LONDON (BN24) — British police said Friday that 10 people were arrested during and around Thursday night’s Europa League match in Birmingham between Aston Villa and Israeli club Maccabi Tel Aviv, an event marked by tight security and political tension.
West Midlands Police confirmed that the game at Villa Park, labeled high-risk due to potential clashes between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups, concluded without major disruptions. Five of the 10 individuals arrested remain in custody, including two men accused of racially aggravated public order offenses and another suspected of attempting to throw fireworks into the stadium.
More than 700 officers were deployed to secure the area surrounding Villa Park. Ahead of kickoff, a large pro-Palestinian protest gathered outside the stadium, with hundreds displaying Palestinian flags and banners denouncing Israel. Tensions briefly spiked when a woman carrying an Israeli flag passed by the demonstrators but was swiftly escorted away by police.
On the opposite side of the stadium, a smaller counter-protest supporting Israel displayed signs urging an end to antisemitism in football. Several vehicles circled the ground with digital billboards carrying messages such as “Ban hatred not fans,” and one quoting French soccer star Thierry Henry: “Football is not about goals but bringing people together.”
The match, which Aston Villa won 2-0, came under intense scrutiny after Birmingham officials decided to ban visiting Maccabi fans from attending. The move drew criticism from Prime Minister Keir Starmer but was defended by those citing safety concerns and past violence involving Maccabi supporters.
Police said the decision followed intelligence linked to previous incidents, including unrest during Maccabi’s Europa League game against Ajax in Amsterdam last season. In response, Maccabi Tel Aviv declined its away ticket allocation.
The ban unfolded amid growing concerns about antisemitism in Britain, heightened by a deadly attack on a Manchester synagogue last month and calls from pro-Palestinian activists for a sports boycott of Israel. Despite a recent ceasefire in Gaza, tensions remain high both on and off the field.
ITHACA, N.Y. (AP) — Cornell University has agreed to pay $60 million in a settlement with the Trump administration to restore federal research funding that had been frozen for months during a dispute over alleged civil rights violations, the school announced Friday.
Under the three-year agreement, Cornell will invest $30 million into U.S. agricultural research and send another $30 million directly to the federal government to end pending claims brought against the university. The deal follows months of negotiations with federal officials and marks one of the administration’s largest settlements with an Ivy League school over alleged violations related to diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.
The Education Department froze Cornell’s federal funding in April, alongside suspensions at Northwestern University and several other elite institutions. The administration said the action was part of a broader effort to eliminate what it described as unlawful DEI practices in higher education.
Cornell reported that the freeze affected more than $250 million in federal research funds, halting or delaying numerous faculty and student research projects across its campuses.
University President Michael Kotlikoff said the settlement allows Cornell to move forward after “good faith” discussions with the administration. He emphasized that the agreement enables the school to resume its academic and research operations while reaffirming its right to institutional independence.
“The agreement explicitly recognizes Cornell’s right to independently establish our policies and procedures, choose whom to hire and admit, and determine what we teach, without intrusive government monitoring or approvals,” Kotlikoff said in a statement to the Cornell community. “In short, it recognizes our rights, as a private university, to define the conditions on our campuses that advance learning and produce new knowledge.”
Kotlikoff will certify the university’s compliance with the terms of the settlement repeatedly. Cornell will also provide anonymized admissions data, continue conducting campus climate surveys, and maintain federal reporting of foreign gifts and contracts.
While reaffirming Cornell’s autonomy, the agreement ends a prolonged standoff between the Ivy League institution and the administration. Officials said the restoration of funding would allow federally supported research from agriculture to engineering and medical science to resume without further interruption.
The deal mirrors recent settlements between the Trump administration and other Ivy League schools, including the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, and Brown University, all of which faced similar allegations.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon celebrated the Cornell agreement in a post on X, calling it a “transformative commitment” to merit-based education.
“These reforms are a huge win in the fight to restore excellence to American higher education and make our schools the greatest in the world,” McMahon wrote.
Kotlikoff maintained that Cornell had not violated any federal civil rights laws, describing the resolution as a pragmatic outcome that protects the university’s academic mission while preserving its research partnerships.
The settlement brings an end to months of uncertainty for Cornell’s faculty and students, who rely on federal support for a wide range of research initiatives. The university said it expects all previously halted projects to restart immediately under the new agreement.
Washington (BN24) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted a temporary reprieve to President Donald Trump’s administration, allowing it to withhold roughly $4 billion in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits that a lower court had ordered to be paid in full by the end of the day.
The emergency order, issued by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, temporarily blocked a directive from U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island that required the administration to release the full monthly food aid despite the ongoing government shutdown. The order effectively gives the Trump administration more time to argue its case before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had earlier said it would act “as quickly as possible” on the matter.
The decision comes after a day of confusion for states and millions of Americans who rely on SNAP, commonly known as food stamps. Hours before the Supreme Court’s order, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had informed states in a memo that it would proceed with making full November payments. Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, told states that the USDA “will complete the processes necessary” to issue full benefits “for the time being.”
But the administration quickly reversed course, petitioning the Supreme Court to intervene. The Justice Department argued that Judge McConnell’s order violated constitutional limits on judicial power by compelling the executive branch to spend unappropriated funds.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned in the administration’s filing that paying the full benefits would deplete funds needed for other vital nutrition programs, such as school lunches. “Once those billions are out the door, there is no ready mechanism for the government to recover those funds — to the significant detriment of other critical social programs whose budgets the district court ordered the government to raid,” Sauer wrote.
Nearly 42 million Americans depend on SNAP benefits each month. Under normal circumstances, the program provides up to $300 per individual and around $1,000 for a family of four. Because of the shutdown, the Trump administration had previously authorized $4.65 billion in contingency funds—enough to cover about 65% of benefits for November—but declined to draw from a separate $4 billion reserve tied to child nutrition programs known as Section 32 funds.
Earlier this week, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins confirmed that partial payments had already been distributed to states, which oversee the process of loading benefits onto electronic cards. The administration argued it had met its obligations by releasing those partial funds.
However, Judge McConnell rebuked that position Thursday, saying the administration’s delays were “simply unacceptable.” In a strongly worded order, he chastised officials for allowing Americans to go hungry during the shutdown. “People have gone without for too long. Not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable,” McConnell wrote. “This should never happen in America.”
The ongoing dispute over SNAP funding marks the first time in the program’s 61-year history that benefits have been disrupted due to a federal government shutdown. Advocacy groups, including Democracy Forward, have filed lawsuits challenging the administration’s handling of the payments, arguing that withholding food aid during a shutdown violates federal law and puts millions of vulnerable households at risk.
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated Friday’s Supreme Court order, writing on X that “The Supreme Court just granted our administrative stay in this case. Our attorneys will not stop fighting, day and night, to defend and advance President Trump’s agenda.”
For families dependent on SNAP, however, the ruling means continued uncertainty. Reports from across the country indicate that many households have already begun skipping meals or surviving on what little food remains in their pantries. In cities like Detroit, Atlanta, and Newark, families have turned to food banks to fill the gap while awaiting word on when—or if—their full November benefits will arrive.
As the case moves forward in the appeals court, millions of Americans remain in limbo, anxiously watching the legal and political battle unfold over the very aid that keeps food on their tables.
President Donald Trump’s administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt a lower court order requiring the federal government to issue full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments for November, escalating the legal fight over food aid during the ongoing government shutdown.
The appeal came Friday after an appellate court refused to suspend the order, which directed the administration to release the full monthly benefits despite limited contingency funds. The Trump administration argued that complying with the directive would unlawfully compel it to spend money not appropriated by Congress.
In its Supreme Court filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned that several states were “trying to seize what they could of the agency’s finite set of remaining funds, before any appeal could even be filed,” adding that “once those billions are out the door, there is no ready mechanism for the government to recover those funds.”
The SNAP program, which provides food assistance to about one in eight Americans, has become the latest flashpoint in the broader budget standoff between the White House and congressional Democrats. A federal judge had ruled Thursday that the administration must pay the full November benefits, rejecting its plan to issue only 65% of the monthly allotment.
Despite the pending appeal, some states moved swiftly to distribute the full benefits. Officials in California, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Hawaii confirmed that payments were already being processed for millions of residents. Wisconsin released over $104 million in food aid to roughly 337,000 households shortly after midnight Friday.
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said state employees “worked through the night” to ensure families could access food by Friday. Hawaii also submitted its payment requests early to avoid a potential freeze by the Supreme Court. “We moved with haste once we verified everything,” said Joseph Campos II of Hawaii’s Department of Human Services.
Other states, including New York, Colorado, and Massachusetts, announced that full SNAP benefits could be available by the weekend, while North Carolina and Illinois issued partial payments as they awaited further guidance. Delaware’s Gov. Matt Meyer said his state used its own funds to provide emergency weekly food assistance.
The administration’s Supreme Court request follows weeks of uncertainty for millions of low-income households. SNAP recipients can receive up to nearly $300 monthly for individuals and around $1,000 for a family of four, depending on income. For many, those funds are essential.
In Newark, New Jersey, single mother and college student Jasmen Youngbey said she was down to a zero balance before her SNAP benefits arrived late Friday. “Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, ‘OK, I’m going to go and get this,’ especially with the cost of food right now,” she said. Another resident, Tihinna Franklin, said she had only nine cents left on her card. “If I don’t get it, I won’t be eating,” she said.
The administration had initially said SNAP funds would not be available in November due to the shutdown, but two judges ruled otherwise, ordering it to use an emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion and other available funds to make full payments costing between $8.5 billion and $9 billion.
Calling the rulings unconstitutional, the Justice Department argued that the judiciary had “made a mockery of the separation of powers” by forcing the executive branch to spend unappropriated funds. Attorneys for cities and nonprofits challenging the administration disagreed, saying the government had the money and should not delay critical food aid.
As the legal battle reaches the nation’s highest court, millions of Americans remain caught in the middle—waiting for clarity on whether they will continue to receive the food assistance that helps them get by.
