News
With a Round of 32 spot already clinched, the U.S. takes on Turkey in the World Cup
Folarin Balogun (r) of the U.S. celebrates scoring his team’s second goal with Weston McKennie during their World Cup match against Paraguay on June 12 in Inglewood, Calif. The U.S. defeated Paraguay and, later, Australia. The U.S. wraps up group play against Turkey on Thursday evening. Win, lose or draw, the U.S. has already won its group and will advance to the knockout round.
Richard Heathcote/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Richard Heathcote/Getty Images
INGLEWOOD, Calif. — For the U.S. men’s national soccer team, a loss in Thursday night’s FIFA World Cup game against Turkey wouldn’t change anything.
A win, though, would be history.

The squad’s earlier wins over Paraguay and Australia, plus two losses by Turkey to the same teams, mean the Americans have already won their group and clinched a favorable path in the knockout round, no matter the outcome of Thursday’s game.
But the American men have never won more than two games in a single World Cup. A third win would be new territory for this team, which has not been shy about its aspirations in this tournament and its confidence about living up to them.
“The group stage is not done yet. We want to end it the right way. We want to end it the way we came into it and continue to build off of the momentum that we’ve been creating,” said defender Mark McKenzie, speaking to reporters Wednesday.

Because the outcome of the game does not affect knockout-round placement, the U.S. can rest key starters who will enter the match with a yellow card. For those players — defenders Antonee Robinson and Chris Richards, midfielder Tyler Adams and forward Folarin Balogun — picking up a second yellow card against Turkey would result in a suspension in the Round of 32. (Any single yellow cards will be cleared after the group stage concludes.)
The team could also choose to ease in forward Christian Pulisic, who is expected to be available for the game after sitting out the U.S.-Australia game with a minor calf injury.
Turkey had come into the World Cup with high expectations. With talented young stars like the 21-year-old attackers Arda Güler of Real Madrid and Kenan Yildiz of Juventus, the team was thought by many — from analysts to the players themselves — to be a dark horse capable of a deep run.
Instead, they were eliminated last week when their loss to Paraguay followed the U.S. win over Australia, prompting apologies from Turkey’s despondent players to their fans after the game.
On Wednesday, Yildiz echoed that apology and promised to “give our best” in Thursday’s game against the U.S. “We had high expectations. I know because all of our country was supporting us and thought we will come very far,” Yildiz said. “Hopefully for the next game we can make a good result and go out with pride.”
The U.S. and Turkey last faced each other in an international friendly in June 2025, which Turkey won 2-1. The U.S. roster for that game was missing several key players, including Pulisic, Robinson, Balogun and midfielder Weston McKennie.
“We had a really young team, but we went out there and put in a good performance. I don’t think the result necessarily reflected how we played,” Richards said. “Whoever’s on the field, I know we’re going to go out there and give 110 percent.”
News
Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote
A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.
The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.
Casper rejected the Republican administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be put in place. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.
The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” wrote Casper.
Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.
In a statement, New York Attorney General Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.
“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” said James, a Democrat.
A voter casts a ballot during New York’s primary election on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, in New York. (AP Photo/Ryan Murphy)
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle that it s up to the states and Congress to set election rules.
“While we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump’s attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down,” Bonta, a Democrat, said in a statement. “So let me be clear: we will keep fighting back every step of the way.”
Requests for comment sent to the White House and he U.S. Department of Justice were not immediately returned.
The ruling was the latest in a series against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. The Republican president has since signed another executive order on elections that seeks to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.
Last fall, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred Trump’s defense secretary from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.
In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.
On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he would not sign legislation until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.
The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens. Violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.
In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by Election Day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by Election Day.
Casper, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, is the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
News
Video: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries
new video loaded: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries
transcript
transcript
Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.
-
“I see a New York that we can all afford. I see a New York that truly invests in its babies, not bombs.” Reporter: “What’s the first thing you’re looking forward to doing in Congress?” “Well, tomorrow — thank you — I mean, tomorrow morning, you know, I’m going to be back at 26 Federal Plaza doing court watching, and we want to carry that into Congress as well.”
By Julie Yoon
June 24, 2026
News
Appeals court allows Trump administration expanded use of speedy deportations
A massive 826,780-square-foot warehouse sits illuminated Feb. 12, 2026, in the El Paso suburb of Socorro, Texas, that was recently purchased by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for $122.8 million.
Morgan Lee/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Morgan Lee/AP
A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the United States, not just near the border.

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a lower court decision that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s expanded use of expedited removal. The ruling was a big victory for the Republican administration, which views the expansion of so-called expedited removal as a key tool for carrying out its mass deportation policy.
Expedited removal — quick deportation without a chance to appear before a judge — has previously been applied to migrants arriving by sea or caught at or near the border shortly after crossing.
In January, Trump expanded its use to undocumented migrants all over the United States. Immigration agents began whisking migrants away from courthouses where they had gone for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days.
“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.
Balakrishnan represented plaintiffs in arguments before the appellate panel and said its ruling “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”

DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, one of the judges on the panel, said the plaintiffs had not shown the expanded use of expedited removal violated due process rights. Immigrants received notice of removal proceedings and were given a chance to respond, he wrote in his opinion.
Walker and the second judge in the majority, Neomi Rao, were appointed by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
Walker said there was no requirement that the administration inform immigrants that they can avoid expedited removal if they can show they have been in the United States for more than two years.
“The constitutional requirement is notice of the action the government is taking and the grounds for it, plus an opportunity to respond,” he wrote, adding that the plaintiffs’ “contrary reasoning would require immigration officers to provide what amounts to legal advice.”
Walker and Rao vacated an order by U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb that put the expanded use of expedited removal on hold. Cobb, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, ruled in August that the administration had not developed procedures to ensure migrants were not wrongly deported under the expedited process.

The plaintiffs had put forward “substantial evidence” that the expedited removal process, on the contrary, carried a high risk of error when applied more broadly, Cobb said. The ruling cited examples of people who had lived in the U.S. for far longer than two years but were still ordered to be removed in expedited proceedings.
In his opinion, Walker acknowledged evidence of such errors, but said they resulted from “individual officers’ failure to follow the law — not defects in the written directives under review or the procedures they incorporate.”
The Trump administration has argued that its expansion of expedited removal includes protections to prevent arbitrary removal. In a court filing in October, Justice Department attorneys said Cobb’s ruling was an “egregious error” that was depriving the administration of an “essential tool to combat the unprecedented surge of illegal immigration over the past few years” and efficiently deport potentially millions of people.
-
World10 minutes agoMubi to Publish Lost ‘Faust’ Bible on Centenary of F.W. Murnau’s Silent Cinema Classic (EXCLUSIVE)
-
Lifestyle52 minutes agoGreat movies you may have missed : Pop Culture Happy Hour
-
Technology60 minutes agoThe best Apple deals you can get during Prime Day
-
World1 hour agoTrump says Venezuela earthquakes left ‘devastating number of deaths’ as US readies aid
-
Politics1 hour agoClosed-door outburst turns into victory for Trump’s Iran negotiations
-
Health1 hour agoFormer reality star opens up about new diagnosis after years-long health ordeal
-
Sports1 hour agoTerrion Arnold, Lions’ 2024 first-round pick, charged with kidnapping and armed robbery in Florida
-
Business1 hour agoAn electric truck for less than $25,000? Deliveries begin this year