Large-scale “No Kings” protests have erupted across the United States, with demonstrators rallying against policies introduced by President Donald Trump during his current term in office.

Organisers say the demonstrations—taking place in major cities including New York City, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles—are aimed at opposing issues such as the war involving Iran, stricter federal immigration enforcement, and the rising cost of living.

Crowds have already gathered in Washington, where protesters marched in from nearby Arlington and assembled at landmarks including the Lincoln Memorial and the National Mall.

The rallies mark the third iteration of the “No Kings” movement, which organisers say has previously drawn millions nationwide. Demonstrators carried signs and effigies depicting Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and other administration figures, calling for their removal from office.

Organisers framed the protests as a response to what they describe as an expansion of presidential powers since Trump returned to the White House in January, including the use of executive orders and the deployment of National Guard troops to cities despite objections from some state leaders.

Trump allies have criticised the demonstrations, labelling them a “hate America rally” and alleging links between participants and far-left groups such as Antifa. Protest organisers, however, insist the events are peaceful in nature.

The protests also come amid heightened tensions following controversial incidents earlier this year, including the fatal shooting of two civilians by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis, which sparked widespread outrage.

Despite the criticism, Trump has defended his actions, arguing they are necessary to address national challenges. He has rejected claims that he is governing like a monarch, dismissing such accusations as exaggerated.

An Israeli air strike in southern Lebanon has killed three journalists and a paramedic, according to local reports, intensifying concerns about the safety of media workers in conflict zones.

Among those killed was Ali Shoeib, a reporter for Al Manar TV, along with two journalists from Al Mayadin, identified as Fatima and Mohamed Fetoni. The strike reportedly hit a clearly marked press vehicle in the town of Jezzine, also wounding several other journalists.

Joseph Aoun condemned the attack, calling it a “blatant crime” and a violation of international law, which provides protections for journalists operating in war zones.

The Israel Defense Forces confirmed carrying out a strike that killed Shoeib but alleged he was a member of Hezbollah posing as a journalist—an accusation that has not been independently verified.

The incident follows another recent strike in which Lebanese presenter Mohammad Sherri and his wife were killed, adding to growing allegations that journalists are being targeted in the conflict. Israel has consistently denied deliberately targeting civilians or media personnel.

According to reports, more than 1,100 civilians—including children and paramedics—have been killed in Israeli air strikes across Lebanon since the escalation began.

The developments come amid broader regional tensions involving Iran and its allies, with fears mounting that the conflict could widen further across the Middle East.

India’s parliament has passed a controversial bill amending transgender rights legislation, triggering protests from opposition parties and LGBTQ advocates who say it undermines the right to self-identify.

The bill, which updates the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, now awaits approval from the president before becoming law.

Government officials argue the changes will improve access to welfare programmes and strengthen protections against exploitation and trafficking. However, critics warn the new framework could exclude large sections of the transgender, non-binary, and gender-fluid community.

A key shift in the legislation concerns how transgender identity is defined. While a landmark 2014 ruling by the Supreme Court of India recognised transgender people as a “third gender” and affirmed their right to self-identify, the new bill moves away from that principle.

Instead, it introduces a narrower definition based on biological or physical characteristics. It also requires certification from medical boards and local authorities, particularly for individuals undergoing gender-affirming procedures.

The government maintains that the current definition is too broad, making it difficult to ensure that welfare benefits—such as healthcare support and job reservations—reach the most marginalised individuals. Officials say the revised criteria are designed to protect those facing “extreme and oppressive” discrimination.

Activists, however, argue the changes could fundamentally reshape legal recognition in a restrictive way. They say many transgender people—especially those who rely on self-identification rather than medical or legal certification—risk being excluded from official recognition and support systems.

India is estimated to have around two million transgender people, though advocacy groups believe the actual number is higher. Despite existing legal protections, many continue to face discrimination and barriers to education, healthcare, and employment.

The passage of the bill has intensified debate over how best to balance administrative clarity with individual rights, with critics urging authorities to reconsider provisions they say could reverse progress made over the past decade.