A former British soldier said Friday that he would fight extradition to Kenya where he faces charges of murder in the death of a woman whose decomposed body was found in a septic tank 13 years ago.
Robert James Purkiss, 38, appeared in Westminster Magistrates’ Court to contest his transfer to Kenya, where he is charged in the killing of Agnes Wanjiru, who was last seen leaving a hotel bar with British soldiers in the town of Nanyuki, near a British army training ground.
British soldiers on leave had been drinking heavily on March 31, 2012, at a hotel where they were known to pay local women for sex, Prosecutor Joel Smith said.
Wanjiru, 21, had left her baby daughter with a friend that night and said she was going to “hustle for her daughter,” Smith said.
“She was never seen alive again,” Smith said.
Smith said Purkiss confessed to other soldiers that he killed Wanjiru.
One soldier, who had been drinking that night, said he saw Purkiss crying. “When he was asked why, the defendant said ‘I’ve killed her,'” Smith said.
Purkiss did not enter a plea but shook his head as the prosecutor described the evidence against him.
Defense lawyer David Josse said Purkiss, who is self-employed and works from the home he shares with his wife and two children, “vehemently denies” the murder charge.
Smith said Purkiss told another colleague that it was “sex that went wrong” and led a soldier to the septic tank to view the body.
A postmortem examination concluded that Wanjiru may have been alive when she was dumped in the tank, Smith said.
Wanjiru’s family has been seeking justice for years and their representative met with British Defense Secretary John Healey, who pledged his support after the Nairobi court in September ordered the arrest of Purkiss, who was not publicly named at the time.
District Judge Briony Clarke rejected a request to release Purkiss. He was remanded to custody until a Nov. 14 bail hearing.
The case has drawn attention to the conduct of British military personnel stationed abroad and the challenges of seeking accountability across international borders. Wanjiru’s death occurred in 2012 near a British army training facility in Nanyuki, but charges were not brought until more than a decade later.
The prosecutor’s account in Westminster Magistrates’ Court painted a disturbing picture of the night Wanjiru disappeared. The young mother had left her infant daughter with a friend to earn money, only to encounter British soldiers who were drinking at a local hotel. The hotel was reportedly a location where British military personnel were known to engage local women for paid sexual encounters.
The alleged confession to fellow soldiers adds a particularly significant element to the prosecution’s case. According to court testimony, Purkiss was seen crying and admitted to killing Wanjiru when questioned by another soldier. The prosecutor stated that Purkiss also described the incident as “sex that went wrong” and reportedly led at least one other soldier to view the body in the septic tank.
The postmortem finding that Wanjiru may have been alive when placed in the septic tank adds a horrifying dimension to the case, suggesting she may have suffered before her death in the confined space.
The lengthy delay between Wanjiru’s death in 2012 and the current extradition proceedings in 2025 raises questions about why it took more than 13 years for charges to be brought. The Nairobi court’s September order for Purkiss’s arrest marked a turning point in the case, though authorities initially did not publicly identify him by name.
The involvement of British Defense Secretary John Healey, who met with representatives of Wanjiru’s family and pledged support, indicates high-level British government engagement with the case. This support suggests recognition of the serious nature of the allegations and the need for accountability when British military personnel are accused of crimes abroad.
Purkiss’s current circumstances, living with his wife and two children while working as a self-employed individual, contrast sharply with the allegations he faces. His defense lawyer’s statement that he “vehemently denies” the murder charge sets up what could be a lengthy legal battle over extradition.
The judge’s decision to deny bail and remand Purkiss to custody until the November 14 bail hearing indicates the court’s assessment of the seriousness of the charges and potentially concerns about flight risk given the international nature of the case.
The extradition proceedings will likely examine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify transferring Purkiss to Kenya to face trial, as well as whether such a transfer would be compatible with his human rights under British and European law. British extradition law requires courts to assess both the strength of the evidence and whether extradition would be proportionate and compatible with the defendant’s rights.
For Wanjiru’s family, the extradition hearing represents a crucial step toward potential justice after more than a decade of waiting. The young mother’s death left behind a baby daughter who is now a teenager, growing up without her mother and seeking answers about what happened that night in Nanyuki.
The case also highlights broader issues about military justice, the conduct of armed forces personnel abroad, and the mechanisms for holding service members accountable when alleged crimes occur in foreign countries. The presence of British troops at training facilities in Kenya has been longstanding, but this case raises questions about oversight and the behavior of soldiers during off-duty hours.
WHITESTOWN, Ind. (BN24) — Authorities are considering whether to charge an Indiana homeowner who they say shot and killed a woman working as a house cleaner after she mistakenly went to the wrong address.
Police officers found 32-year-old Maria Florinda Rios Perez De Velasquez dead just before 7 a.m. Wednesday on the front porch of the home in Whitestown, an Indianapolis suburb of about 10,000 people, according to a police news release. She was part of a cleaning crew that had gone to the wrong address, the release said.
Rios Perez’s husband, Mauricio Velazquez, told WRTV in Indianapolis that he and his wife had been cleaning homes for seven months. Velazquez said he was standing with her at the home’s front door on Wednesday morning but did not realize she had been shot until she fell into his arms, bleeding.
On a fundraising page, her brother described Rios Perez as a mother of four children. Police said Friday that she was from Indianapolis but the family plans to bury her in Guatemala, according to her obituary and her brother’s fundraising page. The Associated Press was not able to reach family members directly on Friday.
Authorities have not publicly identified the shooter. Police turned over the findings from their investigation to Boone County Prosecutor Kent Eastwood on Friday afternoon, but the prosecutor said the decision on whether to file charges will not be easy.
The case brings Indiana’s castle doctrine laws squarely into play, he said. Those laws allow a person to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to stop what they reasonably believe is an unlawful entry into their dwelling. Thirty-one states have similar laws on the books, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In similar cases elsewhere, prosecutors have successfully brought charges against people who opened fire outside their homes, including a guilty plea by an 86-year-old man who shot Ralph Yarl after the Black teenager came to his door by mistake. In New York, a man was convicted of second-degree murder for fatally shooting a woman inside a car who came down his driveway by mistake.
Eastwood said he will have to pore over investigators’ findings to understand what happened in the moments leading up to the shooting. That means reviewing “every second” of witnesses’ taped interviews and doorbell footage if police bring him any, he said.
“You need to understand all the details so you can understand what happened and what is reasonable,” Eastwood said. “One of the hardest things today in this world is to agree on what’s reasonable. As a prosecutor, those are things we have to grapple with.”
The tragedy unfolded early Wednesday morning as the cleaning crew arrived at what they believed was their scheduled work location. The fatal mistake of going to the wrong address resulted in the deadly confrontation on the front porch, leaving Rios Perez dead at the scene.
The husband’s account of standing beside his wife at the door and not immediately realizing she had been shot adds a particularly harrowing dimension to the incident. Velazquez’s statement that he only understood what had happened when she collapsed bleeding into his arms underscores the sudden and shocking nature of the violence.
The couple had been working together as house cleaners for seven months, building a business to support their family of four children. The family’s plan to bury Rios Perez in Guatemala suggests she maintained strong ties to her home country.
The prosecutor’s reference to castle doctrine laws highlights the legal complexity facing his office. These self-defense statutes, which exist in 31 states, generally permit homeowners to use deadly force against perceived threats to their property. However, the application of such laws can vary significantly based on specific circumstances.
The prosecutor’s statement about the difficulty of determining what is “reasonable” reflects broader debates about self-defense laws and their application in cases where fatal force is used against people who pose no actual threat. Eastwood’s indication that he must carefully review every detail of the investigation, including witness interviews and potential doorbell camera footage, suggests a thorough examination of whether the shooting meets legal standards for justified use of deadly force.
The reference to similar cases in other jurisdictions, including the Ralph Yarl shooting in Missouri and the New York driveway shooting conviction, provides context for how prosecutors have approached comparable situations. These cases suggest that opening fire on someone outside a home who made an innocent mistake can result in criminal charges, despite castle doctrine protections.
The Whitestown community, a small suburb of approximately 10,000 residents located northwest of Indianapolis, now faces questions about how such a tragic mistake could result in a fatal shooting. The incident raises concerns about how homeowners respond to unexpected visitors and whether deadly force is being used too quickly in situations that could be resolved without violence.
As Boone County Prosecutor Eastwood weighs his decision, the case has drawn attention to the intersection of self-defense laws, reasonable use of force and the tragic consequences that can result from simple mistakes. The outcome of his review will have significant implications not only for the unnamed homeowner but also for how similar cases might be handled in Indiana and potentially influence discussions about castle doctrine laws more broadly.
The family’s fundraising efforts and plans to repatriate Rios Perez’s body to Guatemala reflect the personal tragedy behind the legal questions. A mother of four who was simply trying to earn a living through honest work lost her life because of a wrong address, leaving her husband, children and extended family to grapple with a senseless loss.
WASHINGTON (BN24) — President Donald Trump’s administration asked a federal appeals court Friday to block a judge’s order that it distribute November’s full monthly SNAP food benefits amid a U.S. government shutdown, even as at least some states said they were moving quickly to get the money to people.
The judge gave the Republican administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked the appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.
The court filing came even as the U.S. Department of Agriculture said in a memo to states that it’s working to make funds available Friday for full monthly SNAP benefits.
Officials in California, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin confirmed that some SNAP recipients already have been issued their full November payments.
“Food benefits are now beginning to flow back to California families,” Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.
In Wisconsin, more than $104 million of monthly food benefits became available at midnight on electronic cards for about 337,000 households, a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said. The state was able to access the federal money so quickly by submitting a request to its electronic benefit card vendor to process the SNAP payments within hours of Thursday’s court order to provide full benefits.
Some other states did the same, and yet others said Friday that they were waiting for federal guidance.
The court wrangling prolonged weeks of uncertainty for the food program that serves about one in eight Americans, mostly with lower incomes.
An individual can receive a monthly maximum food benefit of nearly $300 and a family of four up to nearly $1,000, although many receive less than that under a formula that takes into consideration their income.
For some SNAP participants, it remained unclear when they would receive their benefits.
Jasmen Youngbey of Newark, New Jersey, waited in line Friday at a food pantry in the state’s largest city. As a single mom attending college, Youngbey said she relies on SNAP to help feed her 7-month-old and 4-year-old sons. But she said her account balance was at zero dollars.
“Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, ‘OK, I’m going to go and get this,’ especially with the cost of food right now,” she said.
Later Friday, Youngbey said, she received her monthly SNAP benefits.
Tihinna Franklin, a school bus guard who was waiting in the same line outside the United Community Corporation food pantry, said her SNAP account balance was at 9 cents and she was down to three items in her freezer. She typically relies on the roughly $290 a month in SNAP benefits to help feed her grandchildren.
“If I don’t get it, I won’t be eating,” she said. “My money I get paid for, that goes to the bills, rent, electricity, personal items. That is not fair to us as mothers and caregivers.”
Because of the federal government shutdown, the Trump administration originally had said SNAP benefits would not be available in November. However, two judges ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the shutdown. One of those judges was U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the full payments Thursday.
In both cases, the judges ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.
On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.
Thursday’s federal court order rejected the Trump administration’s decision to cover only 65 percent of the maximum monthly benefit, a decision that could have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.
In its court filing Friday, Trump’s administration contended that Thursday’s directive to fund full SNAP benefits runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.
“This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend,” the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in its request to the court.
In response, attorneys for the cities and nonprofits challenging Trump’s administration said the government has plenty of available money and the court should “not allow them to further delay getting vital food assistance to individuals and families who need it now.”
Some states said they stood ready to distribute SNAP money as quickly as possible.
Democratic Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said SNAP recipients should receive their full November payments as soon as Saturday. In New York, access to full SNAP benefits should begin by Sunday, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul said.
Republican New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte said SNAP recipients should have access to full benefits by this weekend. And Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, said full benefits should be available in the next several days.
Officials in North Carolina said they distributed partial SNAP payments Friday and full benefits could be available by this weekend. Officials in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana and North Dakota also said they distributed partial November payments.
Amid the federal uncertainty, Delaware’s Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer said the state used its own funds Friday to provide the first of what could be a weekly relief payment to SNAP recipients.
The legal battle represents a fundamental dispute over executive and judicial authority during government shutdowns. The Trump administration’s constitutional argument centers on the principle that Congress alone holds the power to appropriate federal funds, and that courts cannot compel spending beyond what has been authorized by the legislative branch.
The appeals court filing creates additional uncertainty for millions of Americans who depend on SNAP benefits for their basic food needs. While some states have moved forward with distributions based on Thursday’s court order, the appeals process could potentially disrupt those payments or create confusion about future benefits.
The divergent approaches taken by different states highlight the complex federal-state relationship in administering SNAP benefits. Some states acted within hours of the court order, while others waited for clearer federal guidance, and at least one state used its own funds to bridge the gap.
The personal accounts from SNAP recipients like Youngbey and Franklin illustrate the real-world impact of the legal and political disputes. For families living paycheck to paycheck, the difference between full and partial benefits, or between receiving benefits on time versus experiencing delays, can mean the difference between having adequate food or going hungry.
The emergency reserve fund at the center of the dispute contains more than $4.6 billion, but monthly SNAP costs range between $8.5 billion and $9 billion, creating a shortfall that has become the focal point of legal arguments about funding obligations during the shutdown.
The Trump administration’s position that additional funds are needed for other child hunger programs adds another dimension to the dispute, suggesting competing priorities within federal nutrition assistance programs during the shutdown.
As the appeals process moves forward, SNAP recipients across the country face continued uncertainty about their benefits, while states must navigate conflicting signals from federal courts and the executive branch about how to proceed with distributions.
A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration on Thursday to find the money to fully fund food stamps for 42 million low-income Americans in November by Friday, in a rebuke to the government’s plan to only provide reduced aid during the shutdown.
U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. criticized the administration’s plan to partly fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits in November, saying it had failed to comply with an order he issued on Saturday requiring the government to ensure Americans received full or partial benefits no later than Wednesday.
He also said the administration plowed ahead with a plan to partly cover benefits without addressing, as required, the fact that in many states, it could take weeks or months to implement the reduced benefits.
“The evidence shows that people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur,” McConnell said. “That’s what irreparable harm here means.”
The judge added: “This should never happen in America.”
McConnell gave the Trump administration until Friday to make the payments through SNAP, though it is unlikely that the people who rely on it will see the money on the debit cards they use for groceries that quickly.
“The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP,” McConnell said. “They knew that there would be a long delay in paying partial SNAP payments and failed to consider the harms individuals who rely on those benefits would suffer.”
This type of order is usually not subject to an appeal, but the Trump administration has challenged similar rulings before.
The ruling comes in response to a challenge to the administration’s offer to only partly fund U.S. food benefits amid the shutdown.
The plaintiffs want the SNAP program, which is a major component of the nation’s social safety net and serves about one in eight Americans, to be fully funded. Some states, including New York, Oregon and Virginia, declared states of emergency last week to provide funds that would keep benefits available. But the amounts provided were expected to amount to a fraction of normal federal government funding. The federal costs of SNAP amount to about $8 billion a month across the U.S.
The Trump administration said last month it would not pay benefits at all for November because of the federal shutdown. Last week, in separate rulings, two judges ordered the government to pay at least part of the benefits using an emergency fund. The administration initially said it would cover half, but later said it would cover 65 percent.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s insistence last month that benefits for November would not be paid because of the shutdown set off a scramble by food banks, state governments and the millions of Americans who receive the aid to find ways to ensure access to groceries.
Kristin Bateman, a lawyer for the coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations that challenged the government, told the judge the administration had other reasons for not fully funding the benefits.
“What defendants are really trying to do is to leverage people’s hunger to gain partisan political advantage in the shutdown fight,” Bateman told the court.
The judge’s order represents a significant legal setback for the Trump administration’s handling of federal benefits during the government shutdown. McConnell’s ruling emphasized the immediate human consequences of the administration’s partial funding approach, highlighting that vulnerable Americans would face food insecurity while states struggled to implement modified benefit systems.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program serves as a critical lifeline for millions of American families, providing essential food assistance to those facing economic hardship. The program’s scope, serving approximately one in eight Americans, underscores its importance to the nation’s social safety net infrastructure.
The legal challenge brought by cities and nonprofit organizations argued that the administration’s approach violated federal obligations to program beneficiaries. The coalition’s attorney suggested political motivations behind the funding decisions, framing the partial funding plan as an attempt to use food assistance as leverage in broader political disputes.
State-level emergency responses to the federal funding uncertainty demonstrated the widespread concern about potential gaps in food assistance. The emergency declarations by New York, Oregon and Virginia aimed to provide stopgap measures, though state resources represented only a small fraction of the typical federal investment in the program.
The months-long implementation timeline for reduced benefits in many states emerged as a critical factor in the judge’s decision. McConnell emphasized that the administration failed to adequately consider these practical obstacles when developing its partial funding strategy, potentially leaving beneficiaries without any assistance during extended transition periods.
The judge’s characterization of the situation as something that “should never happen in America” reflected strong judicial concern about the human impact of administrative decisions affecting food security for tens of millions of citizens.
The Trump administration’s evolving position on November benefits, from initially announcing no payments to offering 50 percent and then 65 percent coverage, suggested ongoing internal deliberations about how to manage program funding during the shutdown while facing legal pressure.
The tight Friday deadline imposed by Judge McConnell creates significant logistical challenges for benefit distribution, with the judge acknowledging that recipients may not see funds immediately available on their benefit cards despite the court-ordered payment deadline.
The case highlights broader tensions between executive branch decisions during government shutdowns and judicial oversight of federal obligations to vulnerable populations who depend on consistent access to essential government services.
Israeli jets struck several towns in southern Lebanon on Thursday after urging residents to leave, marking an escalation in their near-daily strikes on the country.
The airstrikes came hours after militant group Hezbollah urged the Lebanese government not to enter negotiations with Israel.
Israeli Arabic spokesperson Avichay Adraee warned residents in Tayba near the border, Teir Debba located just east of the coastal city of Tyre, and Aita al-Jabal in southern Lebanon, to flee 500 meters, about 1,600 feet, away from residential buildings they are targeting, which they say have been used by Hezbollah. The military later issued additional warnings for the towns of Zawtar al-Sharqiyah and Kfar Dounin.
The Israeli military said it targeted military infrastructure for Hezbollah in those areas, including “weapons storage facilities… constructed in the center of civilian-populated areas.”
Israel accused the group of rebuilding its capabilities almost a year after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire went into effect that ended a monthslong war. While most residents evacuated the threatened areas ahead of the strikes, Lebanon’s health ministry reported one person wounded.
“We will not allow Hezbollah to rearm themselves, to recover, build back up its strength to threaten the state of Israel,” Israeli government spokesperson Shosh Bedrosian said at a briefing Thursday.
The strikes came as Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and his government met in Beirut to follow up on a plan drafted by the Lebanese military to disarm Hezbollah and other non-state armed groups in the country. Information Minister Paul Morcos said, following the meeting, that the cabinet “commended the progress (the army) has made… despite continued obstacles, foremost among which is the continuation of Israeli hostilities.”
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has been critical of Israel’s strikes and ongoing occupation of five hilltop points on Lebanese territory but has said he is open to negotiations with Israel to end the tensions.
Aoun said in a statement after Thursday’s strikes that “every time Lebanon expresses its openness to peaceful negotiations… Israel intensifies its aggression.”
“Nearly a year has passed since the ceasefire came into effect, and during that time, Israel has spared no effort to demonstrate its rejection of any negotiated settlement between the two countries,” he said. “Your message has been received.”
Israel says its near-daily strikes have targeted Hezbollah officials and military infrastructure, while the Lebanese government that has backed disarming Hezbollah says the strikes have targeted civilians and infrastructure unrelated to the Iran-backed group.
The powerful group’s military capabilities were severely damaged in Israel’s intense air campaign over the tiny country in 2024, but Hezbollah has yet to disarm and its leader Sheikh Naim Kassem has said that the group will be ready to fight no matter how limited their capabilities might be.
