An onslaught of record-breaking heat across much of the US has provided yet another indicator of a longer-term issue – summers are progressively getting hotter for Americans in all corners of the country.

The US climate scientist Brian Brettschneider has analysed almost 130 years of federal data and it shows that from New York to Los Angeles summers have got significantly hotter in that time compared with the average levels of warming brought about by the burning of fossil fuels.

Summers are, on average, now about 0.8C (1.5F) hotter across the US than this earlier period, but many places have had far more extreme summertime increases, being up to 2.8C (5F) hotter.

More than a third of people in the US live in a county that has summers 1.5C (2.7F) hotter, or more, than they were on average in 1895, Brettschneider’s analysis of federal government data shows. This means that about 117 million Americans are experiencing these new conditions, with 55.7 million of these people in counties that have heated up by 2C (3.6F) or more.

A smaller, but significant, number of people, about 12 million, live in places that have heated up 2.5C (4.5F) or more over summer since the 19th century. Globally, the average year-round temperature is slightly more than 1C (1.8F) warmer than it was in pre-industrial times, with last year the hottest ever recorded, the latest in a string of record annual highs.

“Summer is a time is when we are hyper-aware of warm temperatures and many of us are feeling that right now,” said Brettschneider, a climate scientist who compiled the county-level figures drawn from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) temperature data for the summer months stretching back to 1895.

The fastest-warming counties span places with sparsely populated desert, rugged mountains and breezy coastal cities, with the three highest temperature increases over summer occurring in Grand county, Utah; Ouray county, Colorado; and Ventura county, California. The counties that include Los Angeles, Baltimore and Phoenix all have summers 2.2C (4F) or more hotter than the prior average, while the heart of New York City is 2.1C (3.8F) warmer.

Regional temperature discrepancies are influenced by factors such as natural variation and land-use changes, as well as the overall warming climate, cautioned Jane Baldwin, a climate scientist at the University of California, Irvine.

Winters are warming more quickly than summers, too. But even seemingly small increases in summer temperatures can have an outsized impact in fueling punishing heat, Baldwin said.

“One degree celsius of warming may sound relatively small but it can translate into quite substantial impacts as it’s an average and the extremes of that average can cause much higher likelihoods of deaths from heatwaves, as well as agricultural impacts and wildfires,” she said.

“Heat is a silent killer and it unfortunately affects the most underserved members of society the worst.”

The dangers of warming summers have already been illustrated this year, with record temperatures baking the US south-west and, more recently, the eastern half of the country.

Prolonged heat of 32C (90F) and more has hit about 80% of the population, lingering in some places for the longest time in decades, the National Weather Service has said, adding that the “early arrival of this magnitude of heat, the duration, abundant sunshine and lack of relief overnight will increase the danger of this heat wave beyond what the exact temperature values would suggest”.

The recent heatwave that engulfed much of the southern US, as well as large parts of Mexico and Central America, was made 35 times more likely due to human-induced climate change, according to a rapid analysis by scientists.

Studies have found that summers are generally getting hotter, including much warmer night-times which reduces the amount of relief people get from the elevated temperatures. Heatwaves are getting fiercer and are moving more slowly as the planet warms, with heat now the largest weather-related cause of death in the US.

“We are now starting to have this complicated relationship with summer,” said Deepti Singh, a climate and extreme events expert at Washington State University. “The extreme events are happening more quickly than the rate of mean temperature warming, which is putting a strain on everything we depend upon as a society.

“If you talk to climate scientists, there’s certainly an anxiety as summer approaches. It can be distressing.”

The county-level map of summer temperature increases shows that the warming isn’t uniform, however, with large jumps in heat across much of the US west and in the north-eastern US.

Summer temperatures have somewhat flatlined in the US south-east, meanwhile, a phenomenon known as a “warming hole” that could be down to reflective particulate pollution or reforestation in the region that has helped ameliorate the overall temperature rise, although much of the south-east still gets extremely hot in summer.

Hotter summers not only mean worsening heatwaves – they also contribute to warmer rivers and streams, affecting wildlife, and increase the risk of giant wildfires. More than 50,000 people died because of smoke from various California wildfires in the decade to 2018, a study released this month found, with worsening smoke starting to erase broader progress made in cutting air pollution in the US over the past 50 years.

