A group of Big Ten presidents has begun discussing the possibility of adding more West Coast schools to the conference if the Pac-12 continues to crumble, according to two people familiar with the conversations

By Jason Lange WASHINGTON While the U.S. government narrowly dodged a partial shutdown and the House of Representatives

The Nigeria flag is raised above Coventry's Council House to mark the 63rd independence day.

Poland will find ways to address disagreements with Ukraine without the recent differences impacting its military support, said Nato’s secretary general Jens Stoltenberg. The two neighbouring nations have encountered friction in their ties after Poland – that has been one of Ukraine’s fiercest allies through the course of Russian invasion – decided to extend a ban on Ukrainian grain imports. Last week, Poland said it would only carry out previously agreed arms deliveries to Ukraine and choose to focus on rebuilding its own weapons arsenal. “I’m expecting and I’m confident that Ukraine and Poland will find a way to address those issues without that impacting in a negative way the military support to Ukraine,” Mr Stoltenberg said in an interview in Copenhagen on Friday. The announcement coincided with tensions peaking between the two neighbours after Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky said some countries were “feigning solidarity by indirectly supporting Russia” with a ban on grain imports. After Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine last February, a majority of Ukrainian grain ended up in Europe as the main Black Sea shipping lanes all but closed. Imports were then blocked by five countries to try and protect EU farmers amid fears the amount of grain would drive down local prices. Poland extended the ban after the European Union-brokered deal expired last week. On Tuesday, Mr Zelensky repeated his accusation on Eastern European nations backing Russia during his speech at the UN General Assembly. Poland then summoned the Ukrainian ambassador to its foreign ministry to protest Mr Zelensky’s comments. Hours later, Warsaw announced it would no longer be supplying weapons to Ukraine. “We are no longer transferring weapons to Ukraine, because we are now arming Poland with more modern weapons,” the prime minister said. Poland has previously sent 320 Soviet-era tanks and 14 MiG-29 fighter jets to the war-torn country. Mr Morawiecki also issued a warning to Kyiv, saying if they “escalate the conflict”, additional products will be added to the list of banned imports. “I am warning Ukraine’s authorities. Because if they are to escalate the conflict like that, we will add additional products to the ban on imports into Poland,” he said. “Ukrainian authorities do not understand the degree to which Poland’s farming industry has been destabilised. We are protecting Polish farmers.” Ukraine’s other ally Slovakia is also seeing discussions of halting support to Ukraine. The Nato nation has been a staunch ally of Kyiv and sent military equipment including MiG-29 fighter jets and an S-300 air defence system to its neighbour. But opposition leader and former prime minister Robert Fico has pledged to end that military support. Mr Fico is leading polls ahead of Saturday’s election. “Whatever new government they will have in Slovakia, we will continue to sit down at Nato meetings,” Mr Stoltenberg said, “and I’m confident that we’ll find ways to continue to provide support – as we have been after every election in this alliance since the war started”. Read More Plans for Poland's first nuclear power plant move ahead as US and Polish officials sign an agreement Why has Poland stopped supplying weapons to Ukraine? Zelensky accuses ‘some friends in Europe’ of playing into Russia’s hands Poland done sending arms to Ukraine, leader says, as trade dispute escalates

Gisele Bündchen has spoken candidly about ex Tom Brady, with the model confessing that their divorce is not something she ever “dreamed of”. The Brazilian model, 43, reflected on getting divorced in 2022, after 13 years of marriage, during a preview of her upcoming interview with CBS News Sunday Morning, which will air on 24 September. After expressing that she wouldn’t “change anything” about the experiences she’s had in her life, correspondent Lee Cowan chimed in and asked: “Not even your divorce?” In response, she noted that while she never thought that she’d get a divorce, after seeing how long her own parents have been together, she’s still come to terms with her split. “I mean, it’s not what I dreamed of and what I hoped for," she said. “My parents have been married for 50 years, and I really wanted that to happen. But I think you have to accept, you know, sometimes that the way you are in your 20s, it’s sometimes you grow together, sometimes you grow apart.” Bündchen went on to acknowledge that the former NFL star will continue to be a part of her life, since they share two children, son Benjamin, 13, and daughter Vivian, 10. Brady also shares a 16-year-old son, John, with ex Bridget Moynahan “I mean, he’s the father of my kids, you know?” she added. “So, I always wish him the best, and I’m so grateful that he gave me wonderful children.” In October 2022, Bündchen and Brady announced they were divorcing after over a decade of marriage. The move also came weeks after it was previously reported that the athlete and former supermodel had hired divorce lawyers. “We arrived at this decision amicably and with gratitude for the time we spent together,” he wrote on his Instagram Story.“We are blessed with beautiful and wonderful children who will continue to be the centre of our world in every day. We will continue to work together as parents to always ensure they receive the love and attention they deserve.” Bündchen later issued a statement of her own to Instagram, writing: “With much gratitude for our time together, Tom and I have amicably finalised our divorce. My priority has always been and will continue to be our children whom I love with all my heart. We will continue co-parenting to give them the love, care and attention they greatly deserve.” In her statement, she acknowledged that the decision to end a marriage is “never easy,” but that she and Brady have “grown apart”. “And while it is, of course, difficult to go through something like this, I feel blessed for the time we had together and only wish the best for Tom always,” she continued. “I kindly ask that our privacy be respected during this sensitive time.” Since the divorce, Bündchen has continued to speak out about her relationship with her ex. Earlier this week, she reflected on the challenges her family has experienced since the divorce. “It’s been very tough on my family. It’s been a lot - in every area of my life,” she said during an interview with People, published on 18 September. After finalising her divorce in October 2022, she relocated her family to Florida for Brady’s three-season stint with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. While the model has now settled down in Miami, she was reportedly helping her two ailing parents at the same time. “I feel like whenever it rains, it pours,” Bündchen explained to the outlet. “With all the different twists and turns that life takes, all we can do is the best we can given what happens in our surroundings.” During an interview with Vogue Brasil, published last month, she opened up about maintaining a positive outlook on life after her divorce from the quarterback. “I’ve always believed that every situation, no matter how challenging, teaches us something and helps us grow,” she said. “Breakups are never easy, especially when the media is speculating every step of the way. I tried to focus on my children, my health and my projects and dreams.” In March, Bündchen also explained how she and Brady are navigating co-parenting. “We’re not playing against each other,” she told Vanity Fair. “We are a team, and that’s beautiful. I look back and I have no regrets. I loved every bit of it.” Read More Gisele Bündchen opens up about ‘tough’ times nearly one year after Tom Brady divorce Gisele Bündchen reveals why she hasn’t had alcohol in two years Tom Brady responds to viral photo of him at Blackpink concert Gisele Bündchen opens up about ‘tough’ times nearly one year after Tom Brady divorce Gisele Bündchen reveals why she hasn’t had alcohol in two years Dwyane Wade ‘tried to break up’ with Gabrielle Union after fathering baby with woman

Bank of American posted a 10% rise in third quarter profits, helped by higher interest rates that allowed the bank to charge more for loans while keeping the bank’s expenses under control

Rapper Tory Lanez is expected to be sentenced for shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the feet three years ago

