Letitia James’ Fugitive Niece Has Been Ducking Justice In Disputed ‘Primary Residence’
Wow, things just keep getting worse for New York Attorney General Letitia James.
On Monday the Daily Mail revealed that James’ has been letting her grandniece Nakia Thompson – along with Thompson’s three children – live in the Norfolk, Virginia house at the center of James’ federal indictment.
Thompson has been living at the property since 2020, after ducking authorities in North Carolina for failing to finish her probation. She is considered a fugitive and has an active warrant for her arrest if she’s located in North Carolina.
“Ms Thompson was sentenced to probation for misdemeanor convictions for assault and battery and trespassing, and has willfully avoided probation supervision,” Keith Acree, communications director for the North Carolina Department of Corrections told the Mail, adding “An absconder is considered a fugitive.“
“Thompson faces arrest if she is located in North Carolina,” but said that she’s unlikely to be extradited due to the nature of her alleged crimes (trespass and assault).
And according to the NY Times, Thompson, 36, told a grand jury in June that she has been living rent-free at James’ home – claiming that the NY AG even pays for basic upkeep.
Meanwhile, Thompson was reportedly arrested for an altercation the day James’ indictment was announced.
Also appears there is a warrant for the grandniece’s arrest for an altercation the day the indictment was announced. pic.twitter.com/DsXUGcLrks
James was indicted by a federal jury in Virginia on charges of bank fraud and lying to a financial institution when she applied for a mortgage on the home.
Unprecedented Times: “It’s Hard To Keep Up, Even By Experienced Folks”
By Elwin de Groot, Head of Macro Strategy at Rabobank
That we are living in unprecedented times was borne out by events in the last couple of days again. Indeed, it is probably hard to keep up, even by experienced folks.
The London silver market saw the spot price of silver pushing above $51 per troy ounce on Friday (and higher again this morning) due to a short squeeze and shortage of silver in London vaults. Some say the situation now, in particular the lack of liquidity, is comparable or even worse than in the early 1980s when the famous Hunt brothers tried to corner the market (after which silver crashed).
Meanwhile, crypto markets saw on Friday what data tracker Coinglass dubbed the “largest liquidation in history”, leading to hefty declines in cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin. But significant losses were also recorded in global equity markets, with the S&P500 down 2.7% and investors seeking refuge in ‘safe-haven’ bond markets (10Y USTs -11bp, German Bunds -6bp).
That volatility was clearly driven by the strong-worded warnings by President Trump at the address of China (more on that below), although there were other factors at play, including (geo)political instability. Indeed, just name me one country where the political situation is stable, where there is no ‘polarization’ of society and where policy making is ‘boring’… Still thinking?
In France, newly appointed PM Lecornu, who threw in the towel last week after trying to glue together a group of parties able to steer a budget through parliament was re-appointed by President Macron, again with the same task: …to glue together a group of parties able to steer a budget through parliament. On Sunday President Macron announced the new cabinet, headed by Lecornu.
The turn of events, including Lecornu’s conclusion that it should be possible to reach a deal on the 2026 budget, supported French bonds on Friday. But we think there is not much scope for a further rally in the near term. In fact, as we pointed out last week, we think there is not much scope for a further rally in the near term. Political risks remain until the budget negations are concluded. Both key parties on the far left and right have already indicated they will not support this cabinet and so Lecornu will need all the support he can get elsewhere. It is not to be excluded that he will be toppled again in a no-confidence vote this week. But if he stays, negotiations are likely to remain tough. Most parties underscore the need for a budget, but they will undoubtedly demand (further) concessions, which may weaken fiscal consolidation. In the longer run, that leaves the French curve more vulnerable to future fiscal setbacks.
However, the political focus shifted back to Japan last Friday as the long-standing LDP-Komeito coalition collapsed following Sanae Takaichi’s election as LDP leader. She was set to become Japan’s first female Prime Minister after Shigeru Ishiba stepped down, but Komeito withdrew support over disagreements, particularly on stricter party funding rules. While Takaichi’s leadership is now uncertain, she may still retain power if she can secure backing from parts of the fragmented opposition. Otherwise, snap elections are a real possibility.
This political instability is likely to keep risk premiums elevated, weighing on the yen. However, currency strategist Jane Foley notes that Takaichi may not necessarily favor a weak JPY policy, especially given her concerns about imported inflation and the cost-of-living crisis. A more unifying successor could also trigger a rebound in the yen, which briefly rose above 153 against the USD last week. Finance Minister Kato’s intensified rhetoric has also fueled speculation of potential intervention, especially if yen weakness isn’t driven by fundamentals. Reflecting recent USD strength, we’ve revised our 3-month USD/JPY forecast to 147.00 (from 145), assuming a BoJ rate hike before year-end. Nonetheless, near-term risks point to a possible snapback in JPY value.
But before the market really had had time to start worrying in earnest about the political situation in Japan, the attention shifted back to the US. After waking up (that is, assuming the man sleeps) on Friday, President Trump said he saw “no reason” to meet President Xi of China in October, whilst threatening a restriction on certain US software exports and warning that he would add tariffs of 100% on Chinese goods beginning on Nov 1.
The main reason behind the strongly worded response by Trump – which followed several months in which the US and China had constructive talks and in which it even appeared as if the US administration was trying to stabilize its relation with China – was the renewed tightening of export controls on critical raw materials, particularly rare earth materials, by China. Last week, China also introduced port fees on US ships (in reaction to the port fees levied by the US on Chinese (built/operated) ships). And there were reports that China had been intensifying customs inspections of semiconductor imports. In other words, the Chinese hit a nerve there.
Now the key question is whether this is the re-start of the trade war between the two, or ‘merely’ an opening salvo for the discussion that should ultimately settle things and bring about a more durable stability. Recall that whilst the US and China extended their trade truce for another three months back in August, that was obviously not the final ‘deal’.
The answer to this question, however, is not obvious and, in fact, path-dependent. In other words, it may depend on what other steps each side take and how this is interpreted by the counterparty. And there is an element of randomness here. Or lack of full information. For example, was President Trump fully aware of the actions by his Bureau of Industry and Security department, which on 29 September issued a new rule that strengthens its control over exports? For China may have interpreted this as the US not sticking with the trade truce. Moreover, emotions may be just as important as economic reason, especially when one side is driven by eagerness to strike ‘deals’ whilst the other side is looking for a stable and predictable relationship. But we can make a few observations.
First, both the US and China have offered offramps and clarifications over the weekend. Starting with the US, Trump later posted a statement on Truth Social saying “Don’t worry about China, it will all be fine! Highly respected President Xi just had a bad moment. He doesn’t want Depression for his country, and neither do I. The U.S.A. wants to help China, not hurt it!!!” Whilst US VP Vance called on Beijing to “choose the path of reason”, warning that the US would have significantly more leverage it could use, Trump told reporters on Sunday that “November 1 is an eternity for me. For somebody else, is right around the corner. For me, when I hear November 1, it’s an eternity.” China, meanwhile, clarified its recent decisions to tighten export controls over the weekend, with a Commerce Ministry statement noting that export controls are not the same as a ban on exports. Again, that may be to signal that this decision was not meant to re-ignite a trade war. But of course it’s decision has underscored China’s significant leverage in this particular area: in certain critical raw materials and rare earths – which also serve as key inputs in the US strategic military complex – it can pull all the strings.
Second, with this China is showing its confidence and a willingness to engage in a more confrontational trade-war with the US, if necessary. This is in contrast to how other nations and trade blocs, such as the EU, have engaged with the US. It may thus also give China more leverage vis-à-vis other players in future if it succeeds in demonstrating its statecraft powers.
In any case, it means that all kinds of scenarios still remain possible, even when things appear to be ‘settled’; a sobering conclusion for all global players involved.
NATO’s ‘Steadfast Noon’ Nuclear Drills Kick Off As Tensions Soar With Russia
NATO has kicked off its annual nuclear exercise, Steadfast Noon, on Monday, which is focusing mainly on securing its nuclear weapons before deployment, according to prior statements of the alliance’s chief.
“We carry out this training to ensure our nuclear deterrent remains credible, safe, secure, and effective,” NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has said of the two-week long drills. “It also sends a clear message to any potential adversary that we are fully capable of defending all allies against any threat.”
The exercises are hosted by the Netherlands, and will involve 71 aircraft from 14 NATO members and has been conducted every year for more than a decade. Military bases in Belgium, the UK, and Denmark are also being utilized.