“People underestimate how at risk they are from the heat,” said Kristie Ebi, an epidemiologist who specializes in climate change impacts at the University of Washington.

“It’s pregnant women, outdoor workers, people on certain medications – the list of vulnerable people is actually quite long. Humans are pretty darn good at thinking others at risk but that they aren’t. We need to understand we are all at risk from this.”

Ebi said there was also a “misconception” that people already living in hot areas can simply acclimatize to extra heat, warning that everyone should check on neighbors, and seek shade, water and cooling when temperatures climb. “There are physiological limits that we all face,” she said.

Longer-term, the hotter summers will keep coming as long as humans continue to expel planet-heating emissions, scientists caution. “Until we stop burning coal, oil and natural gas, conditions like this week’s dangerous heat will become more and more common,” said Andrew Pershing, vice-president of science at Climate Central.

William Armstrong was a Victorian inventor and engineer who in 1870 created the world’s first hydroelectric power scheme, at his family home of Cragside, near Rothbury, Northumberland. It was run by water that ran down a steep slope from an artificial lake, driving a turbine and dynamo to generate electricity.

In 1880, Lord Armstrong used the hydroelectricity to light Cragside by powering incandescent bulbs invented by Joseph Swan. He also used it to run other inventions, such as an electric saw, fire alarms, buzzers for servants’ quarters and dinner gongs. Visitors to Cragside were astonished and it became known as “the palace of the modern magician”.

Apart from hydroelectricity, Armstrong pioneered hydraulic mechanisms, including ones that raised and lowered Tower Bridge, and he installed a hydraulic lift in Cragside.

He was also an environmentalist who realised fossil fuels could not be relied on indefinitely and that renewable forms of power generation, such as hydroelectric and solar, would be needed. In 1883 he made an astonishing prediction: that because coal “was used wastefully and extravagantly in all its applications”, Britain would cease to produce it within two centuries. Yet the genius and foresight of Armstrong are now largely forgotten.

On a blustery morning in May on Shoreham-by-Sea’s west beach, Eric Smith and George Short are pointing out treasures the waves have left on the tideline. Cuttlefish bones and balls of whelk eggs, they say, are evidence of recovering marine habitats.

“Just give nature a bit of space and it will come back” says Smith, 76, a former lorry driver by trade, freediver by choice. He first started diving in Sussex coastal waters at the age of 11, and still recalls the underwater “garden of Eden” of his childhood, a kelp forest teeming with bream, lobsters and cuttlefish that stretched 40km between Shoreham and Selsey Bill. It vanished after years of intensive trawling, a destructive form of fishing involving dragging heavy nets along the seabed.

For decades, Smith was a lone voice in his community, battling to stop trawlers further destroying the seabed that hosted the kelp forest, a nursery and spawning ground for fish and other marine life and one of the country’s most biodiverse ecosystems.

Today, he is part of Sussex Bay, a combination of grassroots conservationists, locals, businesses and other groups, spearheaded by Adur and Worthing councils, dedicated to a pioneering project: the rewilding of rivers, land and seascape centred along a 100-mile stretch of coastline in Sussex.

The project, awarded £100,000 in March by Rewilding Britain, covers an area encompassing 11 councils and a million people. It could see oyster beds, salt marsh and kelp reintroduced to help combat the climate crisis and encourage wildlife. The scheme, the first of its kind, also encompasses the River Adur, which flows 20 miles through the rolling South Downs national park to the sea, close to Shoreham. It aims to crowdfund a further £1m, for additional projects, this month.

At its heart lies the kelp forest, 96% of which vanished between the late 1980s and the century’s end. It did not survive a huge storm in 1987, after years of trawling in one of the world’s busiest shipping routes, the English channel. Three years ago, amid concern over decline in fish catches, a bylaw was passed by the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (IFCA) to ban nearshore trawling from 300 square km of Sussex seabed, to protect fish and marine habitats and support sustainable inshore fisheries.

