By ANDREW DALTON, Associated Press Entertainment Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A doctor charged with giving Matthew Perry ketamine in the weeks leading up to the “Friends” star’s overdose death is expected to plead guilty Wednesday.

Dr. Salvador Plasencia would be the fourth of five people charged in connection with Perry’s death to plead guilty.

Plasencia was to have gone on trial in August until the doctor agreed last month to plead guilty to four counts of distribution of ketamine, according to the signed document filed in federal court in Los Angeles.

Related Articles

Today in History: July 23, the 1967 Detroit riot begins

Erik Menendez is in hospital for a medical condition. His attorney seeks his release

In-N-Out Burger CEO to join the list of high-profile business figures to leave California

Army’s head of aviation, who faced questions over deadly midair collision, has new role

US Olympic and Paralympic officials bar transgender women from competing in Olympic women’s sports

He had previously pleaded not guilty, but in exchange for the guilty pleas prosecutors have agreed to drop three additional counts of distribution of ketamine and two counts of falsifying records.

Plasencia’s attorneys emphasized in an email after he reached his agreement that he “was not treating Matthew Perry at the time of his death and the ketamine that caused Mr. Perry’s death was not provided by Dr. Plasencia.”

The remaining charges can carry a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison, and there is no guarantee he’ll get less, but he’s likely to. Plasencia has been free on bond since shortly after his arrest in August. He will not be sentenced until a future hearing.

The only remaining defendant who has not reached an agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office is Jasveen Sangha, who prosecutors allege is a drug dealer known as the “Ketamine Queen” and sold Perry the lethal dose. Her trial is scheduled to begin next month. She has pleaded not guilty.

According to prosecutors and co-defendants who reached their own deals, Plasencia illegally supplied Perry with a large amount of ketamine starting about a month before his death on Oct. 28, 2023.

According to a co-defendant, Plasencia in a text message called the actor a “moron” who could be exploited for money.

Perry’s personal assistant, his friend, and another doctor all agreed to plead guilty last year in exchange for their cooperation as the government sought to make their case against larger targets, Plasencia and Sangha. None have been sentenced yet.

Perry was found dead by the assistant, Kenneth Iwamasa. The medical examiner ruled that ketamine, typically used as a surgical anesthetic, was the primary cause of death.

The actor had been using the drug through his regular doctor in a legal but off-label treatment for depression, which has become increasingly common. Perry, 54, began seeking more ketamine than his doctor would give him.

Plasencia admitted in his plea agreement that another patient connected him with Perry, and that starting about a month before Perry’s death, he illegally supplied the actor with 20 vials of ketamine totaling 100 mg of the drug, along with ketamine lozenges and syringes.

He admitted to enlisting another doctor, Mark Chavez, to supply the drug for him, according to the court filings.

“I wonder how much this moron will pay,” Plasencia texted Chavez, according to Chavez’s plea agreement.

After selling the drugs to Perry for $4,500, Plasencia allegedly asked Chavez if he could keep supplying them so they could become Perry’s “go-to,” prosecutors said.

Perry struggled with addiction for years, dating back to his time on “Friends,” when he became one of the biggest stars of his generation as Chandler Bing. He starred alongside Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox, Lisa Kudrow, Matt LeBlanc and David Schwimmer for 10 seasons from 1994 to 2004 on NBC’s megahit.

By ELAINE KURTENBACH, Associated Press Business Writer

BANGKOK (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump has announced trade deals with Japan and a handful of other Asian countries that will relieve some pressure on companies and consumers from sharply higher tariffs on their exports to the United States.

A deal with China is under negotiation, with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying an Aug. 12 deadline might be postponed again to allow more time for talks.

Steep tariffs on U.S. imports of steel and aluminum remain, however, and many other countries, including South Korea and Thailand, have yet to clinch agreements. Overall, economists say the tariffs inevitably will dent growth in Asia and the world.

The deals reached so far, ahead of Trump’s Aug. 1 deadline

Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba announced a deal Wednesday that will impose 15% tariffs on U.S. imports from Japan, down from Trump’s proposed 25% “reciprocal” tariffs.