Both sides have accused each other of violating the ceasefire, which nominally ended the latest Israel-Hezbollah war last November. The conflict started after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel that triggered the war in Gaza.
Hezbollah began firing rockets into northern Israel in support of Hamas and the Palestinians, prompting Israeli airstrikes and artillery shelling in return. The low-level exchanges escalated into full-scale war in September 2024.
Lebanon’s health ministry has reported more than 270 people killed and around 850 wounded by Israeli military actions since the ceasefire took effect. As of Oct. 9, the U.N. human rights office had verified that 107 of those killed were civilians or noncombatants, said spokesperson Thameen Al-Kheetan.
No Israelis have been killed by fire from Lebanon since the ceasefire. Hezbollah has claimed one attack since the agreement took effect.
Also Thursday, the U.S. Treasury announced a new set of sanctions that it said target “financial operatives who oversee the movement of funds from Iran” to Hezbollah, including through licensed and unlicensed money exchanges shops that it said “fail to conduct adequate screening on their customers” and allow Hezbollah “to take advantage of Lebanon’s largely cash-based economy to launder illicit money.”
The escalating strikes raise questions about the durability of the ceasefire agreement brokered by the United States nearly a year ago. The agreement was intended to provide lasting stability along the Israel-Lebanon border, but implementation has been complicated by mutual accusations of violations and continued military operations.
The Israeli government maintains that its actions are defensive measures necessary to prevent Hezbollah from reconstituting its military capabilities and threatening Israeli citizens. Israeli officials point to intelligence indicating that Hezbollah has been working to rebuild weapons stockpiles and military infrastructure in southern Lebanon despite the ceasefire terms.
The Lebanese government, meanwhile, faces the complex challenge of implementing its plan to disarm Hezbollah and other armed groups while managing Israeli military operations that officials say undermine the state’s authority and complicate efforts to extend government control throughout the country.
The international community has expressed concern about the escalating violence and the potential for the ceasefire to completely collapse. The continued strikes and casualties demonstrate the fragile nature of the current arrangement and the deep-seated tensions that remain unresolved between Israel and Hezbollah.
The situation also highlights broader regional dynamics, with Iran’s continued support for Hezbollah remaining a key factor in the conflict. The U.S. Treasury sanctions announced Thursday reflect American efforts to cut off financial flows to the militant group, though enforcement of such measures in Lebanon’s cash-based economy presents significant challenges.
As the first anniversary of the ceasefire approaches, the pattern of near-daily Israeli strikes and the mounting death toll suggest that a more comprehensive diplomatic solution will be necessary to establish genuine peace and security along the Israel-Lebanon border.
AUSTIN, Texas (BN24) — Tesla shareholders approved an epic $1 trillion pay package for Elon Musk on Thursday, after the mercurial boss threatened to leave the company if he did not receive it.
The eye-popping compensation is the largest on record and could make Musk the world’s first trillionaire, although he will first have to hit a series of performance targets that stretch across the next decade. The 54-year-old is already the world’s richest person with a fortune of $490.1 billion, according to Forbes.
More than 75% of shareholders voted in favor of the proposal, according to a preliminary tally announced at Tesla’s annual meeting. The vote signaled a major show of confidence for Musk despite a recent rough patch for Tesla’s stock, which has been weighed down by a sales slump.
“Fantastic group of shareholders,” Musk said after the final vote was tallied, adding “Hang on to your Tesla stock.”
Stock will be awarded to Musk in a set of 12 tranches. He would receive his first round of stock if Tesla hits a $2 trillion valuation and delivers 20 million vehicles. He gets another tranche if Tesla reaches a market capitalization of $3 trillion and delivers 1 million of its “Optimus” humanoid robots.
If Tesla scales all of the hurdles, its market value would explode to $8.5 trillion, with Musk owning about a quarter of the company’s shares. Musk also has to deliver 20 million Tesla electric vehicles to the market over 10 years amid new, stiff competition, more than double the number since the founding of the company.
Even if Tesla only achieves the first two benchmarks, Musk himself will have earned $26 billion, more than the total lifetime pay of Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Apple’s Tim Cook and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang combined, according to a recent Reuters analysis.
The vote is a resounding victory for Musk showing investors still have faith in him as Tesla struggles with plunging sales, market share and profits in no small part due to Musk himself. Car buyers fled the company this year as he has ventured into politics both in the U.S. and Europe, and trafficked in conspiracy theories.
The vote came just three days after a report from Europe showing Tesla car sales plunged again last month, including a 50 percent collapse in Germany.
It was also a major relief for Tesla’s board of directors, which had warned that Musk could ditch the company altogether if the vote failed.
The payout package prevailed despite critics that included Pope Leo XIV, who said it flies in the face of “the value of human life, of the family, of the value of society.” Norway’s giant oil fund, a major Tesla investor, also voted against it.
Key proxy advisory firms ISS and Glass Lewis told shareholders to nix the deal, arguing it was excessive. Musk pushed back, declaring in an Oct. 29 X post that “control of Tesla could affect the future of civilization.”
Musk’s win came despite opposition from several large funds, including CalPERS, the biggest U.S. public pension, and Norway’s sovereign wealth fund. Two corporate watchdogs, Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, also blasted the package, which so angered Musk he took to calling them “corporate terrorists” at a recent investor meeting.
Ron Baron, a major Tesla shareholder, said he was in favor of the deal. “Elon is the ultimate ‘key man’ of key man risk,” Baron wrote on X. “Without his relentless drive and uncompromising standards, there would be no Tesla.”
The compensation plan does not require Musk to limit his involvement in politics, a key concern for some shareholders who linked his work with President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency to Tesla’s sales woes earlier this year.
Tesla’s board argued that Musk’s leadership is essential in order for the company to navigate its complex plans to roll out millions of “Optimus” humanoid robots and self-driving taxis in the coming years.
“If we build this robot army, do I have at least a strong influence over that robot army?” Musk said during the company’s third-quarter earnings call. “I don’t feel comfortable building that robot army if I don’t have at least a strong influence.”
Supporters said that Musk needed to be incentivized to focus on the company as he works to transform it into an AI powerhouse using software to operate hundreds of thousands of self-driving Tesla cars, many without steering wheels, and Tesla robots deployed in offices, factories and homes doing many tasks now handled by humans.
“This AI chapter needs one person to lead it and that’s Musk,” said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. “It’s a huge win for shareholders.”
Critics argued that the board of directors was too beholden to Musk, his behavior too reckless lately and the riches offered too much. “He has hundreds of billions of dollars already in the company and to say that he won’t stay without a trillion is ridiculous,” said Sam Abuelsamid, an analyst at research firm Telemetry who has been covering Tesla for nearly two decades. “It’s absurd that shareholders think he is worth this much.”
Jessica Strine, CEO of shareholder advisory firm Jasper Street Partners, said that many shareholders likely felt they had no choice but to support the company and its well-known CEO on the key proxy questions.
Assuming Musk voted his roughly 15 percent stake “for” his own compensation, a win of 75 percent for his $1 trillion package would indicate that only 60 percent of outside investors supported it. At a typical company that level of support for compensation would warrant review of CEO pay by the board but not, she said, at Tesla. “Realistically there is not going to be such a review. Never say never. But, never,” she said.
Tesla’s board crafted the historic pay plan after a Delaware judge struck down a $56 billion compensation plan for Musk. The judge ruled that the previous package, which was approved in 2018, was excessive and riddled with conflicts of interest.
Musk was so incensed by the decision, which remains tied up in court, that he moved Tesla’s state of incorporation to Texas from Delaware.
Investors voting for the pay had to consider not only this Musk promise of a bold, new tomorrow, but whether he could ruin things today. He had threatened to walk away from the company, which investors feared would tank the stock.
For his part, Musk says the vote was not really about the money but getting a higher Tesla stake, it will double to nearly 30 percent, so he could have more power over the company. He said that was a pressing concern given Tesla’s future “robot army” that he suggested he did not trust anyone else to control given the possible danger to humanity.
Ahead of the vote, the Kalshi prediction market projected a 92 percent chance that shareholders would support the pay package.
The Tesla board urged shareholders to back the proposal in a message posted ahead of the meeting on the company’s website, which read: “the future of Tesla is in your hands.”
“We are at a pivotal juncture in Tesla’s history, and the proposals the Special Committee has carefully designed and the Board has put forward will help determine Tesla’s future,” the message stated. “If you believe, like us, that Elon is the CEO that can make our ambitious vision a reality, vote NOW.”
Tesla shares are up nearly 20 percent since the start of the year despite a series of dismal earnings results as the company navigates concerns related to its aging car lineup and increased competition from the likes of BYD and other Chinese electric car firms. Tesla shares, already up 80 percent in the past year, rose on news of the vote in after-hours trading but then flattened basically unchanged to $445.44.
In July, Musk admitted that he saw “a few rough quarters” ahead for Tesla, but said the outlook would improve once the company achieved “autonomy at scale in the second half of next year.”
Other issues up for a vote at the annual meeting turned out wins for Musk, too. Shareholders approved allowing Tesla to invest in one of Musk’s other ventures, xAI. They also shot down a proposal to make it easier for shareholders to sue the company by lowering the size of ownership needed to file. The current rule requires at least a 3 percent stake.
Musk could add billions to his wealth in a few years by partly delivering these goals, according to various intermediate steps that will hand him newly created stock in the company as he nears the ultimate targets.
That could help him eventually top what is now considered America’s all-time richest man, John D. Rockefeller. The railroad titan is estimated by Guinness World Records to have been worth $630 billion, in current dollars, at his peak wealth more than 110 years ago. Musk is worth $493 billion, as estimated by Forbes magazine.
Musk’s just-approved pay package is worth almost as much as the gross domestic product of Poland, a nation of 36 million people. In fact, a World Bank table of GDP per country in 2024 shows that the $878 billion award would rank just below the Polish economy, at $915 billion. It is double the GDP of Bangladesh, a nation of 174 million people. Only 20 countries had a 2024 GDP larger than the Musk deal, according to the table.