Smith and other freedivers, including his daughter, Catrine Priestley, who runs the Sussex Underwater community group, have begun filming the signs of recovery, including new mussel beds that are binding the seabed back together.

“I’ve seen kelp washed up here in the winter, for the first time in 10 years,” says Smith, who still dives off his boat regularly, despite being unable to walk far, after having both hips and knees replaced.

“We’ve had the biggest bed of mussels stretching from Lancing to Brighton. I saw an electric eel last year and an angel shark, which is critically endangered. First one I’ve seen since 1966. Also the bream are coming back. They are very vulnerable to bottom trawling – and one of the species targeted by the vessels.”

A sudden streak of sunshine through the grey clouds lifts the sea’s colour from slate to a warmer shade of grey, but the recovery described by Smith remains hidden to non-divers. The Sussex Bay project aims to raise awareness of recovering land, sea and river ecosystems and the benefits they can bring to communities.

“People don’t know what is on the coast here,” says Short, the kelp recovery coordinator at Sussex Kelp Recovery Project. “To many, it’s grey and empty. But Eric, Catrine and others provide a window beneath the waves.”

“We have lots of anecdotal observations from the freediving community, citizen scientists and sea swimmers, about changes,” she says. “They show how if we remove this pressure on nature, things grow back.”

Annual dolphins and porpoise sightings are also up in Sussex, from a reported 31 in both years 2018 and 2019, to 56 and 57 in 2022 and 2023, after the trawling ban.

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are displacing healthy diets “all over the world” despite growing evidence of the risks they pose and should be sold with tobacco-style warnings, according to the nutritional scientist who first coined the term.

Prof Carlos Monteiro of the University of São Paulo will highlight the increasing danger UPFs present to children and adults at the International Congress on Obesity this week.

“UPFs are increasing their share in and domination of global diets, despite the risk they represent to health in terms of increasing the risk of multiple chronic diseases,” Monteiro told the Guardian ahead of the conference in São Paulo.

“UPFs are displacing healthier, less processed foods all over the world, and also causing a deterioration in diet quality due to their several harmful attributes. Together, these foods are driving the pandemic of obesity and other diet-related chronic diseases, such as diabetes.”

The stark warning comes amid rapidly rising global consumption of UPFs such as cereals, protein bars, fizzy drinks, ready meals and fast food.

In the UK and US, more than half the average diet now consists of ultra-processed food. For some, especially people who are younger, poorer or from disadvantaged areas, a diet comprising as much as 80% UPF is typical.

In February, the world’s largest review of its kind found UPFs were directly linked to 32 harmful effects to health, including a higher risk of heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, adverse mental health and early death.

Monteiro and his colleagues first used the phrase UPF 15 years ago when designing the food classification system “Nova”. This assesses not only nutritional content but also the processes food undergoes before it is consumed.

The system places food and drink into four groups: minimally processed food, processed culinary ingredients, processed food and ultra-processed food.

Monteiro told the Guardian he was now so concerned about the impact UPF was having on human health that studies and reviews were no longer sufficient to warn the public of the health hazards.

“Public health campaigns are needed like those against tobacco to curb the dangers of UPFs,” he told the Guardian in an email. “Such campaigns would include the health dangers of consumption of UPFs.

“Advertisements for UPFs should also be banned or heavily restricted, and front-of-pack warnings should be introduced similar to those used for cigarette packs.”

He will tell delegates: “Sales of UPFs in schools and health facilities should be banned, and there should be heavy taxation of UPFs, with the revenue generated used to subsidise fresh foods.”

Monteiro will tell the conference that food giants marketing UPFs know that, in order to be competitive, their products must be more convenient, more affordable and tastier than freshly prepared meals. “To maximise profits, these UPFs must have lower cost of production and be overconsumed,” he said.

He will also draw parallels between UPF and tobacco companies. “Both tobacco and UPFs cause numerous serious illnesses and premature mortality; both are produced by transnational corporations that invest the enormous profits they obtain with their attractive/addictive products in aggressive marketing strategies, and in lobbying against regulation; and both are pathogenic (dangerous) by design, so reformulation is not a solution.”