A staff member distributes an extra edition of the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reporting that President Donald Trump announced a trade framework with Japan on Tuesday, Wednesday, July 23, 2025, in Tokyo. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko)

It was a huge relief for automakers like Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda, whose shares jumped by double digits in Tokyo. Trump also announced trade deals with the Philippines and Indonesia. After meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., Trump said the import tax on products from his country would be subject to a 19% tariff, down just 1% from the earlier threat of a 20% tariff.

Indonesia also will face a 19% tariff, down from the 32% rate Trump had recently said would apply, and it committed to eliminating nearly all of its trade barriers for imports of American goods. Earlier, Trump announced that Vietnam’s exports would face a 20% tariff, with double that rate for goods transshipped from China, though there has been no formal announcement.

Talks with China may be extended

Negotiations with China are subject to an Aug. 12 deadline, but it’s likely to be extended, Bessent told Fox Business on Tuesday. He said the two sides were due to hold another round of talks, this time in Sweden, early next week. Meanwhile, Trump said a trip to China may happen soon, hinting at efforts to stabilize U.S.-China trade relations.

A preliminary agreement announced in June paved the way for China to lift some restrictions on its exports of rare earths, minerals critical for high technology and other manufacturing. In May, the U.S. agreed to drop Trump’s 145% tariff rate on Chinese goods to 30% for 90 days, while China agreed to lower its 125% rate on U.S. goods to 10%. The reprieve allowed companies more time to rush to try to beat the potentially higher tariffs, giving a boost to Chinese exports and alleviating some of the pressure on its manufacturing sector. But prolonged uncertainty over what Trump might do has left companies wary about committing to further investment in China.

No deals yet for South Korea and other Asian countries

Pressure is mounting on some countries in Asia and elsewhere as the Aug. 1 deadline for striking deals approaches.

Supporters of the South Korean Confederation of Trade Unions march during a rally against the government’s labor policy and U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs policy on South Korea, in Seoul, South Korea, Saturday, July 19, 2025. The banner reads “We Condemn U.S. for forcing the the costs of station U.S. troops in South Korea!.”(AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

Trump sent letters, posted on Truth Social, outlining higher tariffs some countries will face if they fail to reach agreements. He said they’d face even higher tariffs if they retaliate by raising their own import duties. South Korea’s is set at 25%. Imports from Myanmar and Laos would be taxed at 40%, Cambodia and Thailand at 36%, Serbia and Bangladesh at 35%, South Africa and Bosnia and Herzegovina at 30% and Kazakhstan, Malaysia and Tunisia at 25%.

The status of talks with India remains unclear but progress appears to hinge on the country’s heavily protected farm sector. It faces a 26% tariff.

Nearly every country has faced a minimum 10% levy on goods entering the U.S. since April, on top of other sectoral levies.

Economists expect tariffs to sap growth even with trade deals

Even after Trump has pulled back from the harshest of his threatened tariffs, the onslaught of uncertainty and higher costs for both manufacturers and consumers has raised risks for the regional and global economy. Economists have been downgrading their estimates for growth in 2025 and beyond.

Related Articles

Trump likes renaming people, places and things. He’s not the first to deploy that perk of power

Trump says a China trip is ‘not too distant’ as trade tensions ease

Columbia University says it has suspended and expelled students who participated in protests

Senate considering nomination of ex-Trump defense lawyer for lifetime appointment to appeals court

Pam Bondi says judge-picked New Jersey prosecutor succeeding Alina Habba has been removed

The Asian Development Bank said Wednesday it had cut its growth estimate for economies in developing Asia and the Pacific to 4.7% in 2025 and 4.6% in 2026, down 0.2 percentage points and 0.1 percentage points.

The outlook for the region could be further dimmed by an escalation of tariffs and trade friction, it said. “Other risks include conflicts and geopolitical tensions that could disrupt global supply chains and raise energy prices,” as well as a deterioration in China’s ailing property market.

Economists at AMRO were less optimistic, expecting growth for Southeast Asia and other major economies in Asia at 3.8% in 2025 and 3.6% next year.

While countries in the region have moved to protect their economies from Trump’s trade shock, they face significant uncertainties, said AMRO’s chief economist, Dong He.

“Uneven progress in tariff negotiations and the potential expansion of tariffs to additional products could further disrupt trade activities and weigh on growth for the region,” he said.

A little over a year ago, most analysts agreed that an immigration surge in the first years of this decade had created economic growth. Behind that conclusion, however, was the reality that this boom of unauthorized migrants had expanded a shadow economy, creating social costs and housing pressures. The political price was inevitable.

A year later, we are facing a different scenario, with an administration enforcing anti-illegal immigration policies that have led to a dramatic reduction of undocumented migrants entering the country.

The decline in border crossings began late in the Biden administration, when a loose border policy extracted an unacceptable political toll. Crossings have fallen even more dramatically since President Donald Trump took office, and we expect them to remain low for a long time to come.

So, what is the impact on the economy? A recent analysis published by the Dallas Federal Reserve answers this question with a thorough and data-based analysis of different scenarios.

The main takeaway is that an immigration slowdown comes with economic costs, including a likely decline in GDP growth. Another takeaway from the study is that immigration doesn’t have a serious impact on inflation.

The Dallas Fed analysis takes the Congressional Budget Office’s net unauthorized immigration projection as a baseline. That number is higher than current migration. Using their model, Dallas Fed economists were able to quantify the change in GDP growth as a result of immigration policy changes after January 2025. The study estimates that GDP growth is 0.8 percentage points lower than it would have been if net unauthorized immigration had evolved as in the CBO’s projection.

We’ve long understood that our country needs immigrants. They renew the labor force. They bring new life and new ideas to our country. They are the foundation of the American experience.

But we don’t take the Fed’s analysis to be an argument in favor of illegal migration. Instead, it speaks to the urgency for our country to implement a robust foreign worker program and ensure that there is a speedy process for accepting a large number of legal migrants, especially from nations in our hemisphere.

For years, the agricultural sector has been pleading for a strong and efficient guest worker program. According to federal estimates, over 40% of farmworkers are unauthorized immigrants. These numbers should give us pause. Our food supply depends on foreign laborers who are in the country illegally.

Americans broadly agree on immigration issues. They want a secure border, and they want a path for legal immigrants to be able to come here, work here and ultimately join the American dream in full.

This shouldn’t be that difficult, but somehow Washington keeps making it that way.

— The Dallas Morning News

 

Related Articles

Lara Williams: Stop playing whac-a-mole with forever chemicals

Randall Balmer: When Darrow took on Bryan 100 years ago, science got the win. Or did it?

William C. Hine: America didn’t become great because we were perfect …

Trump likes renaming people, places and things. He’s not the first to deploy that perk of power

Trump says a China trip is ‘not too distant’ as trade tensions ease

The more you learn about PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — the worse it gets. Though improvements in monitoring and remediation techniques are welcome, what the world needs first and foremost is a universal ban on the chemicals. In fact, we needed it yesterday.

There are more than 10,000 PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” and they’re used almost everywhere, including in nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing, smartphones, packets of microwave popcorn, hair conditioners, fire-fighting foam, pacemakers, pesticides and dental floss.

They don’t readily degrade; they also don’t stay where we put them. As a result, we can now find PFAS in places such as our blood, human breast milk, Antarctica, wild animals and tap water. In the Netherlands, people have been warned not to eat the eggs from their backyard chickens by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment due to high levels of the chemicals. Though it’s not yet clear why home-produced eggs have higher amounts of PFAS than commercial ones, one theory is that earthworms now contain such chemicals, and hens like to eat the worms.

An analysis by environmental groups Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Rivers Trust found that nearly all rivers, lakes and ponds in England exceed proposed safety limits, with 85% containing levels at least five times higher. France has banned tap water in 16 communes due to PFAS contamination, while a piece of investigative journalism called the Forever Pollution Project located 23,000 contaminated sites across Europe and a further 21,500 sites of presumptive contamination. I expect we haven’t seen the last of the tap water bans.

