A potentially crippling strike up and down America’s East and Gulf Coasts has been avoided – at least for now – after longshoremen and the shipping and port companies reached a tentative deal on a new contract Wednesday.

The United States Maritime Alliance, the group representing ship lines and port and terminal operators, which uses the acronym USMX, and the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), a union which represents 50,000 members who fill 25,000 jobs spread between three dozen locations at 14 port authorities from Maine to Texas, jointly announced that they agreed on a six year deal Wednesday. The deal is not complete until it is ratified by the union’s membership.

Without a deal, the port workers were set to go on strike on the morning of January 16.

“We are pleased to announce that ILA and USMX have reached a tentative agreement,” the two sides said in a joint statement. “This agreement protects current ILA jobs and establishes a framework for implementing technologies that will create more jobs while modernizing East and Gulf coast ports – making them safer and more efficient, and creating the capacity they need to keep our supply chains strong.”

“This is a win-win agreement that creates ILA jobs, supports American consumers and businesses, and keeps the American economy the key hub of the global marketplace, the two sides added.”

The ILA and USMX reached a deal in October on wages, which increased hourly pay by 10% in the first year and 62% over the six-year tentative deal. That ended a three-day strike. Workers returned to work and negotiators were sent back to the table to work out the rest of the contract. Negotiators met on Tuesday for the first time since mid-November.

Wednesday’s deal is agreement on all other items including automation, which was a key issue for the union who believed jobs would be lost.

The sides did not publicly disclose the details of the agreement. But a source familiar with the negotiations said that as the final details of the contract were being worked out this week, there was a compromise reached on technology at the ports, Automation was the key sticking point for the union over concerns they would lose jobs.

Fully automated technology is still out of the contract, but it does allow for semi-automation. USMX can implement new technology like cranes that can perform some tasks without human involvement. However, the contract gives the ILA guaranteed jobs directly associated with any new technology, the source said.

Management had argued ports need to introduce technology to improve productivity – not to eliminate union jobs. But the union said it was not convinced its members would go unhurt by new technology.

President Joe Biden had refused calls by many of the nation’s business groups to intervene and order the ILA members back to work during the October strike.

It’s not clear that President-elect Donald Trump would have taken the side of USMX and order the ILA back to work if a new strike started and spilled over into his tenure. After meeting with ILA President Harold Daggett in December, Trump came out firmly in favor of the ILA position on the issue of automation at the ports, writing on his Truth Social platform that the foreign-owned ship lines that dominate the USMX “have made a fortune in the US by giving them access to our markets…. I’d rather these foreign companies spend it on the great men and women on our docks, than machinery, which is expensive, and which will constantly have to be replaced.”

This story has been updated with additional context.

A potentially crippling strike up and down America’s East and Gulf Coasts has been avoided – at least for now – after longshoremen and the shipping and port companies reached a tentative deal on a new contract Wednesday.

The United States Maritime Alliance, the group representing ship lines and port and terminal operators, which uses the acronym USMX, and the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), a union which represents 50,000 members who fill 25,000 jobs spread between three dozen locations at 14 port authorities from Maine to Texas, jointly announced that they agreed on a six year deal Wednesday. The deal is not complete until it is ratified by the union’s membership.

Without a deal, the port workers were set to go on strike on the morning of January 16.

“We are pleased to announce that ILA and USMX have reached a tentative agreement,” the two sides said in a joint statement. “This agreement protects current ILA jobs and establishes a framework for implementing technologies that will create more jobs while modernizing East and Gulf coast ports – making them safer and more efficient, and creating the capacity they need to keep our supply chains strong.”

“This is a win-win agreement that creates ILA jobs, supports American consumers and businesses, and keeps the American economy the key hub of the global marketplace, the two sides added.”

The ILA and USMX reached a deal in October on wages, which increased hourly pay by 10% in the first year and 62% over the six-year tentative deal. That ended a three-day strike. Workers returned to work and negotiators were sent back to the table to work out the rest of the contract. Negotiators met on Tuesday for the first time since mid-November.

Wednesday’s deal is agreement on all other items including automation, which was a key issue for the union who believed jobs would be lost.

The sides did not publicly disclose the details of the agreement. But a source familiar with the negotiations said that as the final details of the contract were being worked out this week, there was a compromise reached on technology at the ports, Automation was the key sticking point for the union over concerns they would lose jobs.

