By JOSEPH KRAUSS

The Israeli defense minister says his country’s troops will stay in “security zones” in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria indefinitely, after Israel unilaterally expanded its frontiers in the war unleashed by Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack.

Israel says it needs to hold on to the zones to prevent similar attacks, but the takeovers appear to meet the dictionary definition of military occupation.

The acquisition of territory by force is universally seen as a violation of international law, something Western allies of Israel have repeatedly invoked with regard to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Israel, which has captured territory during wars with its Arab neighbors going back to the country’s establishment in 1948, says this is a special case. For decades, Israeli governments said they must hold such lands for self-defense but would return them in peace agreements, as when Israel restored the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in the Camp David Accords.

Israel has formally annexed east Jerusalem, as well as the Golan Heights captured from Syria. It has occupied the West Bank, home to some 3 million Palestinians, for more than half a century and built settlements there that today house more than 500,000 Jewish settlers.

Israel withdrew soldiers and settlers from Gaza in 2005 but imposed a blockade, along with Egypt, after Hamas took power two years later.

In a statement Wednesday, Defense Minister Israel Katz said Israeli troops would remain in the so-called security zones in Gaza, Syria and Lebanon “in any temporary or permanent situation.”

What are the ‘security zones’?

Israel launched a massive offensive after the 2023 attack and carved out a wide buffer zone along the border. Israel ended its ceasefire with Hamas last month and has since expanded the buffer zone, established corridors across the strip and encircled the southern city of Rafah. Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada and the European Union.

Israel now controls over 50% of Gaza, according to experts. Katz did not specify which territories he was referring to.

Israel was supposed to withdraw from Lebanon under the ceasefire it reached with the Hezbollah militant group in November after more than a year of fighting. But troops have remained in five strategic locations along the border and have continued to carry out strikes against what Israel says are combatant targets.

When rebels overthrew Syrian President Bashar Assad in December, Israeli forces advanced from the Golan Heights into the Syrian side of a buffer zone established after the 1973 war. Israel has since expanded its zone of control to nearby villages, setting off clashes with residents last month.

Israel has also repeatedly bombed Syrian military bases and other targets, and has said it will not allow Syrian security forces to operate south of Damascus.

How have Israel’s neighbors responded?

Lebanon and Syria have condemned Israel’s seizure of their territory as a blatant violation of their sovereignty and of international law. But neither country’s armed forces are capable of defending their borders against Israel.

Hezbollah, which was established during the early years of Israel’s 1982-2000 occupation of southern Lebanon, has threatened to renew hostilities if Israel does not complete its withdrawal, but its military capabilities have been severely depleted by the war and the fall of Assad, who had been a close ally.

While Hezbollah seems unlikely to return to war, an ongoing Israeli occupation could complicate Lebanese efforts to negotiate the group’s disarmament.

The Palestinians seek an independent state in east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war. A two-state solution is widely seen internationally as the only way to resolve the conflict, but the last serious peace talks broke down more than 15 years ago.

Hamas has said it will only release the remaining 59 hostages held in Gaza — 24 of whom are believed to be alive — in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from the territory and a lasting ceasefire. Israel’s vow to remain in Gaza could further complicate slow-moving talks on a new ceasefire.

President Donald Trump, left, gestures as Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leaves the West Wing of the White House, Monday, April 7, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

What is the Trump administration’s position?

The United States has not yet commented on Katz’s remarks.

But the Trump administration has expressed full support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, including its decision to end the ceasefire, renew military operations with a surprise bombardment that killed hundreds of people, and seal off the territory from all food, fuel or other supplies.

During his first term, President Donald Trump gave unprecedented support to Israel’s acquisition of territory by force, at times upending decades of U.S. foreign policy.

Under Trump, the U.S. became the first and so far only state to recognize Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. Trump also relocated the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, lending support to Israel’s claims to the entire city. Both policies continued under the Biden administration.

Trump has proposed that the U.S. take ownership of Gaza after the war and redevelop it as a tourist destination. He has called for the Palestinian population to be resettled in other countries, a plan that has been rejected by Palestinians and much of the international community.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to implement the plan after Hamas is defeated, saying Israel supports the “voluntary emigration” of Palestinians from a territory it largely controls, much of which has been rendered uninhabitable by its offensive.

By MARY CLARE JALONICK and MATTHEW BROWN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen arrived in El Salvador Wednesday to push for the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who was sent there by the Trump administration in March despite an immigration court order preventing his deportation.

Related Articles

Protesters arrested, 1 subdued with stun gun at Marjorie Taylor Greene’s town hall

Harvard stands to lose $2.2 billion in federal funding. Researchers fear science will suffer

Top Trump officials will hold talks with Europeans on the Russia-Ukraine war

The EPA can’t end grants from $20 billion Biden-era fund for climate-friendly projects, a judge says

Trump administration sues Maine over participation of transgender athletes in girls sports

Van Hollen, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a video posted to X before he boarded his flight that he hopes to meet with Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen who was living in Maryland. He said he also hopes to meet with high-level officials to press for his return to the United States.

“The goal of this mission is to let the Trump administration, to let the government of El Salvador know that we are going to keep fighting to bring Abrego Garcia home until he returns to his family,” Van Hollen said.

After arriving in San Salvador, Van Hollen posted another video from the back of a moving car, saying he was traveling into the city and planned to meet with officials at the U.S. embassy. He said he would “have a better idea” later in the day whether he can meet with Abrego Garcia, who is detained at the notorious CECOT prison.

The Trump administration and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele said this week that they have no basis to send him back, even as even as the U.S. Supreme Court has called on the administration to facilitate his return. Trump officials have said that Abrego Garcia has ties to the MS-13 gang, but his attorneys note the government has provided no evidence of that.

Democrats have seized on the case to highlight what they say is President Donald Trump’s disrespect for the courts and overcome their position in the minority in both the House and Senate. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., was also considering a trip to El Salvador, as were some House Democrats.

“I told his wife and his family that I would do everything possible to bring him home, and we’re going to keep working at this until we’re successful,” Van Hollen said in his video.

Trump officials slammed the Democratic senator’s trip and renewed their claims that he was a gang member.

Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar, said on Fox News that he is “disgusted that any congressional representative is going to run to El Salvador.”

“We got rid of a dangerous person, an El Salvadoran national was returned to the country of El Salvador, so he is home,” Homan said.

The fight over Abrego Garcia has also played out in contentious court filings, with repeated refusals from the government to tell a judge what it plans to do, if anything, to repatriate him.

Since March, El Salvador has accepted from the U.S. more than 200 Venezuelan immigrants — whom Trump administration officials have accused of gang activity and violent crimes — and placed them inside the country’s maximum-security gang prison just outside of San Salvador. That prison is part of Bukele’s broader effort to crack down on the country’s powerful street gangs, which has put 84,000 people behind bars and made Bukele extremely popular at home.

Human rights groups have previously accused Bukele’s government of subjecting those jailed to “systematic use of torture and other mistreatment.” Officials there deny wrongdoing.

Associated Press writer Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

By JONATHAN J. COOPER

SUN CITY, Ariz. (AP) — Susan Hemphill said she’s always been frugal with her spending. But the recent volatility in the stock market caused by President Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again tariffs and an escalating trade war with China have made her even more cautious.

These days, Hemphill is staying closer to home in Sun City, Arizona, a 55-and-older community near Phoenix. No more day trips to Sedona, the retired union organizer said, fighting tears as she wondered aloud whether she could run out of money.

“I’m so tired of Trump playing with our lives,” said Hemphill, who voted for Democrat Kamala Harris in November. “I’m too old for this. I just really want to be retired. I want to enjoy — I don’t want to worry.”

Trump was elected with a promise to improve the economy, lower taxes and control inflation, addressing voters who said overwhelmingly that the economy was the top issue facing the country. But for retirees like Hemphill, the Republican president’s economic stewardship has been defined by the roller coaster of the stock market and fears his tariffs will lead to higher inflation.

“Some are considering curtailing their spending, such as saving their tax refunds instead of spending them, while others are adjusting their investment strategies by moving money into more conservative allocations like bonds and gold,” said Prudence Zhu, a Phoenix-area financial adviser, in an email. “While this is often an emotional response, it’s not necessarily the optimal strategy in most cases.”

How all of those issues shake out could have a notable impact on the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election, as the center of political gravity shifts increasingly toward battleground states in the South and the West, places like Arizona that are popular with retirees.

Like other emerging political battlegrounds Nevada, Georgia and North Carolina, Arizona’s population has exploded over the past half-century, welcoming newcomers who have transformed its politics.

Though Arizona has moved from reliably Republican to a battleground, Trump enjoys overwhelming support in Sun City, where Hemphill is among the 40,000 residents in a community that sprouted from the desert in the 1960s. Trump won every precinct in Sun City, most of them by double digits.

Trump supporters like Paul Estok said they’re confident that the president has a handle on the situation and that things will stabilize with time.

“I’m real happy about what’s going on,” said Estok, who gets three pensions from the various government agencies where he worked as a union stationary engineer in the Chicago area. He’s confident the pensions are secure.

Related Articles

Protesters arrested, 1 subdued with stun gun at Marjorie Taylor Greene’s town hall

Harvard stands to lose $2.2 billion in federal funding. Researchers fear science will suffer

Top Trump officials will hold talks with Europeans on the Russia-Ukraine war

The EPA can’t end grants from $20 billion Biden-era fund for climate-friendly projects, a judge says

Trump administration sues Maine over participation of transgender athletes in girls sports

The tariffs Trump announced on much of the world sparked turmoil in the stock market earlier this month, before the president abruptly hit pause on most of them. But the drama isn’t over. Trump said the 90-day pause would be used to negotiate over tariffs with other countries, but he increased the tax rate on Chinese imports to 145%.

Estok said he’s thrilled to see a president tough enough to impose tariffs despite the economic consequences. Echoing Trump, he said other countries “have been taking so much advantage of us.”

“No one’s ever stepped up and said, ‘Hey, enough’s enough,’” Estok said, climbing into his truck after stopping at a grocery store on his way home from the golf course.

Don Welling, an 82-year-old Trump voter, said those alarmed by the tariffs are misguided. He didn’t enjoy seeing his portfolio take a dip, but he wasn’t worried.

“If people would pay attention to what he said when he was campaigning, things would be better,” Welling said as he loaded groceries into his golf cart.

Some retirees said they’re worried about the effect Trump’s federal cost-cutting is having on Social Security. While Trump insists he will not cut benefits, his administration has eliminated thousands of jobs at the Social Security Administration, leading to complaints about long call wait times.

Karl Feiste winced to see his investments fall 20% in the days after Trump announced his tariffs, but he said, so far, his losses are only on paper.

“If that turns around, then I can still continue to do what I’ve been doing,” said Feiste, a Vietnam War veteran who voted for Harris. “But I’m not planning on buying a car. I’m not planning on moving. I’m not planning on taking extravagant vacations. I’m wondering what’s going to happen to the market because that basically dictates what leisure money I have.”

He worries his Social Security checks, which make up half his income, could eventually fall victim to Trump’s aggressive government cost-cutting.

“That smarts,” Feiste said. “Because I can’t live if he takes my Social Security.”

Trump carried Arizona voters who were age 65 or older, winning 52% of this group compared with Harris’ 47%, broadly in line with his national margin among seniors, according to AP VoteCast, an extensive survey of voters and nonvoters that aims to tell the story behind election results.

Older Arizona voters were less likely than voters overall to consider “the economy and jobs” the most important issue facing the country, and they were more likely to consider immigration the top problem. About 3 in 10 seniors said the economy was the biggest problem, compared with about 4 in 10 Arizona voters overall.

Hans Vinge, 62, took a prime golf cart parking spot during a grocery store run one recent morning. A former Republican disillusioned by the party’s ideological shift under Trump, he thinks the president is doing too much, too fast, with unrealistic expectations for what his tariffs can accomplish.

“We’re not ready right now. These companies aren’t going to come from offshore into America,” Vinge said. “It’s going to take 10, 15 years to get these companies in to Americanize everything, which is great. But it’s just it’s too disruptive right now.”

Vinge, who is retired from the Air Force and splits his time between North Dakota and Arizona, said it’s too stressful to follow the news day to day, but it’s hard to avoid. When he last peeked at the balance of his retirement account, it had fallen $23,000 in one week, he said.

“It’s disappointing to see something that’s been doing well for you,” Vinge said. “I wish I would’ve invested more in gold.”

Associated Press writer Linley Sanders in Washington contributed.

By BRIAN MELLEY, JILL LAWLESS and SYLVIA HUI

LONDON (AP) — The U.K. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a woman is someone born biologically female, excluding transgender people from the legal definition in a long-running dispute between a feminist group and the Scottish government.

Related Articles

Top Trump officials will hold talks with Europeans on the Russia-Ukraine war

Iran confirms that the 2nd round of nuclear talks with the US will be in Rome

China appoints a new trade negotiator during tariff fight with the US

A US pastor abducted in South Africa has been rescued after a police shootout

Today in History: April 16, the Virginia Tech shooting

The court said the unanimous ruling shouldn’t be seen as victory by one side, but several women’s groups that supported the appeal celebrated outside court and hailed it as a major win in their effort to protect spaces designated for women.