However, Dr Hilda Mulrooney, a reader in nutrition and health at London Metropolitan University, said comparing UPF to tobacco was “very simplistic”.

“There is no such thing as a safe cigarette, even second-hand, so banning them is relatively straightforward in that the health case is very clear.

“However, we need a range of nutrients including fat, sugar and salt, and they have multiple functions in foods – structural, shelf-life – not just taste and flavour and hedonic properties.

“It is not as easy to reformulate some classes of foods to reduce them and they are not the same as tobacco because we need food – just not in the quantities most of us are consuming.”

Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer have clashed over their responses to the Westminster gambling scandal, as it emerged the Metropolitan police is to widen its role in the investigation into bets placed on the general election.

In the last head-to-head debate before voters go to the polls, the Labour leader launched a fierce attack on the culture at the top of the Conservative party, saying it showed the “wrong instinct” to place bets on the future of the country – likening it to the cavalier attitude to Covid rules.

In the angry exchanges, Sunak repeatedly urged the country not to “surrender” to Labour’s plans on tax and migration and said the general election should not be decided purely based on frustration with the Conservatives.

“I understand why you’re frustrated with our party, with me, I get it. But this is not a byelection, it’s a choice with profound consequences for you and our country,” he said. “And before you make that choice, think what a Labour government would mean.

“Can you afford to pay at least £2,000 more in tax?… And if you’re not certain about Labour, don’t surrender to them, don’t vote for any other party, vote Conservative.”

In response, the Labour leader said of the claim that Labour would raise taxes by £2,000 a household: “That is a lie [on tax], he’s been told not to repeat that lie and he’s just done it.”

The UK’s statistics watchdog has previously issued the Conservatives with a warning over the claim, saying they had failed to make clear how the figures were calculated.

Five Conservative politicians and staffers have now been suspended for allegedly betting on the election date. Labour was drawn into the gambling row on Tuesday after being forced to suspend one of his own candidates for betting he would not win the seat he was contesting.

Starmer said he had suspended his candidate, Kevin Craig, “within minutes” – comparing his actions with Sunak, who took days to make the decision. “I think that in the last 14 years politics has become too much about self entitlement, and MPs thinking about what they could get for themselves,” he said.

“The instinct of these people to think the first thing they should do is try to make money, that was the wrong instinct, and we have to change that.”

He said Sunak had “delayed and delayed and delayed” and had been “bullied into” taking action. “My candidates know I have the highest standards. They have seen by my actions the consequences,” he said.

It comes as the Met police confirmed it was investigating a “small number of cases” related to the Westminster gambling row to “assess whether the alleged offending goes beyond Gambling Act offences to include others, such as misconduct in public office”.

A Met police spokesperson said it would announce more on its investigation on Thursday. “The Met is not taking over the investigation into bets on the timing of the General Election. The Gambling Commission will continue to lead the investigation into cases where the alleged offending is limited to breaches of the Gambling Act only,” it said.

The Guardian uncovered the gambling scandal two weeks ago, revealing that Craig Williams was the subject of an investigation by the watchdog for betting that the election would be in July, three days before it was called.

The watchdog is also examining bets allegedly placed by Tony Lee, the Conservative party’s campaigns director and his wife, Laura Saunders, the Tory candidate in Bristol North West, as well as Nick Mason, the Tories’ chief data officer.

The Guardian also revealed that Russell George, a Tory member of the Welsh parliament who represents the same constituency as Craig Williams, is part of the commission’s inquiry.

Six of the Met’s own officers have been caught up in the scandal so far, with one, a protection officer for the prime minister, under investigation for misconduct in public office having allegedly placed five bets on the election date.

Labour suspended the Central Suffolk and North Ipswich candidate Kevin Craig and said it would now return £100,000 he had donated to the party under Starmer’s leadership, while the shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting, would give back £13,000 donated for staffing costs.

in the second and final debate between the two leaders, hosted by the BBC, they clashed over the economy, immigration and their prime ministerial qualities. Loud protests were heard from outside the building in Nottingham during the exchanges.

Starmer said Sunak would be “Liz Truss Mark II” and that the same damage would follow. “He’s now openly admitted the damage that the Conservatives have done to this country and then is now saying – vote for me.”

He also drew applause from the audience for challenging Sunak on the cost of living, saying: “If you listened to people across the country more often you might not be so much out of touch.”

Starmer accused Sunak of using trans people as “a political football to divide people”, though both said they would protect women’s rights to single sex spaces.

The Labour leader drew whoops of applause when he said that he believed trans people should be treated with “dignity and respect … if you don’t, we end up with the prime minister of the United Kingdom standing in parliament making an anti-trans joke in front of the mother of a murdered trans teenager.”

Sunak replied: “That’s not what I did. I was pointing out that you’ve changed your mind on this question multiple times.”

But Sunak landed blows on Starmer earlier in the debate by questioning his plans on illegal migration, saying his plans for return agreements for migrants were “nonsensical” when it came to countries such as Iran and Afghanistan.

“He says he’s going to sit down with people. Are you going to sit down with the Iranian ayatollahs? Are you going to do a deal with the Taliban? It’s completely nonsensical what you are saying. You are taking people for fools,” Sunak said.

The Labour leader said that Sunak’s plan to deport people to Rwanda was also not having any deterrent effect.

“At the moment they are not being processed … there are tens of thousands of people sitting in hotels and you haven’t processed their claims. At the moment 100% of them are effectively being granted asylum … and because they aren’t being processed, they can’t be returned to where they come from,” he said.

The prime minister said that Starmer also had no plan for how he would deal with those asylum seekers currently in limbo. “If Keir Starmer becomes prime minister, all those illegal migrants will be out our streets, and that is a choice for you,” he said.

“Do not surrender to the Labour party the control of our borders. If Labour wins, the people smugglers are going to need a bigger boat.”

So, this was the night Georgia advanced to the last 16 in their first appearance at a major tournament courtesy of a magnificent victory over Portugal and one that will live long in the memory of the thousands of supporters who were here to witness history. No wonder Khvicha Kvaratskhelia, who got the nation dreaming after scoring inside 92 seconds and afterwards swapped shirts with his childhood hero Cristiano Ronaldo, pined to see the scenes in Tbilisi.

There will be a rich tapestry of lasting images from this win but the sight of Georgia’s substitutes’ bench emptying, reserve goalkeepers Giorgi Loria and Luka Gugeshashvili, too, streaming to mob Georges Mikautadze after his penalty earned a two-goal buffer is hard to top. Guram Kashia looked to the skies, kissed his wrist and beat his chest. Willy Sagnol, wearing a plain white T-shirt, merely clenched his left fist. It is fair to say the celebrations back home will be rather more unrestrained. “This is the best day in the lives of Georgians,” Kvaratskhelia said. “We just made history. Nobody believed we would defeat Portugal but this is why we’re a strong team. We just encourage each other and said that we could do it. Even if there is just a 1% chance, we proved that you can make it happen.”

On the basis of the 68-place gulf between them in the Fifa rankings alone, it felt a big ask. Where to start with arguably the greatest underdog story at a European Championship since Wales went deep into the tournament at Euro 2016 or Iceland knocked out England the same summer. It would be easy to linger on the petulance of Ronaldo, who booted a water bottle down the touchline in anger after being withdrawn midway through the second half. But then that would be to ignore the endearing brilliance of this Georgia team; the way they commemorate blocks like victories, the dancing feet of Kvaratskhelia, the brute strength of Kashia, a warrior and a leader. It is not Ronaldo but Mikautadze who is leading the way for the golden boot in Germany. Ronaldo is yet to get off the mark for a Portugal side who will play Slovenia in the last 16. It is the first time in his career Ronaldo has failed to score in the group stage of a major tournament.

Georgia had to win to avoid elimination while Portugal came into the game with a place in the last 16 already boxed off. Roberto Martínez changed nine of his 10 outfield players, Ronaldo the only survivor from their impressive win over Turkey. Diogo Costa remained in goal and with 92 seconds on the clock it was the Portugal goalkeeper who was fishing the ball out of his net.

Martínez conceded his team struggled to cope with Georgia’s intensity and hunger. At the end of the first half Portugal had recorded twice as many touches and 11 shots compared to their opponents’ three. But there was only one that mattered, Kvaratskhelia drilling the ball across Costa and into the far corner to register his first goal at a major tournament. It is a goal that will be replayed for years to come in Georgia but one the right-back António Silva will not want to see in a hurry. Silva played a careless backward pass towards halfway and the moment Mikautadze seized possession, the first time they had done so in the opposition half, he ran towards a wall of noise from the Georgia supporters staring back at him. Mikautadze spied Kvaratskhelia to his left and played the perfect pass, allowing his teammate to do the rest.

A brave and disciplined Georgia were intent on upsetting Portugal. Kashia nicked the ball from Ronaldo to huge cheers and soon afterwards Georgia dispossessed João Félix before playing their own neat triangles. Any time the ball was within a five-metre radius of Kvaratskhelia the noise was deafening from the Georgia supporters. Ronaldo was booked for dissent after airing his anger at the Swiss referee, Sandro Schäfer, for failing to penalise the Georgia defender Luka Lochoshvili for getting touch-tight. He fumed as Pedro Neto was booked for diving on the verge of half-time. He saw a shot superbly blocked by Giorgi Gvelesiani and another by Lasha Dvali early in the second half. No matter how much they believed, Georgia probably never envisaged the sight of Ronaldo playing ballboy in a bid to restart the action and fashion an equaliser.

Diogo Dalot forced a phenomenal left-hand save from Giorgi Marmardashvili, again superb in the Georgia goal, but then the referee pressed pause as the VAR reviewed Lochoshvili’s fall inside the box at the start of the phase of play. The referee headed to the pitchside VAR monitor and then pointed to the penalty spot, confirming Silva, who was later withdrawn alongside Ronaldo, swiped at the midfielder. Mikautadze sidefooted his spot-kick into the corner and while Costa went the right way, neither he nor Portugal were a match for Georgia.

Progressive groups reacted with disappointment and anger over Jamaal Bowman’s decisive primary loss to a moderate Democrat in New York’s 16th district, calling for the party to cut ties with pro-Israel lobbying groups they blame for the result.

In a letter to the House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, more than a dozen progressive organizations said they had “dire concerns” over the party’s continued association with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), “the future of the Democratic Party, the future of our multiracial democracy, and the future of our planet”.

Aipac and its affiliates plan to spend $100m across the election cycle, and Bowman’s defeat marks their most significant victory to date. Looking ahead, they have already set their sights set on the Missouri congresswoman Cori Bush, who will face Wesley Bell in her August primary. United Democracy Project, a Super Pac affiliated with Aipac, has already spent nearly $1.9m promoting Bell’s candidacy.

The signatories of the letter included the Center for Popular Democracy Action, Jewish Voice for Peace Action, New York Communities for Change and New York City Democratic Socialists of America.

In the letter, they said that in the run-up to the vote, UDP had flooded the Westchester county–northern Bronx district with nearly $20m in mailers and ads “funded largely by Republican billionaires, to drown out Jamaal Bowman’s message of humanity, dignity, and a thriving future for all”.

The result, they said, had been to unseat a a candidate that Jeffries had personally endorsed, who retains “a deep well of support among the Black and brown communities in the district”, and to replace him with “a conservative politician with a history of racist remarks and governance”.

Bowman, a Black former middle school principal who has been an outspoken critic of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, lost to challenger George Latimer by a wide margin of 58% to 42% of the vote. The race was called within an hour of polls closing.

Bowman had been supported on the campaign trail by heavyweight party progressives, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, who called the race “one of the most important in the modern history of America”.

Sanders said in a statement after Bowman’s loss that it was “an outrage and an insult to democracy that we maintain a corrupt campaign finance system which allows billionaire-funded Super Pacs to buy elections.”

“Aipac and other Super Pacs spent over $23 million to defeat Bowman. He spent $3 million. That is a spending gap which is virtually impossible to overcome,” he said, adding: “It is not a coincidence that with our corrupt campaign finance system we also have a rigged economy that allows the very rich to get much richer while many working people are falling further behind. Big Money buys politicians who will do their bidding, and the results are clear.”

Progressives, like Sanders, attempted to characterize the race as an example of big-money influence in politics after pro-Israel groups and a number of wealthy residents of the New York suburban parts of the district weighed in with their checkbooks.

Bush underscored that Latimer’s victory represented a clear threat to the progressive movement, saying in a statement: “These same extremists are coming to St Louis. They are bankrolling a faux-progressive, former Republican campaign operative to buy our deep blue Democratic seat. But let me be clear: St Louis will not be silenced or sold out.”

The progressive groups said that Aipac had “turned the NY16 race into the most expensive Democratic primary in history, waging an unacceptable assault on our democracy, our communities, and our shared future” and called on Jeffries to take action against “destructive actions in your own backyard”.

Jeffries, along with most of the House Democratic leadership team, has received Aipac’s endorsement, and the progressive groups demanded that he reject the pro-Israel lobby group’s financial support to protest against Bowman’s defeat.

Protect Our Power said in a statement that Bowman’s defeat was a “loss for young people and anyone who cares about our continued movement toward justice, peace, and building a multiracial democracy”.

The progressive group blamed “Aipac and the Maga billionaires who recruited and paid for George Latimer’s campaign from start to finish” for the defeat, and vowed “to tell Aipac they have no business creating division in our democracy”.

In a separate letter of protest, Jewish Voice for Peace Action said it was “saddened” by the results that had unseated a congressman who “has been one of the few members of Congress committed to defending Palestinian human rights”.

“Today is a sad day for American democracy,” said JVP’s political director, Beth Miller. “To protect progressive candidates moving forward it is essential that Democrats reject Aipac,” she added.

Bob Herbst, a member of the group and a constituent of NY-16, called Aipac’s multimillion-dollar spend in the district “a dangerous interference in our democracy”.

The race had been viewed as a crucial test of Democratic party unity over an issue that threatens to separate traditionally Democratic-voting Jewish Americans from the party in the aftermath of Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel that killed nearly 1,200 people, and a nine-month Israeli counter-offensive that has killed more than 37,000 Palestinians and driven hundreds of thousands more to the point of starvation.

Bowman claimed that the results would show “fucking Aipac the power of the motherfucking South Bronx”, though the Aipac campaign focused primarily on Bowman’s weaknesses overall and not specifically or solely his stance on Israel. One UDP attack ad against Bowman specifically called out his votes against the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the debt ceiling agreement, accusing the representative of failing his constituents.

“Jamaal Bowman has his own agenda and refuses to compromise, even with President Biden,” the ad’s narrator says. “Jamaal Bowman has his own agenda, and it’s hurting New York.”

Nonetheless, Aipac is using Latimer’s victory to claim that Bowman’s stance on Israel is why he lost.

“This race presented a clear choice – between George Latimer, who reflects the views of the Democratic mainstream in his congressional district and across the country, and his opponent, who aligns with the extremist, anti-Israel fringe,” an Aipac spokesperson, Marshall Wittmann, told Axios.

Bowman was no stranger to scandals while in office. In December 2023, he became the 27th House member in history to be censured after pulling a fire alarm on his way to vote on a stopgap spending bill. He was also linked to problematic blogposts that pushed unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The posts, which Bowman said were from more than a decade ago, were unearthed by the Daily Beast earlier this year and the former representative has since said he regrets them.

Bowman’s opponent, Latimer, offered a more measured approach in a district with a large number of Jewish voters.

After Latimer accepted his win on Tuesday night, he told supporters: “We have to fight to make sure that we do not vilify each other, that we remember that we’re all Americans, and that our common future is bound together.”

Joanie Greve contributed reporting

Paris Hilton, the American socialite and media figure, has told a congressional panel looking into strengthening child welfare protections that she was “force-fed medications and sexually abused by staff” while she was institutionalized as a teenager.

Hilton, an outspoken advocate for better protections for children in youth facilities, told the House committee on ways and means on Wednesday that she had been “violently restrained and dragged down hallways, stripped naked and thrown into solitary confinement”.

The 43-year-old has previously described how she was subjected to “a parent-approved kidnapping” at four different youth facilities as her parents searched for solutions to her rebellious behavior and “fell for the misleading marketing of the troubled teen industry”.

She has characterized the “tough love” teen course-correction business as a $50bn industry that includes therapeutic boarding schools, military-style boot camps, juvenile justice facilities and behavior-modification programs.

On Wednesday, the reality TV star said she found her institutional experience “isolating and traumatic” and that she had been prevented from alerting her parents to what was happening because phone calls were monitored.

“It’s really difficult to tell anyone in the outside world. A lot of these kids are not believed because these places tell the parents they’re being lied to and manipulated because they want to go home,” Hilton told the panel.

Hilton has also called on lawmakers to pass the Stop Institutional Child Abuse act, designed to strengthen oversight of residential youth programs; supports the re-authorization of Title IV-B of the social security act; and is an advocate for a “Bill of Rights” for children in youth facilities.

The Provo Canyon school, one of the institutions Hilton attended, previously responded to Hilton’s accusations saying it was under different management and “therefore cannot comment on the operations or student experience prior to that time”.

“What we can say is that the school provides a structured environment, teaching life skills, providing behavioral health therapy, and continuing education for youth who come to us with pre-existing and complex emotional, behavioral and psychiatric needs,” the school said.

At the hearings, Hilton said “these programs promised healing, growth and support, but instead, did not allow me to speak, move freely or even look out a window for two years”, and said her parents had been “completely deceived” about the therapeutic treatment she was receiving.

Companies have spent decades obstructing efforts to take on the plastics crisis and may have breached a host of US laws, a new report argues.

The research from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) details the widespread burdens that plastic pollution places on US cities and states, and argues that plastic producers may be breaking public-nuisance, product-liability and consumer-protection laws.

It comes as cities such as Baltimore have begun to file claims against plastic manufacturers, but the authors write that existing cases “are likely only the beginning, as more states and municipalities grapple with the challenges of accumulating plastic waste and microplastics contamination.”

Taxpayers foot the bill to clean plastic pollution from streets and waterways, and research shows people could ingest the equivalent of one credit card’s worth of plastic per week.

“We’re in the midst of a population-scale human experiment on the impacts of multigenerational toxic exposures,” said Carroll Muffett, president of CIEL and a report co-author. “Plastics are at the epicenter of that.”

Drawing on newly revealed internal documents and previous investigations, the authors write that producers knew of these risks and produced and marketed plastics anyway.

Petrochemical producers such as ExxonMobil Chemical and Shell Polymers, and disposable plastic goods producers like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Unilever, should be held responsible, they say.

Global plastics production exploded shortly after the second world war, when “an industry that had been producing plastics primarily for military purposes needed new markets”, said Muffett.

From 1950 to 2000, global plastic production soared from 2m tons to 234m tons annually. And over the next 20 years, production more than doubled to 460m tons in 2019, the authors write, citing data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). But plastics producers knew in the 1950s that their products don’t break down and in 1969, documents show, industry interests discussed plastics accumulating in the environment but kept marketing them.

As the public grew concerned about plastic pollution, the industry responded with “sophisticated marketing campaigns” to shift blame from producers to consumers – for instance, by popularizing the term litterbug.

In the 1980s, the industry “misled the public” by lobbying states to adopt a plastic-packaging numbering system that resembled the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol and therefore appeared to indicate recyclability. (The Federal Trade Commission is currently re-evaluating the use of the symbols.)

Around that same time, some municipalities began attempting to curb plastic pollution.

Coordinated pushback

In 1989, Massachusetts considered banning all single-use packaging. The ballot initiative, proposed by the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group, “had teeth to ensure compliance” including potential fines, jail time and the possibility of civil-enforcement actions.

The ban was set to appear on the 1990 ballot, but the industry devised a “highly coordinated and sophisticated campaign” to kill it, the authors write based on internal documents.

“Despite being local in its scope, the Massachusetts ban represented a serious threat to plastics producers and a host of other industry interests,” the report says.

Tobacco lawyers, whose industry had come under fire for littered plastic cigarette butts, lobbied the Massachusetts attorney general to shut down the measure. And consumer goods producers like Procter & