Connect with us

News

New York, Mexico City, Toronto among 16 sites chosen to host 2026 World Cup matches | CNN

Published

on

New York, Mexico City, Toronto among 16 sites chosen to host 2026 World Cup matches | CNN



CNN
 — 

Matches for the 2026 World Cup can be held in 11 US cities in addition to three host websites in Mexico and two in Canada, soccer’s world governing physique, FIFA, introduced Thursday.

The 16 host cities can be: Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Guadalajara, Houston, Kansas Metropolis, Los Angeles, Mexico Metropolis, Miami, Monterrey, New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, Toronto and Vancouver.

FIFA officers will resolve at a later date which of the 16 cities will host group play and which can host elimination spherical matches.

Advertisement

“We congratulate the 16 FIFA World Cup Host Cities on their excellent dedication and keenness,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino stated in a information launch. “At present is a historic day – for everybody in these cities and states, for FIFA, for Canada, the USA and Mexico who will placed on the best present on Earth. We sit up for working along with them to ship what can be an unprecedented FIFA World Cup and a game-changer as we try to make soccer really international.”

The 2026 males’s World Cup would be the first version to function 48 groups and it’s the first time matches can be performed in three nations.

It is going to be the second time the US has hosted the World Cup after the primary in 1994, and a report third time for Mexico, which additionally hosted in 1970 and 1986. It is going to be the primary time a males’s World Cup match has been held in Canada, although the nation did host the Ladies’s World Cup in 2015.

The host cities which might be profitable of their bids might reap big monetary advantages, in line with a 2018 US Soccer examine, with greater than $5 billion in financial exercise created in North America.

The examine stated that these cities chosen to carry World Cup matches might see an estimated $160-$620 million in financial exercise.

Advertisement

READ: Harry Kane reveals discussions on taking collective stand on human rights in Qatar

Correction: A earlier model of this story gave an an incorrect 12 months for a previous World Cup in Mexico. It hosted World Cups in 1970 and 1986.

News

Video: Inside Our Reporter’s Collection of Guantánamo Portraits

Published

on

Video: Inside Our Reporter’s Collection of Guantánamo Portraits

new video loaded: Inside Our Reporter’s Collection of Guantánamo Portraits

Carol Rosenberg, a reporter who has covered the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay since it opened in 2002, describes a collection of stylized portraits of its detainees in the war against terrorism. The photos were taken as part of a Red Cross program for the detainees to communicate with their families.

By Carol Rosenberg, Laura Bult, Coleman Lowndes, Stephanie Swart, June Kim and Zach Caldwell

October 23, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Confused by the legal battles over troop deployments? Here’s what to know

Published

on

Confused by the legal battles over troop deployments? Here’s what to know

A member of the Texas National Guard stands at an army reserve training facility on October 07, 2025 in Elwood, Illinois.

Scott Olson/Getty Images North America


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Scott Olson/Getty Images North America

President Trump’s federalization and deployment of National Guard troops to both Oregon and Illinois are facing a pair of legal litmus tests — including one at the Supreme Court — that could be decided in the coming days.

At the heart of both challenges is whether or not to defer to the president’s assessment that major cities in both places — Portland and Chicago — are lawless and in need of immediate military intervention to protect federal property and immigration officers, despite local leaders and law enforcement saying otherwise. Both deployments were done against the wishes of Democratic state governors, and were quickly temporarily blocked by district courts.

On Monday, a divided panel on the 9th Circuit court of appeals overturned a temporary restraining order put in place by a federal judge in Portland, siding with the Trump administration, however another temporary restraining order remains in place.

Advertisement

That ruling came days after the 7th Circuit court of appeals upheld a similar block from a federal judge in Illinois on the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

Movement in both cases is expected in the coming days, in what has been a dizzying pingpong of legal disputes around Trump’s use of the military domestically in several Democratic-led cities  around the country. And while any decision will only impact troop deployment in an individual state, they could impact how courts weigh in on such cases going forward — and embolden the administration, legal experts say.

“This could be a pretty seminal week in terms of the bigger legal fight over domestic deployments,” says Scott R. Anderson, a fellow at the non-partisan Brookings Institution and senior editor of Lawfare.

The 9th Circuit and Portland, Ore. 

