanuel Macron, the president of France, cited the aftermath of Iraq and Libya as saying that such action would “cause chaos.”

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has warned the United States that joining Israeli strikes on his country would “result in irreparable consequences” for the US as his and US President Donald Trump’s war of words accelerates and the Israel-Iran hostilities rage for a sixth day.

In his first televised address since Israel began its attacks on Friday, Khamenei said on Wednesday that Iran “will not surrender to anyone”.

His remarks came as Israel reported that Iran launched a fresh wave of missiles on Wednesday evening, with explosions heard in the greater Tel Aviv area and east of the city, following Israeli strikes on Tehran and other parts of the country throughout the day.

Iran “will stand firm against an imposed war, just as it will stand firm against an imposed peace”, he said.

Responding to threatening remarks made a day earlier by Trump, Khamenei said those who know Iran and its history “know that Iranians do not answer well to the language of threat”.

In recent days, Trump has strongly hinted that the US could join in Israel’s military operation against Iran, saying he is seeking something “much bigger” than a ceasefire.

In comments made on Wednesday on the White House lawn at a flag-raising ceremony, Trump said: “I may do it. I may not do it,” when asked if the US was moving closer to striking Iran. “I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do,” he added.

He claimed, without offering any evidence, that Iran is “totally defenceless. They have no air defence whatsoever.” Iran has said it has had success in bringing down Israeli drones and fighter jets.

“The next week is going to be very big, maybe less than a week,” Trump said without elaborating.

The US has in recent days sent more warplanes to the Middle East and is also sending the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier.

The US president claimed Iranian officials reached out to him and suggested visiting the White House, something Iran denies.

“No Iranian official has ever asked to grovel at the gates of the White House. The only thing more despicable than his lies is his cowardly threat to ‘take out’ Iran’s Supreme Leader,” the Iranian mission at the United Nations said in a post on X.

No Iranian official has ever asked to grovel at the gates of the White House. The only thing more despicable than his lies is his cowardly threat to “take out” Iran’s Supreme Leader.

Iran does NOT negotiate under duress, shall NOT accept peace under duress, and certainly NOT…

Trump’s comments came after he demanded on Tuesday Iran’s “unconditional surrender”, saying: “We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.” He also boasted that the US could easily assassinate Khamenei.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei echoed Khamenei’s sentiments, warning: “Any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region.”

Iran is “under an attack by a genocidal” government and it will defend itself with “full force” against Israel’s “war of aggression”, Baghaei said.

Significantly, he added he trusted that Iran’s Arab neighbours would not allow the US to launch attacks on Iran from their countries.

Day 6 of Israel-Iran hostilities

The warnings were issued as Israel and Iran exchanged fire for a sixth consecutive day. The Israeli military said it struck 40 sites in Iran, including centrifuge production and weapons facilities.

The strikes targeted two centrifuge production sites – one in Tehran and one in Karaj, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Tohid Assadi said explosions were heard near Payam International Airport in Karaj as well as in areas in eastern Tehran. An Iranian government spokesperson also confirmed cyberattacks on at least two of Iran’s banks, he added.

ویدیوی دریافتی: “حمله دوباره به حوالی همان نقطه قبلی در شمال شرق #تهران.
بزرگراه صدر در تصویر مشخص است.”#iran #israel https://t.co/DAYs7Qmtb3 pic.twitter.com/vV6jlM199W

Translation: Another attack near the same previous location in northeast Tehran. Sadr Highway is visible in the footage.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said Israeli jets “destroyed the Iranian regime’s internal security headquarters” without providing evidence.

Israel’s military confirmed one of its remotely piloted aircraft fell in Iran after being shot at by a surface-to-air missile. “No injuries were reported, and there is no risk of an information breach,” the military said. Iranian state media earlier had said Iranian forces shot down an Israeli drone and fighter jet.

‘Crazed’ Israeli attacks

Israeli strikes have continued to target other areas of Iran, including the central province of Isfahan. An Israeli strike on a vehicle in Najafabad killed six people, including a pregnant woman and two children, Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported.

According to Iran’s Ministry of Health and Medical Education, at least 240 people, including 70 women and children, have been killed since Israel began attacking the country.

In a statement on Wednesday, the Israeli army said it is “operating freely” in Iranian skies and had shot down 10 Iranian drones.

It also said its forces intercepted an Iranian drone that entered airspace over the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights in Syria.

Meanwhile, as Iran continues to launch barrages of Iranian missiles at Israel, Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh, reporting from Amman, Jordan, said Iran’s attacks are creating an unprecedented “disruption” of life.

“Over the past six days, the Israeli public has experienced something they haven’t in the past: a formidable army that is firing ballistic missiles at Israeli cities and sensitive Israeli sites,” Odeh said.

They’re seeing “reports in their back yard of dozens of buildings damaged and condemned for demolition,” she said. “There are more than 1,300 Israelis who now have to live in hotels because their homes are unliveable, damaged beyond repair.”

IN another development, Iran’s Ministry of Communications said it will temporarily limit internet access to prevent “the enemy from threatening citizens’ lives and property.” The announcement follows an earlier report from the London-based internet watchdog Netblocks stating that there was a “near-total national internet blackout.”

The attacks have continued to cause global concern, and many countries have expressed a need for de-escalation.

Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated his country’s willingness to help mediate the crisis.

Speaking to members of his ruling Justice and Development Party in parliament, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said his country wants to see the crisis resolved diplomatically and Ankara could play a constructive role.

Erdogan accused Israel of waging “crazed” attacks against Iran that amount to “state terrorism”. Iran’s response, he said, has been natural, legal and legitimate.

Hassan Ahmadian, an associate professor at the University of Tehran, said he doubts the prospects for any diplomatic solution between Iran and the US, which had been trying to reach a new nuclear agreement before Israel launched its attacks.

“The minimal trust that led to the negotiations with the US is currently nonexistent,” Ahmadian said, adding that many Iranians now view the previous round of nuclear talks as little more than a distraction before the surprise Israeli attack.