Fully automated technology is still out of the contract, but it does allow for semi-automation. USMX can implement new technology like cranes that can perform some tasks without human involvement. However, the contract gives the ILA guaranteed jobs directly associated with any new technology, the source said.

Management had argued ports need to introduce technology to improve productivity – not to eliminate union jobs. But the union said it was not convinced its members would go unhurt by new technology.

President Joe Biden had refused calls by many of the nation’s business groups to intervene and order the ILA members back to work during the October strike.

It’s not clear that President-elect Donald Trump would have taken the side of USMX and order the ILA back to work if a new strike started and spilled over into his tenure. After meeting with ILA President Harold Daggett in December, Trump came out firmly in favor of the ILA position on the issue of automation at the ports, writing on his Truth Social platform that the foreign-owned ship lines that dominate the USMX “have made a fortune in the US by giving them access to our markets…. I’d rather these foreign companies spend it on the great men and women on our docks, than machinery, which is expensive, and which will constantly have to be replaced.”

This story has been updated with additional context.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said he spoke with President-elect Donald Trump by phone this week in support of a former law clerk who is seeking a job in the incoming administration – but the justice said he did not discuss Trump’s pending effort to delay his sentencing.

“William Levi, one of my former law clerks, asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position,” Alito said in a statement issued Wednesday. “I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon.”

The call, first reported by ABC News, came one day before Trump filed an emergency appeal seeking to delay his Friday sentencing in his New York hush money case.

It’s not unusual for justices to make job recommendations on behalf of former clerks, who often remain close with the justice for whom they worked. But it is remarkable for justices to speak with an incoming president, especially in advance of a major court filing regarding the first-ever criminal sentencing of a former president.

The call may give the conservative court’s critics another reason to question its independence from politics and Trump in particular. The incoming president named three justices during his first term, and the court has handed down several high-profile opinions in which the six conservatives and three liberals have lined up on opposite sides.

Alito, a member of the court’s conservative wing, has faced repeated calls for recusal from ethics experts and Democrats on Capitol Hill. Most recently, that criticism was focused around two controversial flags that were raised over his properties in Virginia and New Jersey.

In his statement, Alito said he spoke with Trump on Tuesday – and said he did not discuss the case with Trump. The president-elect filed his appeal Wednesday morning.

“We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed,” Alito said. “We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the President-elect.”

The Trump transition did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Levi clerked for Alito during the 2011 term and has worked in all three branches of the federal government, including in a number of high-profile positions. He served as chief of staff to Attorney General William Barr during the first Trump administration and also worked as chief counsel to Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican.

Trump will face an uphill fight getting the Supreme Court to pause his sentencing because his case is still pending in New York and the nation’s top court is reluctant to take up emergency appeals in that situation.

This story has been updated with additional details.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said he spoke with President-elect Donald Trump by phone this week in support of a former law clerk who is seeking a job in the incoming administration – but the justice said he did not discuss Trump’s pending effort to delay his sentencing.

“William Levi, one of my former law clerks, asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position,” Alito said in a statement issued Wednesday. “I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon.”

The call, first reported by ABC News, came one day before Trump filed an emergency appeal seeking to delay his Friday sentencing in his New York hush money case.

It’s not unusual for justices to make job recommendations on behalf of former clerks, who often remain close with the justice for whom they worked. But it is remarkable for justices to speak with an incoming president, especially in advance of a major court filing regarding the first-ever criminal sentencing of a former president.

The call may give the conservative court’s critics another reason to question its independence from politics and Trump in particular. The incoming president named three justices during his first term, and the court has handed down several high-profile opinions in which the six conservatives and three liberals have lined up on opposite sides.

Alito, a member of the court’s conservative wing, has faced repeated calls for recusal from ethics experts and Democrats on Capitol Hill. Most recently, that criticism was focused around two controversial flags that were raised over his properties in Virginia and New Jersey.

In his statement, Alito said he spoke with Trump on Tuesday – and said he did not discuss the case with Trump. The president-elect filed his appeal Wednesday morning.

“We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed,” Alito said. “We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the President-elect.”

The Trump transition did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Levi clerked for Alito during the 2011 term and has worked in all three branches of the federal government, including in a number of high-profile positions. He served as chief of staff to Attorney General William Barr during the first Trump administration and also worked as chief counsel to Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican.

