NBC News’ Sam Brock reports from Fort Myers, Fla., where residents are starting to see the damage Hurricane Milton brought to their community. One woman shares her “heart wrenching” process of rebuilding again after multiple hurricanes have come through the area in the past few years.

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

A senior adviser to Iran’s supreme leader has warned Tehran could change its nuclear doctrine if Israel targets the Islamic republic’s atomic facilities.

As Iran and the wider Middle East brace for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response to last week’s Iranian missile attack on Israel, Brigadier General Rasoul Sanaei-Rad said: “Striking nuclear sites could certainly have an impact on the calculations during and after the war.”

“Some politicians have already raised the possibility of changes in [Iran’s] nuclear strategic policies,” Sanaei-Rad, a political adviser to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told Fars, an Iranian news agency. “Moreover, such actions [an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear plants] would cross regional and global red lines.”

After Iran fired more than 180 ballistic missiles at Israel in retaliation for the assassination of Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and other militant leaders, prominent right-wing Israelis said Netanyahu’s government should target the republic’s nuclear programme. Israel has long viewed it as its most serious strategic threat.

But western diplomats have warned that would be the most extreme retaliation. The US has urged Netanyahu against targeting Iran’s nuclear sites or its oil infrastructure.

Experts say Israel was unlikely to be able to launch successful strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities — its main plants are heavily defended and built deep underground — without US support.

But Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant on Wednesday said Israel’s response would be “deadly, precise and above all surprising”.

“They will not understand what happened and how it happened,” he said. “They will see the results.”

Since Hamas’s October 7 attack last year on Israel triggered a wave of regional hostilities between Israeli forces and Iran-backed militants, officials in Tehran have warned the Islamic republic could change its nuclear doctrine if it faced an existential threat.

But they have been deliberately ambiguous about what that might entail.

Sanaei-Rad said: “Nuclear facilities have their own protocols that both parties must consider during wartime.”

“Any potential response from Iran would undoubtedly reflect on this and have an impact, just as attacks on oil and gas facilities could affect regional energy security and global energy prices,” he said, hinting that Iran could retaliate by targeting Israel’s nuclear facilities.

Israel — the only Middle East state with nuclear weapons, although it does not publicly acknowledge the fact — and western nations have long harboured concerns about Iran’s expanding programme.

Tehran has aggressively built up its nuclear activities since former US president Donald Trump in 2018 unilaterally withdrew from an accord Iran signed with world powers and imposed sanctions on the country.

It has installed advanced centrifuges and has been enriching uranium at 60 per cent purity, which is close to weapons grade, for more than three years.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has inspectors in Iran, estimates the country has sufficient fissile material to produce about three nuclear bombs within a matter of weeks, if it chose to do so.

But the UN nuclear watchdog and US officials say there is no evidence Iran is developing a weapon.

Iran insists its programme is for civilian purposes only, and its new president, Masoud Pezeshkian has said he wants to re-engage with the west to resolve the nuclear stand-off and secure sanctions relief to boost the economy.

But a hardline Iranian MP this week said 39 lawmakers had signed a letter addressed to the Supreme National Security Council, saying the country should strengthen its defence doctrine by including nuclear weapons.

An Iranian government spokesperson said there was no change in the nuclear doctrine, and cited a fatwa issued by Khamenei two decades ago prohibiting the development of nuclear weapons.

IF you feel like you are getting a crumby deal on big-name biscuits, you’d be right.

A packet of McVitie’s Digestives has shrunk by as much as 28 per cent since 2014, despite prices rising by 129 per cent over the past decade.

9

So could the supermarket versions offer better value?

It’s crunch time as Laura Stott tries the own-brand digestives.

Aldi Belmont Digestives – 29 biscuits, 400g, 57p

9

IN true Aldi dupe style, the packet looks very like the McVitie’s one, which costs over a quid more.

But put these in a biscuit tin and it’s doubtful anyone will notice the difference.

And you get the most biccies per packet too.

Rating: 5/5

Tesco Digestives – 28 biscuits, 400g, 70p

9

THESE looked the part, but tasted disappointing and the texture is too dry.

The packet claims the biccies are crumbly and crunchy.

Instead they tasted dusty, with a few falling apart before I had a chance to dunk them in my cuppa.

Rating: 1/5

M&S Digestives – 25 biscuits, 400g, 80p

9

Advertisement

WHILE pricier than other super- market versions, these deluxe digestives from M&S are still good value compared with McVitie’s.

Sweeter than some on test but in a rich, mellow and smooth way.

Extremely tasty.