The United States and the UK, which both maintain nuclear arsenals, form the core of NATO’s nuclear deterrence strategy. While France also possesses nuclear weapons, it does not participate in NATO’s nuclear planning group.
The US military is contribute F-35, refueling aircraft, and other support planes. Finland and Poland are additionally providing fighter jets. The drill is also featuring electronic warfare systems, reconnaissance aircraft, and intelligence assets.
The drills come as tensions between Europe and Russia are at a high point over alleged drone incursions in European airspace which various governments from Denmark to Poland to Germany have linked to Russian intelligence, though without giving any evidence.
Russian media and officials have responded as follows:
Moscow has yet to comment on the current drills, but has previously condemned past Steadfast Noon exercises, saying they “lead to nothing but ratcheting up tensions” which are already high due to the Ukraine conflict.
Russian officials have accused Western European nations of uniting in what Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov has called a collective “anti-Russian frenzy.” Ushakov said the region has been speaking in an “extremely belligerent, extremely negative” voice against Moscow while spreading “brazen lies” about it.
Earlier this month, President Vladimir Putin said Western Europe has been “whipping up hysteria” about an alleged threat of war with Russia, calling such concerns a “nonsense mantra” and urging leaders in the region to focus on domestic issues instead.
🇳🇱 #NATO’s “Steadfast Noon” nuclear exercise kicks off next week with 71 aircraft from 14 nations, emphasising protection of nuclear assets amid rising drone threats. pic.twitter.com/QwgKEAh0qE
Currently, US efforts to get Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table appear to be at a complete standstill. President Trump on Monday from Israel voiced that the Ukraine war will not be settled so easily.
“I thought it would be easily settled. I thought it would be a hell of a lot easier than doing what we’ve just successfully done with Israel,” he told the Knesset.
A high school basketball player in Washington state has been accused of bullying, harassment after she allegedly “misgendered” a male opponent who pretends to be a female.
The controversy began when an 18 year old biological male was allowed to play on a junior varsity team in the Tumwater School District, alongside 14 and 15-year-old female athletes.
15-year-old Frances Staudt noticed the obviously male athlete on the opposing team during her warm up for the final game of the season and asked the school’s athletic director whether the player was a male, but was told that, in accordance with Washington state law, the school will not discriminate based on sexual identity.
Staudt then notified her coach that she was unwilling to play against a biological male opponent.
According to Staudt’s mother Aimee, Frances was so frustrated that, following the game, her daughter walked by the male player and told him, “You’re a man” prompting the school district to investigate Frances for ‘misgendering’ her opponent.
The state of Washington State:
– 15-year-old girl refuses to play basketball against 18-year-old man.
-15-year-old girl is charged with bullying, harassment, intimidation and “misgender*ng” him.
Aimee Staudt told Fox News that the school district could have avoided the situation, saying, “They knew, admittedly, that there was going to be this situation, and they had a meeting, the principal, the superintendent, and the athletic director to discuss the fact that this was a potential situation that was coming up.”
Aimee maintains that little controversy would have resulted if families had been notified of the situation beforehand, and players had been given the option to sit out the game.
Staudt said, “But they didn’t do that. They put the kids on the spot, and my daughter was the one that actually stood up in this situation, and… she was exposed… It was awful the way they handled it.”
The New York Post reports that the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) policy states that each athlete will participate in programs “consistent with their gender identity or the gender most consistently expressed,” and there are not even any medical or legal requirements.
Washington is one of a handful of Democrat-run states that have pushed back against President Trump’s executive order banning biological males from competing in women’s sports.
The school district released a statement last week stating, “As a district, we remain committed to fostering an inclusive environment where all students feel safe, supported, and valued.”
According to her mother, Frances received a letter late last week, stating that she had violated WIAA policy and that she could face further discipline if there are any further incidents.
Ukrainian Drones Spark Massive Blaze At Crimea’s Largest Oil Terminal
Just a day after a major report in the Financial Times said that US intelligence has been helping Ukraine conduct long-range drone strikes on Russian oil facilities since at least July, major oil depot in Crimea caught fire overnight following a Ukrainian drone strike.
This marks the second time in a week that the the Feodosia facility has been struck and gone up in flames. Importantly, it is Crimea’s largest oil storage and transshipment hub, with a capacity of around 250,000 tons.
Ukraine has hit a key Russian oil depot in Russia-occupied Crimea, causing massive fires. The key energy resource — the largest oil storage and shipment hub on the peninsula — sustained heavy damage, with multiple fires reported. pic.twitter.com/tg8EsqJnvT
Russian sources say that air defenses intercepted more than 20 drones targeting a fuel storage facility in the port city. The attack resulted in no casualties, amid a large emergency response to battle the blaze.
NASA’s fire monitoring system detected multiple active fires at the site, according to international reports.
In total Ukrainian forces sent some 40 drones to various areas of Crimea, and dozens more were sent against other targets in Russian territory.
Kiev and its Western backers have a clearly articulated objective to disrupt a key source of revenue funding Moscow’s war effort – which has resulted in some success, given the reports of fuel and gasoline shortages, and rising prices across Russia.
Ukraine’s military leadership has of late boasted that the operation over several months has cut Russia’s oil refining capacity by 21%.
A source in Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) told the Kyiv Independent: “Drones hit at least five tanks. A large-scale fire is recorded on the territory of the oil depot,” the source said.
At a moment Russia’s refinery woes are getting worse, the question of the US providing Tomahawks still remains an open one, and the Kremlin has said it would be “surprised” if the White House allowed such a serious and brazen escalation.
International estimates are that thus far during the war Ukraine has struck at least 21 out of Russia’s 38 refineries, some of them more than once, which has proven costly – also as sanctions have made it hard to find parts for quick repairs.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed the long-anticipated “Responsible Gun Manufacturing Act,” Assembly Bill 1127, a law that may now trigger a major challenge under the Second Amendment. The law banned the Glock semi-automatic handguns that are a favorite of American gun owners, including former Vice President Kamala Harris.
The law constitutes one of the most ambitious gun bans since the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that gun ownership is an individual right.
At the time, Justice Antonin Scalia stressed that the Second Amendment protects all types of firearms “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.”
Gun control advocates have been chipping away at this concept by arguing that a variety of popular weapons, such as the AR-15, cannot be considered “in common use at the time” of the ratification.
Scalia, however, joined Justice Clarence Thomas in 2015 in a dissent in the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, involving a local ban on semi-automatic firearms. Thomas wrote that “several Courts of Appeals… have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes” and that such rulings are “noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents.”
Thomas noted that such rulings suggested that states could ban “AR-style semiautomatic rifles” even though an “overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”
In the case of the AR-15, an estimated one in 20 Americans own such weapons. The Glock is even more popular. In 2021 alone, industry data shows that Glock produced 581,944 handguns with another 465,117 in 2022. It is also the weapon of choice for an estimated over 65 percent of law enforcement agencies.
Notably, we previously discussed how Vice President Kamala Harris made a less-than-convincing pitch to gun owners during her presidential run after years of calling for gun bans. She hailed her Glock as a cherished companion. As it became apparent that Harris was losing men generally, the campaign made ham-handed efforts to reinvent Harris. In a softball interview with Oprah, Harris declared that she is a gun owner and “if somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot.”
When liberals like CBS’s Bill Whitaker expressed shock at her new gun-toting persona on the campaign trail, he asked if she actually fired it. Harris then did her best Rooster Cogburn, who noted “Well a gun that ain’t loaded, ain’t much good for nuthin.”
When she was the San Francisco District Attorney, Kamala Harris was one of the signatories on the District Attorneys’ amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, in support of the handgun ban.
It convinced no one.
The California law will now take effect on July 1, 2026, “[banning] the sale of new Glock-brand pistols and Glock-style clones.” In my view, it is unconstitutional under prior Supreme Court precedent.
Democrats previously called for banning “Glock switches” that can be affixed to the rear of a Glock slide to make the pistol shoot full auto. However, such switches are already unlawful. They are now going after the gun itself, confirming the objections of gun rights groups that such early bans were moves to lay the foundation to ban semiautomatic weapons generally.
That seems borne out by the language of the bill. The text of AB 1127 says:
“A ‘machinegun-convertible pistol’ as any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machinegun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, as specified, and “pistol converter” as any device or instrument that, when installed in or attached to the rear of the slide of a semiautomatic pistol, replaces the backplate and interferes with the trigger mechanism and thereby enables the pistol to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.”