Trump will face an uphill fight getting the Supreme Court to pause his sentencing because his case is still pending in New York and the nation’s top court is reluctant to take up emergency appeals in that situation.

This story has been updated with additional details.

Israel’s military has announced new media engagement rules for its members after a Brazilian court ordered an investigation into war crime allegations against a soldier visiting the country.

The guidelines, announced Wednesday, require the names and faces of most of its soldiers – both active duty and reserve – to be obscured.

The decision comes after a former Israeli soldier fled Brazil last week after a court in the South American country ordered an investigation into allegations by a pro-Palestinian NGO that the soldier was involved in war crimes in Gaza.

Israeli military spokesperson Nadav Shoshani referenced the case in a briefing on the measures, which he said were to make sure Israeli personnel were “safe from these types of incidents” involving “anti-Israel activists around the world.”

Those at the rank of colonel and below can be filmed only from behind, with their face obscured, and only the first initial of their name can be used, according to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

Military personnel with foreign citizenships – in combat and non-combat roles – need to have their faces obscured and cannot disclose their full names in interviews.

The new protocols apply to all combat zones, and soldiers being interviewed cannot be linked to a specific combat operation, the IDF said.

He said activists were now going after ordinary soldiers, not just high-ranking officers and politicians.

‘Something unusual’

“I got up in the morning, opened the phone and suddenly saw eight calls – the ministry of foreign affairs, my brothers, my mother, consuls,” he said in the interview, adding that it was during the call with the ministry that “we began to understand that there was a situation and something unusual.”

“They wrote that I murdered thousands of children and turned it into a 500-page document,” the soldier said of the case against him. “All that was there was a picture of me in uniform in Gaza.”

He also said that following the attention his case had gained he now hoped to “get off the radar and continue my life.”

The case against him followed a complaint brought by the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) – a group that has tracked the activities of Israeli soldiers serving in Gaza and has brought a series of other lawsuits.

A Brazilian judge then ordered police to investigate the soldier based on HRF’s complaint, which accused him of taking part in “demolitions of civilian homes in Gaza during a systematic campaign of destruction.”

The group, named after a five-year-old girl killed by Israeli tank fire in Gaza last year, is a pro-Palestinian NGO that says it is dedicated “to breaking the cycle of Israeli impunity and honoring the memory of Hind Rajab and all those who have perished in the Gaza genocide.”

The case prompted a public outcry, from opposition leaders like Yair Lapid – who called it a result of “monumental political failure” of the government – to Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar – who called the case part of a “systematic and anti-Semitic campaign aimed at denying Israel’s right to self-defense.”

A group of Israeli soldiers’ mothers wrote to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli’s military leadership saying they would hold them to account for any legal risks their children faced from “malicious actors worldwide.”

HRF has also sought the apprehension of Israeli soldiers visiting Thailand, Sri Lanka, Chile and other countries, according to its website.

Dana Karni and Tim Lister contributed to this report.

Israel’s military has announced new media engagement rules for its members after a Brazilian court ordered an investigation into war crime allegations against a soldier visiting the country.

The guidelines, announced Wednesday, require the names and faces of most of its soldiers – both active duty and reserve – to be obscured.

The decision comes after a former Israeli soldier fled Brazil last week after a court in the South American country ordered an investigation into allegations by a pro-Palestinian NGO that the soldier was involved in war crimes in Gaza.

Israeli military spokesperson Nadav Shoshani referenced the case in a briefing on the measures, which he said were to make sure Israeli personnel were “safe from these types of incidents” involving “anti-Israel activists around the world.”

Those at the rank of colonel and below can be filmed only from behind, with their face obscured, and only the first initial of their name can be used, according to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

Military personnel with foreign citizenships – in combat and non-combat roles – need to have their faces obscured and cannot disclose their full names in interviews.

The new protocols apply to all combat zones, and soldiers being interviewed cannot be linked to a specific combat operation, the IDF said.

He said activists were now going after ordinary soldiers, not just high-ranking officers and politicians.

‘Something unusual’

“I got up in the morning, opened the phone and suddenly saw eight calls – the ministry of foreign affairs, my brothers, my mother, consuls,” he said in the interview, adding that it was during the call with the ministry that “we began to understand that there was a situation and something unusual.”