If the scale and extent of the pollution are hard to get your head around, the health implications are worse. PFAS have been linked to increased risk of various types of cancer, fertility problems, birth complications, delays to puberty and weakened immune systems. They’ve also been associated with increased cholesterol levels and kidney problems.

We’re looking at an issue analogous to climate change — right down to lobbying and cover-ups by PFAS manufacturers. Internal documents from 3M Co., one of the original and largest producers, and chemical firm DuPont de Nemours Inc. revealed that the companies knew the substances were accumulating in people and showing signs of toxicity for decades without telling anyone.

While 3M still maintains that their PFAS-containing products are “safe” for their intended uses in everyday life, in December 2022 the company announced it will discontinue the use of PFAS by the end of 2025. Together, the firms have had to pay billions in lawsuit settlements related to their pollution, with more possibly to come as injury cases hit the courts.

As with carbon dioxide, the longer we keep emitting PFAS into the environment, the worse the problem gets and the harder it is to clean up with remediation technologies. While the PFAS market globally is worth just over $28 billion, the cost of cleaning up all the related pollution in the UK and Europe could be €100 billion ($116 billion) a year if nothing is done to stem the chemicals’ steady flow into the environment. And that doesn’t factor in the health-care costs, which the Nordic Council of Ministers estimates is at least €52 billion annually.

Though some consumer brands such as outdoor gear retailer Patagonia Inc. and fast-food chain McDonald’s Corp. have committed to phasing out PFAS from their products and packaging, others have been dragging their feet. A team of researchers, lawyers and journalists has also exposed a huge lobbying campaign against proposed restrictions in Europe, showing entrenched resistance to change.

So we need a ban, but so far, we’ve only seen piecemeal prohibitions targeting either a specific chemical or, in a couple of leading countries, sectors.

The import and sale of PFAS-treated clothing, shoes and waterproofing agents will be barred from July 2026 in Denmark, while the chemicals have been banned in paper and board food packaging since 2020. The country has also recently announced a ban on 23 pesticides that can form a very mobile form of PFAS called trifluoroacetic acid.

France, meanwhile, has banned PFAS in several consumer product groups, including textiles, cosmetics and ski wax. Cookware, however, has been excluded from the ban after a campaign led by the French maker of Tefal pans, Groupe SEB. Exempting a sector for which safe alternatives are readily available is, frankly, scandalous.

A universal ban may be on its way. In 2023, five European Union member states — Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway — submitted a proposal to the European Chemicals Agency, which two scientific committees are now examining. The ban covers both consumer and industrial applications, with time-limited exemptions expected for some uses where there are no alternatives, such as medical devices.

What’s most significant about the restriction is that it takes a precautionary approach, regulating all 10,000-plus PFAS as a group rather than individually. According to CHEM Trust, a charity focused on harmful synthetic chemicals, under the current rate of regulation that analyzes each chemical individually, it would take more than 40,000 years to get through them all.

So the EU ban will be a huge step forward with positive impacts beyond its borders. But we’ll be waiting a while for it to come into effect — if everything goes smoothly, we’re likely looking at 2028 before sectors transition to new rules.

Meanwhile, progress elsewhere is pitiful. The UK government published an interim position on PFAS management in June, but this has been criticized by scientists for opting not to target all chemicals at once and instead creating their own groupings. Not only is this risky, failing to regulate compounds that lack toxicity data, but it lacks urgency. In the U.S., the Trump administration has pulled nearly $15 million in research into PFAS contamination of farmland, while the Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to rescind drinking water limits for four forever chemicals.

Of course, even banning the use of all PFAS tomorrow won’t do anything for the substances already in our bodies and drinking water. But we know that restrictions help. Two chemicals — PFOS and PFOA — are already banned in Europe. A 2023 study showed that blood concentrations of the chemicals have declined substantially over time in Denmark.

It’s time to stop playing Whac-a-Mole with chemicals that we know are bad for us and our environment. If we take action now, we might stand a chance at cleaning up the mess we’ve made.

Lara Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change.