The 9th Circuit’s decision earlier this week only applies to one of the two temporary restraining orders that U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued this month to block the National Guard deployments — meaning that troops can still not be on the streets in Portland. But the federal government has asked Immergut to remove her second temporary order. A court hearing has been scheduled for Friday to discuss the dissolution of that order.

Karin J. Immergut, nominated to be U.S. district judge for the District of Oregon, attends a judicial nomination hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee October 24, 2018 in Washington, D.C.

Karin J. Immergut, nominated to be U.S. district judge for the District of Oregon, attends a judicial nomination hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee October 24, 2018 in Washington, D.C.

Win McNamee/Getty Images North America

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Win McNamee/Getty Images North America

Advertisement

The 9th Circuit is also deciding whether or not to revisit the ruling made earlier this week with a larger group of judges — and that decision could come before Immergut’s deadline.

Trump has said that the 9th Circuit decision has made him feel empowered to send the National Guard to any city where he deems it necessary.

“That was the decision. I can send the National Guard if I see problems,” Trump told reporters Tuesday. In recent days, Trump has renewed an interest in sending troops to San Francisco.

Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University Loyola Law School and an expert in constitutional law, worries the ruling by the 9th Circuit “authorized blindness to facts.”

“It said [Trump] can decide that there’s a war when there’s nothing but bluebirds,” he says, noting that’s likely why an immediate call for a full review was made. “I fully expect a larger group of 9th Circuit judges to say we don’t have to be blind to what’s actually going on in order to give ample deference to the Trump administration.”

Advertisement

The Supreme Court and Chicago

At the same time, the Trump administration has issued an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on whether National Guard troops can be deployed in Illinois, after the 7th Circuit court of appeals upheld a district court’s block.

It’s unknown when, or if, the Supreme Court will issue a decision, although experts expect it in the coming days as well.

The decision, although not precedent-setting, will likely clarify the president’s power to deploy federal military resources — and how deferential the courts should be to his administration’s presentation of facts — but only to a point. Emergency decisions are usually short, without much reasoning provided by the justices, experts say.

“It ends up kind of putting the onus on district and appellate courts to read the tea leaves of those interim orders to inform these much larger questions in very different factual environments, you know, possibly months in the future,” says Chris Mirasola, a national security law professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

National Guard troops arrive at an immigration processing and detention facility on October 09, 2025 in Broadview, Illinois.

National Guard troops arrive at an immigration processing and detention facility on October 09, 2025 in Broadview, Illinois.

Scott Olson/Getty Images North America

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Scott Olson/Getty Images North America

Advertisement

He says that while the emergency decisions from the Supreme Court don’t apply broadly, in recent months, some judges have started to treat them as if they do.

“I think what we’re going to get in at least the medium term is even more confusion than we’ve had so far,” he says.

But just how the Supreme Court might weigh in isn’t clear.

“I think it’s a harder case for the Supreme Court than some people might think, who go in with the assumption the Supreme Court is just naturally inclined toward the administration’s positions on things — and it is in many contexts,” says Anderson of the Brookings Institution.

He says that while it’s standard for courts to be deferential to the president, it’s also standard to believe the facts presented by the local courts.

Advertisement

“That is a tricky, tricky sort of situation here,” Anderson says.

What could this mean for possible deployments going forward?

These two expected decisions will only directly affect Portland or Chicago. But the implications of both – especially something from the Supreme Court – could have ripple effects in future litigation.

Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, says that what’s particularly worrying is that the Department of Justice has been expressly celebrating high arrest counts by law enforcement in places like Chicago, while still saying the military is necessary to help.

“If the bar is so low that the President can use the military at a time when his administration is touting how effective civilian law enforcement is, it becomes hard to imagine a scenario where he couldn’t deploy the military,” she says.

Experts say that these legal challenges are just the beginning of what will surely be a long and winding road through the U.S. court system.

Advertisement

“This is really just the first battle. There are a lot of legal questions that come after this,” Anderson says.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Driver Crashes Car Into Security Gate Near White House

Published

on

Video: Driver Crashes Car Into Security Gate Near White House

new video loaded: Driver Crashes Car Into Security Gate Near White House

A man was arrested on Tuesday night after he drove his vehicle into a barricade outside the White House, the Secret Service said. It was not immediately known whether the crash was intentional.

By Axel Boada

October 22, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending