��������

WEST PALM BEACH: The US military has carried out another lethal strike on alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean Sea, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Saturday.
Hegseth in a social media posting said the vessel was operated by a US-designated terrorist organization but did not name which group was targeted. He said three people were killed in the strike.
It’s at least the 15th such strike carried out by the US military in the Caribbean or eastern Pacific since early September.
“This vessel— like EVERY OTHER— was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics,” Hegseth said in a posting on X.
The US military has now killed at least 64 people in the strikes.
Trump has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States. He has asserted the US is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, relying on the same legal authority used by the Bush administration when it declared a war on terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The strikes come as the Trump administration has deployed an unusually large force of warships in the region.
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has decried the military operations, as well as the US military buildup, as a thinly veiled effort by the US administration aimed at ousting him from power.
The Trump administration has yet to show evidence to support its claims about the boats that have been attacked, their connection to drug cartels, or even the identity of the people killed in the strikes.

NEW YORK: President Donald Trump’s request to add a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form cannot be enforced, a federal judge ruled Friday.
US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., sided with Democratic and civil rights groups that sued the Trump administration over his executive order to overhaul US elections.
She ruled that the proof-of-citizenship directive is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, dealing a blow to the administration and its allies who have argued that such a mandate is necessary to restore public confidence that only Americans are voting in US elections.
“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her opinion.
She further emphasized that on matters related to setting qualifications for voting and regulating federal election procedures “the Constitution assigns no direct role to the President in either domain.”
Kollar-Kotelly echoed comments she made when she granted a preliminary injunction over the issue.
The ruling grants the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment that prohibits the proof-of-citizenship requirement from going into effect. It says the US Election Assistance Commission, which has been considering adding the requirement to the federal voter form, is permanently barred from taking action to do so.
In a statement, Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU, one of the plaintiffs in the case, called the ruling “a clear victory for our democracy. President Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab.”
The White House disagreed with the judge’s ruling in a statement late Friday.
“President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to ensure only American citizens are casting ballots in American elections,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson. “This is so commonsense that only the Democrat Party would file a lawsuit against it. We expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”
While a top priority for Republicans, attempts to implement documentary proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting have been fraught. The US House passed a citizenship mandate last spring that has stalled in the Senate, and several attempts to pass similar legislation in the states have proved equally difficult.
Such requirements have created problems and confusion for voters when they have taken effect at the state level. It presents particular hurdles for married women who have changed their name, since they might need to show birth certificates and marriage certificates as well as state IDs. Those complications arose earlier this year when a proof-of-citizenship requirement took effect for the first time during local elections in New Hampshire.
In Kansas, a proof-of-citizenship requirement that was in effect for three years created chaos before it was overturned in federal court. Some 30,000 otherwise eligible people were prevented from registering to vote.
Voting by noncitizens also has been shown to be rare.
The lawsuit brought by the DNC and various civil rights groups will continue to play out to allow the judge to consider other challenges to Trump’s order. That includes a requirement that all mailed ballots be received, rather than just postmarked, by Election Day.
Other lawsuits against Trump’s election executive order are ongoing.
In early April, 19 Democratic state attorneys general asked a separate federal court to reject Trump’s executive order. Washington and Oregon, where virtually all voting is done with mailed ballots, followed with their own lawsuit against the order.