“They wrote that I murdered thousands of children and turned it into a 500-page document,” the soldier said of the case against him. “All that was there was a picture of me in uniform in Gaza.”

He also said that following the attention his case had gained he now hoped to “get off the radar and continue my life.”

The case against him followed a complaint brought by the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) – a group that has tracked the activities of Israeli soldiers serving in Gaza and has brought a series of other lawsuits.

A Brazilian judge then ordered police to investigate the soldier based on HRF’s complaint, which accused him of taking part in “demolitions of civilian homes in Gaza during a systematic campaign of destruction.”

The group, named after a five-year-old girl killed by Israeli tank fire in Gaza last year, is a pro-Palestinian NGO that says it is dedicated “to breaking the cycle of Israeli impunity and honoring the memory of Hind Rajab and all those who have perished in the Gaza genocide.”

The case prompted a public outcry, from opposition leaders like Yair Lapid – who called it a result of “monumental political failure” of the government – to Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar – who called the case part of a “systematic and anti-Semitic campaign aimed at denying Israel’s right to self-defense.”

A group of Israeli soldiers’ mothers wrote to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli’s military leadership saying they would hold them to account for any legal risks their children faced from “malicious actors worldwide.”

HRF has also sought the apprehension of Israeli soldiers visiting Thailand, Sri Lanka, Chile and other countries, according to its website.

Dana Karni and Tim Lister contributed to this report.

The disgraced former FBI informant who falsely accused President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden of taking a $10 million bribe from Ukraine was sentenced Wednesday to six years in federal prison, according to court records.

The ex-informant, Alexander Smirnov, who is a dual US-Israeli citizen, has been in jail since his arrest last February.

The sentencing in Los Angeles wraps up one of the final remnants of special counsel David Weiss’ investigation into Hunter Biden and related matters. The only order of business that appears to be unsettled is Weiss’ final report, which, per federal regulations, will be submitted to the attorney general, who can then release it to the public.

Smirnov’s bombshell indictment – and the subsequent public repudiation of his fake bribery claims – helped derail the Republican impeachment push against Biden. Prosecutors hit Smirnov with additional tax charges in November, and with a trial looming, he pleaded guilty last month to causing the creation of a false FBI record, as well as three counts of tax evasion.

As part of the plea deal, prosecutors agreed to ask the judge for no more than six years in prison, and Smirnov’s team agreed to ask for no less than four years. Smirnov has also pledged to pay about $675,000 in restitution to the IRS, to make up for his tax evasion.

In court filings, prosecutors argued in favor of a six-year prison sentence, calling Smirnov a “liar and a tax cheat” who “betrayed the United States.” Prosecutors said his baseless corruption allegations against the Bidens were “among the most serious kinds of election interference one can imagine,” because they roiled both the 2020 and 2024 election cycles.

Smirnov’s lawyers requested a four-year prison term. In court filings, they said he has no criminal record, is ailing from severe glaucoma in both eyes, and “his remorse is sincere.” They submitted letters from loved ones, who lauded Smirnov as a “deeply patriotic and proud American” who “did everything for friends and family” and “always stood for justice.”

Born in the Soviet Union, Smirnov and his family immigrated to Israel as a child, and he later moved to the United States. He became a naturalized citizen and a prized informant for the FBI. But according to prosecutors, he later started expressing bias toward Biden, and invented the Ukraine bribery narrative to hurt Biden’s 2020 campaign against Trump.

The Justice Department secretly probed Smirnov’s allegations in 2020, but nothing came of it. Three years later, during the run-up to the 2024 campaign, congressional Republicans brought national attention to Smirnov’s unproven allegations, and touted his record as an FBI informant. Their claims quickly went viral in the right-wing media ecosystem.

Amid that GOP scrutiny, Weiss’ team re-interviewed Smirnov in 2023 to vet his allegations as they also investigated Hunter Biden. But Weiss concluded Smirnov “was lying” and “should be prosecuted himself” for repeatedly deceiving the FBI, prosecutors said in filings.

Weiss indicted Hunter Biden on tax and gun charges. He was convicted by a jury last year of three gun felonies, and later pleaded guilty to nine federal tax offenses. President Biden granted his son an unconditional pardon in December, before the sentencing in either case.