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday against the Navajo Nation in a dispute concerning the tribe’s access to the drought-stricken Colorado River. Critics says the decision harms a community where an estimated one-third of tribal members lack running water and furthers the history of the US government breaking its promises to tribes. The case, Arizona v Navajo Nation, centres on the obligations of an 1868 treaty, which established the Navajo reservation as the tribe’s permanent home, following their forced removal from their ancestral lands by the United States military. The tribe argued that under the treaty, the US government has an obligation to evaluate the tribe’s need for water and factor that analysis into how it divides up water access to the Colorado River, which serves over 40 million people and passes through seven states. The US government, as well as the states of Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado, and various water districts in California, argued against the tribe in consolidated appeals. They claimed that the tribe’s interpretation of the treaty would undermine existing agreements on sharing the water from the Colorado and create and impose unsubstantiated obligations on the US government to develop water infrastructure for the tribe. In a 5-to-4 decision, all but one of the high court’s conservatives ruled against the tribe. “In light of the treaty’s text and history, we conclude that the treaty does not require the United States to take those affirmative steps,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. “And it is not the Judiciary’s role to rewrite and update this 155-year-old treaty. Rather, Congress and the President may enact — and often have enacted — laws to assist the citizens of the western United States, including the Navajos, with their water needs.” The court’s three liberal justices, as well as the Trump-appointed Neil Gorsuch, an advocate for tribal rights, dissented. “The Navajo have waited patiently for someone, anyone, to help them, only to be told (repeatedly) that they have been standing in the wrong line and must try another,” he wrote in his dissenting opinion. He argued, alongside the tribe, that the Navajo weren’t forcing the US government to immediately start building water infrastructure or changing water claims on the river, but rather begin the process of fully accounting for what the nation needed. Navajo representatives criticised the ruling. "My job as the president of the Navajo Nation is to represent and protect the Navajo people, our land, and our future,” Navajo Nation president Buu Nygren said in a statement after the ruling. “The only way to do that is with secure, quantified water rights to the Lower Basin of the Colorado River.” With a population of about 175,000 and a land mass larger than West Virginia, the Navajo Nation is the largest US tribal reservation, and the Colorado River and its tributaries flow alongside and through the tribe’s territory. “The US government excluded Navajo tribal citizens from receiving a share of water when the original apportioning occurred and today’s Supreme Court decision for Arizona v. Navajo Nation condoned this lack of accountability,” John Echohawk, executive director of the Native American Rights Fund, one of the many Indigenous groups that filed briefs in support of the Navajo Nation, said in a statement. “Despite today’s ruling, Tribal Nations will continue to assert their water rights and NARF remains committed to that fight.” In 2003, the Navajos sued the federal government regarding access to the Colorado River, while the tribe has also fought for access to a tributary, the Little Colorado River, in state court. As The Independent has reported, many on the Navajo nation struggle for basic water access. “If you run out [of water] in the evening, you have to get up earlier the next day to make sure that there’s water for the kids to wash hands, brush their teeth, make breakfast,” Tina Becenti told The Independent. “It was time-consuming and took a lot of energy.” Tribes were cut out of initial deals made to allocate the water on the Colorado River, leaving many to rely on thousands of unregulated wells, springs, and livestock troughs that are spread across the reservation, which can pose a serious health risk. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, these sources may contain bacterial or fecal contaminants, along with unsafe levels of uranium and arsenic – a legacy of mining on Navajo land which began with the US military’s Manhattan Project for nuclear weapons in 1944 and continued until 2005. The fate of the Colorado River has become increasingly contentious, as the vital waterway dwindles under heavy demand and a changing climate. In May, following years of tense negotiations, Arizona, California, and Nevada agreed to cut their use of water from the Colorado in exchange for $1.2bn in federal funding, a last-minute compromise that staved off catastrophic impacts to agriculture, electricity generation, and water supplies to major cities like Phoenix and Los Angeles. The high court decision follows a ruling this month on another topic with a long and complicated history involving tribal groups: adoption. Last week, a 7-2 majority ruled to preserve the Indian Child Welfare Act, defending the law’s preference for the foster care and adoption of Native children by their relatives and Tribes, which was implemented following investigations that revealed more than one-third of Native children were being removed from their homes and placed with non-Native families and institutions, cutting off important family and cultural ties. Louise Boyle and Alex Woodward contributed reporting to this story. Read More Father of 13 dies in Colorado rafting accident after saving his children from danger Feds announce start of public process to reshape key rules on Colorado River water use by 2027 Nevada fight over leaky irrigation canal and groundwater more complicated than appears on surface Supreme Court rules against Navajo Nation in Colorado River water rights case Feds announce start of public process to reshape key rules on Colorado River water use by 2027 Vegas water agency empowered to limit home water flows in future

(Corrects spelling of Guadalcanal in paragraph 2) SYDNEY (Reuters) -The United States commissioned a warship in Sydney, Australia, on Saturday,

The family of Jayland Walker, who was shot dead by eight police officers after a traffic stop last summer, is taking the City of Akron to federal court.

Another wave of wildfire smoke has drifted into the US, dimming blue summer skies and igniting troubling concerns regarding the increasing frequency of fires, and what they have to do with climate change.

China’s economy lost more momentum in June as manufacturing activity contracted again and the services and construction sectors