Rating: 4/5

Lidl Tower Gate Digestives – 26 biscuits, 400g, 57p

9

A GREAT value option from Lidl without compromising on flavour – they taste rich and sweet.

They also held up well during a cup-dunk.

But a shame there were fewer in the pack than many other own-brand offerings.

Rating: 4/5

Sainsbury’s Digestives – 28 biscuits, 400g, 70p

9

WITH a darker colour, these had a more wholesome flavour and were thick, offering a good crunch.

The biccies also had a milky and nice malty aftertaste and paired well with a cuppa.

A quality product at a great price.

Rating: 3/5

Asda Digestives – 27 biscuits, 400g, 70p

9

A GREAT-value offering with plenty to go round.

Sweeter than others on test, with an orangey hue and not very chunky, but the taste still hit the spot.

These also had a lovely aroma too, which made it hard to stop at just one.

Rating: 3/5

Morrisons Digestives – 27 biscuits, 400g, 70p

9

Advertisement

A GOOD ratio of crumble to crunch that stood up well in the cuppa dunk.

The flavour was pleasant too – not overtly sweet and with plenty in the packet.

These were thicker than some of the others, adding a pleasant texture.

Rating: 3/5

McVitie’s Digestives – 24 biscuits, 360g, £1.80, Tesco

9

AT well over a £1 more per packet than most supermarket versions, there are also fewer biccies, with only 24 inside.

They are enjoyable – but ­paying nearly two quid for them left a rather bad taste.

Rating: 2/5

2.5K

By Mischa Geracoulis

In How to Interpret the Constitution (2023), Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein argues that any theory of constitutional interpretation used by Supreme Court justices must be defensible in terms of beneficial outcomes, to make democracy “better.” Better is subjective, though. Considering the current Supreme Court, “better” begs the obvious question, “Better for whom?”

Highlighting the fact that this Supreme Court interprets the Constitution through old-fashioned theoretical frames known as traditionalism and originalism, Sunstein emphasizes “the uncomfortable overlap between the views of the majority of the Supreme Court and the views of the right wing of the Republican Party.” Although Sunstein does not specify a best theoretical approach, citing We the People, he promotes a belief that constitutional interpretation should be predicated on the fundamentals of deliberative democracy—that is, the school of thought which alleges that reasonable and justifiable deliberation can secure the public good.

Thinking about reasonableness and justifiability with regards to just two of the decisions made by this Supreme Court—the ditching of Roe v. Wade and championing of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (the right for corporations to spend unlimited funds for or against political campaigns and parties)—gives pause to any consideration of guidelines for bettering democracy and securing the public good. Such decisions also give pause for reflection on notions of considered debate within the Supreme Court if the majority is of the same mind—and, I might add, the same donor base. As previously covered by Project Censored, reporting from Accountable US details how dark money has been used to construct this Supreme Court to advantage Republicans, and far-right, corporate agendas.

These two rulings alone have accelerated inequality of wealth, resources and power, racial and gender biases, and divisive and extreme tactics in US politics. Reproductive rights revocation puts women, particularly those at the lower end of the economic spectrum, under greater financial and medical duress, and legal and moral scrutiny. Corporations and their super PACs, on the other hand, have been given free rein through the shroud of dark money to fund hand-selected political candidates and politicians amenable to their plans. In the words of Rhode Island Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, “a band of right-wing billionaires has its hooks deep in [US] government,” casting doubt on the court’s reasonability and justification concerning democracy and the common good.

Sunstein writes that judges must seek “reflective equilibrium,” that consequences of decisions must be thoroughly understood, and if a potential decision could lead to discrimination, favoritism, or other harms, it should automatically be ruled out. Assuming that these judges are abiding by the requirement to consider how to make our constitutional order “better,” then even the broadest application of reflective equilibrium would flag court decisions such as these as failing to achieve what Sunstein describes as “necessary coherence.”

Given the apparent incoherence, contradictions, and hypocrisies in today’s political and legal systems, Sunstein provides the technical particulars needed to analyze the current Court’s use of traditionalism and originalism to backpedal on civil rights. The two theories are similar in that they are backward-looking and prize colonial-era traditions that are all but irrelevant to contemporary life. Unsurprisingly, reading the Constitution through the lenses of traditionalism and originalism makes it impossible to find provisions or protections for reproductive rights; and so, this Court concluded a “rational basis” for revoking abortion rights. Despite the precedent established by Roe, the Court’s majority invoked traditionalism and originalism to gut Roe.