The legislation makes repeated reference to any weapon that can be “equipped with a pistol converter.” Thus, even though the Glock switches are unlawful, criminals still use them and thus the gun itself falls under this category as a “machine-gun convertible” weapon.
The Supreme Court has fueled these laws by repeatedly turning down review of bans. States like Illinois outlawed some of the most commonly used rifles and magazines in America. In Bevis v. City of Naperville, the Seventh Circuit overturned the district court’s preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ban on the basis that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail.
While various Supreme Court Justices have expressed disagreement with Bevis, the Court refused to take up the case. However, Justice Kavanaugh said that the Court is likely to grant certiorari “in the next Term or two.”
Watch Live: SpaceX Starship Prepares For 11th Test Flight With Heatshield Stress Test, Orbital Demos
SpaceX is targeting a one-hour test flight of its Starship megarocket, with the launch window opening at 7:15 p.m. ET. This marks the 11th test flight, expanding on the success of the previous mission with a focus on data collection, heatshield stress testing, and orbital demonstrations, such as deployment of eight Starlink simulators.
Starship Flight 11 aims to build on the momentum from SpaceX’s latest and most successful launch of the year in August. That mission, the fourth of 2025 and tenth overall since 2023, signals continued progress as Elon Musk’s rocket company seeks to accelerate the development of the fully reusable megarocket designed to carry humans and cargo to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
On track for today’s Starship flight test. The launch window is from 6:15 p.m. CT – 7:30 p.m. CT. Live coverage starts ~30 minutes before launch https://t.co/TSvQZvzB8b
Mission Goals: Build on Flight 10’s success, focusing on:
Data collection for the next-generation Super Heavy booster
Heatshield stress tests
Return-to-launch-site maneuver simulations
Flight Safety: SpaceX continues coordination with the FAA and international air traffic authorities to minimize disruptions. During Flight 10, affected airspace reopened within 7–9 minutes.
Super Heavy Booster:
Reused from Flight 8, with 24 Raptor engines.
Will perform a new landing burn configuration with 13 engines igniting, then shifting to five during the divert phase, and finishing with three center engines for hover and splashdown.
The booster will not return to Starbase but instead splash down in the Gulf of Mexico to collect data on engine transitions and real-world dynamics.
Starship Upper Stage:
Conducts in-space objectives, including deploying eight Starlink simulators (same size as next-gen satellites).
Includes an in-space Raptor relight test.
Tiles have been intentionally removed to stress-test unprotected areas during reentry.
Will execute a dynamic banking maneuver and subsonic guidance test before a controlled splashdown in the Indian Ocean.
Ahead of launch, cryptocurrency-based prediction market Polymarket shows…
Syria Set To Allow Russia To Keep Its Strategic Military Bases In Country
Since the fall of longtime Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in December of last year, which has since drastically changed Syria into a hardline Sunni state no longer aligned with Tehran or Moscow, Russia’s military began slowly moving its military assets from the region, essentially packing up its bases.
Moscow has been seeking to negotiate with the new regime regime in Damascus to keep its two historic bases on the coast, especially the naval base at Tartus, which was for decades Russia’s only deep-water Mediterranean naval port.
Behind the scenes negotiations have seem stalled for months, with little news, however, on Monday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov weighed in after being silent on the issue. Khmeimim Air Base has lately played host to thousands of Alawite and Christian refugees being persecuted by Sunni radicals, including by government Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) troops.
Lavrov made clear that the Sharaa government is looking favorably on allowing Russia to keep its military presence on the coast, but under the guise of a more humanitarian and logistics purpose.
“Syria would like to maintain Russian military bases in the country, but may repurpose them for different tasks amid new realities, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said during a meeting with journalists from Arab countries,” according to TASS.
“The Syrian side is interested in maintaining our military bases there. As our president has repeatedly said, we will be guided by Syria’s interests in this matter,” he emphasized. “It is clear that under the new circumstances, these bases may play a different role, not just as military outposts,” Lavrov added.
“In particular, given the need to establish humanitarian flows to Africa, these may be sea and air bases serving as humanitarian hubs for sending humanitarian cargoes there, including to the Sahara-Sahel zone and other countries in need,” Lavrov specified.
Damascus and its new rulers may have come to the practical conclusion that it’s better for Russia to have a foothold in the region, at a moment Israel has continued to bomb Syrian cities and military sites with impunity.
If nothing else, a superpower’s military being on the ground, even if just on the coast, could prove diplomatically beneficial to Syria – at a moment it has no anti-air defenses to speak of.
Russia and Turkey could be seen as playing a balancing act in the region in the face of Israeli aggression. Russia still has its own powerful anti-air defenses which protect its coastal assets, also near Latakia.
Lithium-ion battery fires are a growing cause for concern around the world, with fears about how electric vehicles, e-bikes, laptop chargers, and power banks pose a risk to people at home, at work, and on the move.
Fires involving lithium batteries – which are rechargeable – are notoriously difficult to extinguish using conventional firefighting methods.
Meanwhile, global demand for lithium-ion batteries is expected to increase significantly between 2025 and 2030.
Matt Humby, a senior technical consultant at fire extinguisher manufacturer Firechief Global, told The Epoch Times he does not think governments or international regulatory bodies had woken up to the danger lithium batteries represented.
“While awareness is growing, regulatory action still lags behind the pace of incidents we’ve had with lithium-ion battery fires,” Humby said. “Many trade bodies … are reactive rather than proactive, and there’s still a lack of global consistency in standards and enforcement.”
However, Grant Gibbs, business development manager of energy storage at safety testers TÜV SÜD, said the United Nations and international standardization bodies, governments, and regulatory bodies around the world were “well aware of the perceived risks” associated with lithium batteries.
He said bodies such as the International Electrotechnical Commission and the International Organization for Standardization are revising and expanding requirements for the testing, transport, and end-of-life management of lithium batteries, with the aim of ensuring “global alignment on safety and sustainability.”
On Sept. 24, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued new guidance: “Devices containing lithium metal batteries or lithium-ion batteries, including—but not limited to—smartphones, tablets, cameras, and laptops, should be kept in accessible carry-on baggage.”
“If these devices are packed in checked baggage, they should be turned completely off, protected from accidental activation, and packed so they are protected from damage.”
The FAA said there were 89 incidents in 2024 in which lithium batteries emitted smoke, fire, or extreme heat on board planes, and up until the end of August 2025, there have been a further 61.
In-Flight Fire Risk
On Jan. 28, 2025, an Air Busan plane was destroyed by fire on the runway in Busan, South Korea. Preliminary findings indicated that a power bank stored in an overhead cabin likely went up in flames shortly before take-off.
All 170 passengers and six crew members were evacuated, with three seriously injured and 24 having sustained minor injuries.
“The Air Busan incident shows how quickly things can escalate. Without stricter controls and better passenger education, an in-flight fire remains a real risk,” Humby said. “Many airlines have placed bans on power banks, but I really think this sector really needs to look deeper into this fire risk.
“It’s taken an aircraft fire to make them really sit up and see what the situation is.”
Humby pointed out that there had been several in-flight fires caused by overheating power banks, including one in August there had been a fire on board a KLM plane flying from Sao Paulo in Brazil to Schiphol airport in the Netherlands.
“They managed to get it under control, because they’re small batteries, so you can probably put them in water or an ice bucket. But planes should be carrying fire-resistant containment bags,” Humby said.
A number of airlines responded in the wake of the Busan incident.
Southwest Airlines told The Epoch Times that, from May 28, 2025, they would require passengers to keep their portable chargers visible while using them.
Emirates has, from Oct. 1, 2025, banned the use of power banks during flight, and ordered them not to be stored in overhead compartments, while Singapore Airlines, EVA Air, China Airlines, Thai Airways, and Cathay Pacific all introduced similar restrictions in March or April 2025.
American Airlines has detailed restrictions, but has only banned large power banks, while Delta passengers are “permitted to travel with lithium ion batteries that contain a maximum of 160-watt hours per battery.”
Gibbs said that “the measures currently implemented by airlines, such as limiting the use of power banks and requiring them to be carried in the cabin, as well as restricting charging during flights, certainly reduce the likelihood of incidents occurring.”
Battery Fires ‘Systemic Issue’
However, he said lithium battery fires were a “systemic issue” that could not be eliminated by airline restrictions alone.
“They are influenced by product quality, user behavior, regulatory oversight, and aircraft systems themselves,” Gibbs said.
In 2016, the International Civil Aviation Organization, a U.N. agency, announced lithium batteries would no longer be allowed in checked baggage on airlines, after concerns were raised by pilots and plane manufacturers.
The ICAO’s 36-state governing council said the prohibition would be in effect until a new fire-resistant packaging standard is designed to transport the batteries.
“While ICAO initially envisaged a new ‘fire-resistant packaging’ standard, a fully validated, globally adopted solution has yet to materialize,” Gibbs said.
He said current regulations focus on mitigating risk through stringent transport conditions.
Humby said fire-resistant packaging is “extremely difficult to achieve due to the intensity of thermal runaway events.”
He said small containment boxes had been created, but he said, “Relying solely on packaging is only part of the tool kit, and a broader risk-management approach is needed.”
On Dec. 21, 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration published a final rule on the safe transport of lithium batteries in cargo planes, which took effect on Jan. 20, 2023.
Without a doubt, there are benefits to rechargeable batteries, and in 2019, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to scientists John B. Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham, and Akira Yoshino for their work on the development of lithium-ion batteries.
In Goodenough’s citation, it was stated, “Storing electrical energy in batteries is a key factor in solving the world’s energy supply. The element lithium is useful in batteries since it willingly releases electrons.”
However, the fire risk from lithium batteries remains.
In June 2023, four people, including two children, were killed when a fire broke out in an e-bike shop and spread to apartments on the upper floors of a building in New York City.
“We have known for many years lithium-ion batteries are a risk and must be part of a fire risk assessment,” Humby said. “The good news is awareness is growing and we are in a much better place than three years ago with this, but plenty still needs to happen. Education is key.”
Princeton University announced this week that it will be reinstating the requirement for undergraduate applicants to submit standardized test scores in the 2027–28 admissions cycle. It is only the latest reversal for an ill-conceived and poorly supported movement to achieve greater equity and diversity by eliminating standardized testing in higher education.
Years ago, I wrote columns on the move by many academics to eliminate standardized testing to achieve greater diversity in colleges and universities.
I have long been a critic of this movement given the overwhelming evidence that these tests allow an objective measure of academic merit and have great predictive value on the performance of students.
The University of California system was an early supporter of this ridiculous move.
Notably, academics in the California system came to the same conclusion as some of us who denounced the move. These tests not only have the most significant predictive value for performance but also play an important role in the advancement of minority students. University of California President Janet Napolitano, however, overrode those conclusions.
Napolitano responded to such criticism with a Standardized Testing Task Force in 2019.
Many people expected the task force to recommend the cessation of standardized testing.
The task force did find that 59 percent of high school graduates were Latino, African-American or Native American but only 37 percent were admitted as UC freshman students.
The Task Force did not find standardized testing to be unreliable or call for its abandonment, however.
Instead, its final report concluded that “At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, [University] GPA, and graduation.”
Not only that, it found: “Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007 … Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines … In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority Students (URMs), who are first generation, or whose families are low-income.” In other words, test scores remain the best indicator for continued performance in college.
That clearly was not the result Napolitano or some others wanted. So, she simply announced a cessation of the use of such scores in admissions. The system would go to a “test-blind” system until it developed its own test.
Ending standardized testing had an obvious secondary purpose in frustrating new legal challenges on the use of race in college admissions.
Last November, Californians rejected a resolution to restore affirmative action in college admissions.
MIT, Penn, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown, and other schools ultimately reverted to standardized testing. The fact that these schools even joined this movement shows how faculties and administrators jettisoned educational standards for popular causes.
While originally rationalized due to COVID, the move was widely heralded as a victory for equity and diversity. Notably, the policy outlasted COVID as many academics rejected standardized testing as racist. There have even been calls for random selection of students to achieve greater racial diversity.
In the case of Princeton, the faculty took years to give itself sufficient cover to return to standardized testing by studying the obvious. The announcement comes after a five-year review of data, showing that students who submitted test scores generally performed better academically at Princeton than those who did not.
Just as with earlier studies, a new working paper published on the National Bureau of Economic Research website finds that standardized test scores are stronger predictors of college performance than high school GPA, even after controlling for race, gender, and socioeconomic status.
GPA scores are notoriously unreliable due to grade inflation and varying standards across different schools. In San Francisco, “grading for equity” is a goal in public schools.