“Everyone knows what sex is and you can’t change it,” said Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland, which brought the case. “It’s common sense, basic common sense, and the fact that we have been down a rabbit hole where people have tried to deny science and to deny reality, and hopefully this will now see us back to reality.”

A unanimous decision

Five judges ruled that the U.K. Equality Act means trans women can be excluded from some groups and single-sex spaces such as changing rooms, homeless shelters, swimming areas and medical or counseling services provided only to women.

The court said the ruling did not remove rights for trans people still protected from discrimination under U.K. law. But it said certain protections should apply only to biological females and not transgender women.

The ruling brings some clarity in the U.K. to an issue that has polarized politics in some other countries, particularly the United States. Republican-controlled states over the last four years have been banning gender-affirming care for minors, barring transgender women and girls from sports competitions that align with their gender and restricting which public bathrooms transgender people can use.

Since returning to office in January, President Donald Trump has signed orders to define the sexes as only male and female and has tried to kick transgender service members out of the military, block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and block their sports participation nationally. His efforts are being challenged in court.

The U.K. case stems from a 2018 law passed by the Scottish Parliament saying 50% of the membership of the boards of Scottish public bodies should be women. Transgender women with gender recognition certificates were to be included in meeting the quota.

“Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ … and, thus, the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” Justice Patrick Hodge said in summarizing the case. “It would create heterogeneous groupings.”

Trans rights advocates condemn the judgment

The campaign group Scottish Trans said it was “shocked and disappointed” by the ruling, saying it would undermine legal protections for transgender people enshrined in the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

Maggie Chapman, a Green Party lawmaker in the Scottish Parliament, said the ruling was “deeply concerning” for human rights and “a huge blow to some of the most marginalized people in our society.”

“Trans people have been cynically targeted and demonized by politicians and large parts of the media for far too long,” she said. “This has contributed to attacks on longstanding rights and attempts to erase their existence altogether.”

Groups that had challenged the Scottish government uncorked a bottle of champagne outside the court and sang, “Women’s rights are human rights.”

“The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex — male and female — refers to reality, not to paperwork,” said Maya Forstater of the group Sex Matters. In 2022, an employment tribunal ruled that she had been the victim of discrimination when she lost out on a job after posting gender-critical views online.

The British government welcomed the latest ruling, saying it would provide clarity and confidence for women.

“Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government,” it said.

Scotland’s semi-autonomous government said it accepted the judgment.

“We will now engage on the implications of the ruling,” First Minister John Swinney posted on X. “Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.”

‘One’s bodily reality’

For Women Scotland had argued that the Scottish officials’ redefinition of woman went beyond Parliament’s powers. But Scottish officials then issued new guidance stating that the definition of woman included someone with a gender recognition certificate.

FWS sought to overturn that.

“Not tying the definition of sex to its ordinary meaning means that public boards could conceivably comprise of 50% men and 50% men with certificates, yet still lawfully meet the targets for female representation,” the group’s director Trina Budge said previously.

The challenge was rejected by a court in 2022, but the group was granted permission last year to take its case to the Supreme Court.

Aidan O’Neill, a lawyer for FWS, told the Supreme Court judges — three men and two women — that under the Equality Act “sex” should refer to biological sex as understood “in ordinary, everyday language.”

“Our position is your sex, whether you are a man or a woman or a girl or a boy, is determined from conception in utero, even before one’s birth, by one’s body,” he said. “It is an expression of one’s bodily reality. It is an immutable biological state.”

Harry Potter author backed challenge

The women’s rights group counted among its supporters author J.K. Rowling, who reportedly donated tens of thousands of pounds to back its work. The “Harry Potter” writer has been vocal in arguing that the rights for trans women should not come at the expense of those who are born biologically female.

Rowling said she was “so proud” of the “extraordinary, tenacious” For Women Scotland campaigners who took the case on a years-long battle through the courts.

Rowling wrote on X that “in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the U.K.”

Opponents, including Amnesty International, said excluding transgender people from sex discrimination protections conflicted with human rights laws.

Amnesty submitted a brief in court saying it was concerned about the deterioration of the rights for trans people in the U.K. and abroad.

“A blanket policy of barring trans women from single-sex services is not a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim,” the human rights group said.

Associated Press writers Kwiyeon Ha in London and Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, contributed to this story.