Sunstein concedes to the fact that abortion is not spelled out in the Constitution but contends that neither is a whole host of rights that we take for granted. He is uneasy about the Court’s display of widening interest in constitutional traditionalism. Would rights such as education or one-person-one-vote come under fire as reproductive rights have? Could this Court seek to narrow the concept of freedom of speech, reeling it back to 1868 or 1789 traditions? What about protections around concepts like race or sex discrimination? Sunstein argues that if we are “comfortable with our First Amendment rights or the Equal Protection Clause,” or, say, sexual privacy, then permitting the Supreme Court to wield antiquated traditions as the best guide to modern life does not square with democracy.

At this stage in the Supreme Court, discussions of traditionalism and originalism must spotlight Leonard Leo, the staunchest supporter of originalism and traditionalism, who, ProPublica reports, is the hidden architect of today’s majority-conservative Supreme Court. Sunstein’s book makes no mention of Leonard Leo, but as a George Mason University alumna, I would be remiss in allowing Leo to linger in the shadows.

ProPublica has illuminated how, as an adviser to Donald Trump, Leo provided the then-presidential candidate and later president with lists of conservative justices and strategies to pack the Supreme Court that we have today. Leo is responsible for the appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito. For decades, Leo has operationalized his network of opaque nonprofits and dark money groups to promote the dismantling of affirmative action, implement undue voter identification requirements, roll back anti-discrimination protections and, of course, revoke Roe. As if these civil rights repeals are not enough, Leo (and others) have a stealth history of tampering with university administrations and inculcating faculty and staff in the conservative right agenda. Project Censored has previously covered right-wing-dark-money that sought legislation to curb campus free speech, and a 2023 report by the American Association of University Professors illuminates myriad other ways that right-wing-dark-money seeks to undermine academic freedoms more broadly.

The ProPublica report reveals Leo’s lengths to solicit relationships with judges, arranging private jet trips and shared vacations, brokering speaking engagements, and more. “To pay for all of this, Leo became one of the most prolific fundraisers in [US] politics. Between 2014 and 2020, tax records show…more than $600 million [from] donors including Paul Singer, Harlan Crow, and the Koch family.” These examples are a mere surface scratch at Leo’s double dealings in US political and legal systems. To grasp the full force of Leo’s exploits to resurrect so-called “natural order” and “traditional values” (justified through his ultra-conservative version of Catholicism) to the highest law of the land, politics and culture, ProPublica’s extensive investigative reporting is recommended reading.

As to Leo’s role at George Mason University and why this is alarming, owing to a concerted group of student activists and professors and to information uncovered through the deployment of the Freedom of Information Act, Leo’s behind-the-scenes commandeering of the university’s law school and economics department was made public. Prior to their Supreme Court appointments, justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh taught constitutional law at George Mason University’s Scalia Law School (renamed as such in 2016 in accordance with Leo’s ideologically funded dictates and allegiance with conservative justice Antonin Scalia). Activists and FOIA helped to expose Leo’s collaboration with Koch Industries and the latter’s funding of the Mercatus Center, a conservative think tank situated within the university’s economics department, with strong ties to the former Trump administration, also responsible for producing climate denial “science” to influence conservative state and federal lawmakers. In its 2019 yearbook, Project Censored featured a story by former George Mason University student Samantha Parsons who wrote about the undue academic control that the Koch family exerted through conditional funding to the university for the purpose of advancing conservative ideology and corporate wealth.

It should be duly noted that Leo’s involvement in Washington, DC, area universities does not stop at George Mason University. Considering the pipeline running from the capital region’s universities to the courts and Congress, additional reporting sheds light on Leo’s purchase of favors and of faculty, political, and court appointments. George Mason University professor Beth Letiecq warns of Leo’s and Koch’s capture of law schools and economics departments to serve their own political agendas. According to Slate, more than $50 million of Koch funding “transformed GMU into the nation’s nerve center for libertarian-conservative law and policy.” Leo’s and Koch’s overreach into faculty decisions and upending of academic freedoms at George Mason University should serve as a “cautionary tale” for other universities, advised Letiecq. Washington’s Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law has similarly received monetary incentives from Leo. In a video produced by Catholic University, Leo is on camera claiming that the law school’s “Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition will foster within the broader citizenry a greater appreciation for the way in which those structural limits on government power contained in our constitution really protect and preserve the dignity and worth of the human person.” One question that springs to mind is, Who, by Leo’s calculus, befits the title “human person”?

Reporter John Gehring quoted Isaac Kamola, professor of political science at Trinity College and author of Free Speech and Koch Money: Manufacturing a Campus Culture War (2021), in a December 2022 article for the National Catholic Reporter: “Leo and the Koch network know that political ideas get legitimized in higher education, so they have a sophisticated funding strategy for creating academic centers, influencing law schools and producing these ideologies and legal theories that are then used to justify policies like deregulation of corporations and denying climate science.” Let that sink in.

Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has argued, “It defies reason that the branch of the federal government [the judiciary] with the least direct accountability to the public is not subject to even the most basic lobbying disclosures. The current system is a recipe for corruption of the judiciary.” As reported in an October 2023 Washington Post piece, Senate Democrats are working to subpoena information from Harlan Crow, a close friend and benefactor of Justice Clarence Thomas, to ascertain the full extent of Crow’s gifts to Thomas, and from Leonard Leo for underwriting and organizing lavish travel and luxury gifts for Supreme Court justices. For a rundown on just some of those gifts, see the list published by the Washington Post, or this list by End Citizens United. ProPublica insists that Leo is too entrenched in the courts, legislation, politics, finances, and higher education to be ignored. Echoing that sentiment, stated Kamola to Gehrig, “Leo is fully integrated within a political infrastructure that seeks to radically transform the laws, the lawyers that litigate them, and the judges that interpret them.”

The between-the-lines takeaway from Sunstein’s book is that constitutional interpretation is highly susceptible to politics and money. Observing the majority-conservative Supreme Court and its ties to right-wing politics and dark money, its predilection for Christian nationalism, and subscription to what the Court’s majority perceives to be “natural order,” Sunstein stresses the importance of the Constitution’s founders’ belief in a deliberative democracy that places “a high premium on accountability.” He also emphasizes that the founders advocated for an “anti-caste principle” to prevent any formation of second-class citizens. How then does this Supreme Court justify its favoritism of billionaires or right-wing Christians not to mention the socioeconomic divisions promoted by those biases? Perhaps another way to ponder this is to analyze whether this Court is capable of honoring its oath to the Constitution, or if it’s more concerned with imposing a conservative belief system on the rest of the nation.

Sunstein’s book, disappointingly, offers no prescription for recourse. However, Ramesh Ponnuru (and others) posit changing the Constitution to impose term limits on Supreme Court justices. Ponnuru presumes that the founders never conceived of today’s lifespans, and proposes several possible, albeit time-consuming, scenarios to implement that change. Perhaps in the future, suggestions put forth by the American Constitution Society (ACS) may lend practical tips for what We the People can do. Beginning with judicial nominations for both state and federal courts, citizens can contact Senators’ offices, co-host events with local ACS chapters, write op-eds in local papers (if your community still has one!), and utilize social media to generate more public awareness around judicial nominations and the funds concealed behind them. Citizens can advocate for transparency in politics and government—something inherent to the functioning of the First Amendment by way of the public’s right to know and checks against corruption.

In an op-ed for Project Censored, Nolan Higdon and Mickey Huff reference the wisdom of historian and activist Howard Zinn (1922-2010), reiterating that “change only occurs through sustained protest and agitation from the citizenry.” Their piece, titled “Did Dobbs Help the Left Rediscover How Political Change is Made?” discusses how after Roe v. Wade was reversed, sustained mass protests resulted in President Biden’s issuance of an executive order directing various federal agencies to take protective measures for access to medical abortion, contraception, and emergency care. Even though the order has limitations, citizen action jolted the president from inaction. Higdon and Huff argue that citizen mobilization could pressure the president to take other actions, such as implementing court reforms or ending the filibuster, campaign financing, or student loan debt.

While Leonard Leo and his cronies strive to surreptitiously purchase justices, legislators, and university faculty to get their way, the Supreme Court’s institutional legitimacy is fast eroding. It is indeed difficult to have faith that a debased Court, whose majority appears to be mired in groupthink, will protect our constitutional, civil, or human rights, or that it will make democracy “better” and secure the public good. For democracy to work, it should go without saying that a fair, unbiased, uncompromised judiciary branch is a bare minimum. Yet, We the People tend to pay little attention to the Supreme Court until a major decision like Roe hits the headlines. Sunstein asked if the First Amendment could be next on the Court’s chopping block. For now, the public still has the right to know and to hold the government to account. What we do with that right may well determine not only the next US president but the fate of democracy.

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

TD Bank has agreed to pay the US government just over $3bn to settle charges that it failed to block criminal organisations from using the Canadian lender to launder hundreds of millions of dollars through its accounts.

The Department of Justice said TD had “long-term, pervasive and systemic deficiencies” in its anti-money laundering programme but did not remedy them because of an internal mandate to keep costs flat.

The bank failed to monitor 92 per cent of its transaction volume during a six-year period, amounting to $18.3tn during that time, according to the DoJ. Three money-laundering networks collectively transferred more than $670mn through the bank, authorities said.

TD also ordered branches to stop filing internal reports on unusual transactions involving certain suspicious customers, and permitted more than $5bn in activity to occur in accounts it had already decided to close, prosecutors said.

Two units of Toronto-based TD, Canada’s second-biggest bank by assets, on Thursday pleaded guilty to conspiring to fail to maintain an anti-money laundering programme, failing to file accurate currency transaction reports and conspiring to launder money, as well as other counts.

Shares were down more than 5 per cent in afternoon trading on Thursday.

“TD Bank created an environment that allowed financial crime to flourish,” US attorney-general Merrick Garland said at a news conference announcing the resolution. “By making its services convenient for criminals, it became one.”

The deal with the DoJ includes the largest ever penalty imposed under the US Bank Secrecy Act, which requires banks to guard against the use of the financial system to facilitate criminal activity.

“Every bank compliance official in America should be reviewing today’s charges as a case study of what not to do,” said Lisa Monaco, deputy US attorney-general.

“This is a difficult chapter in our bank’s history,” Bharat Masrani, who had already announced plans to step down as TD’s chief executive next year, said in a statement. “These failures took place on my watch as CEO and I apologise to all our stakeholders.”

The bank faces a mix of criminal and civil penalties imposed by the DoJ, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury. As part of the deal, TD has agreed to install an independent monitor for four years.

The DoJ has charged more than two dozen people in relation to the case, including two TD employees. The investigation remains ongoing and Garland said “we would expect future cases against individuals”.

TD’s “stunningly widespread failures allowed criminal proceeds to flow through” the bank, said Philip Sellinger, US attorney for the district of New Jersey, pointing to Da Ying Sze, an individual known as David, who laundered more than $470mn through the lender. He “brazenly dumped piles of cash” at TD counters on a nearly daily basis and bribed the bank’s staff with more than $57,000 in gift cards, Sellinger added.

The guilty plea follows three related cases, in which TD bank employees were accused of accepting bribes to open accounts for shell companies and issuing dozens of debit cards tied to the accounts. Prosecutors identified the bank as Financial Institution-A or Financial Institution No. 1 in court filings. The debit cards were transported to Colombia, where they were used to withdraw money from cash machines.

The TD fine is one of the largest penalties imposed by the US on a financial institution in the past 10 years, which have included a $9bn fine in 2014 on France’s BNP Paribas for alleged sanctions violations and a $4.3bn fine last year on cryptocurrency exchange Binance. 

The settlement caps a challenging 18 months for TD, during which time it had to scrap a planned $13.4bn acquisition of US lender First Horizon and announced a new chief executive who is set to take over next year. 

The lender, known for its bright green logo and for sponsoring the arena of the Boston Celtics, the reigning National Basketball Association champions, had already set aside $2.6bn in response to the investigation.

A SHOPPER has warned people to “keep an eye out” after they bagged a garden chair that was reduced by 90%.

Lucky saver Christina shared her bargain in a post on Facebook after finally receiving delivery of the rocking seat.

2

2

Advertisement

The Maya Mango Rocking Chair she purchased had been reduced by a whopping 90%.

Instead of its regular retailing price of £214.99, Christina managed to nab it for just £21.99.

It had been listed on retail site Studio, which is owned by the Frasers Group alongside Sports Direct and House of Fraser.

Christina’s post on Facebook group Extreme Couponing and Bargains UK read: “Studio bargain.

“Took about a week to arrive.

“I’ve seen it go in and out of stock.. keep an eye out.”

More than 100 users were quick to comment underneath the post, desperate to grab the deal for themselves.

One said: “I want one of these for my bedroom.”

Another added: “I have one so comfy would recommend it.”

Others tagged their friends and family saying “keep an eye out for me please.”

One unlucky shopper, however, had the misfortune of buying the item at a much higher price just weeks before.

They said: “Oh my gutted, I bought this 4 weeks ago at 100 quid.”

Since Christina’s post, however, the item has now disappeared from Studio‘s website, indicating it may now be out of stock.

However, Christina added that while it’s not currently showing, it “keeps coming back and going again” like many other items at the moment.

This means there may be hope it returns at its major discount soon.

Studio is currently running a warehouse closing down sale, where it offers up to 90% off countless products.

It always pays, however, to compare prices so you know you’re getting the best deal.

There are countless other garden chairs listed online but many cost much more money.

The cheapest rocking garden chair we could find is currently listed at £45 from IKEA.

However, if you want one that looks most similar to the Studio product, Temu currently has a chair priced at £101.

Prices can also vary day to day and by what deals are on at the time, plus remember you might pay for delivery if you’re ordering online.

You can compare prices on platforms like Google Shopping.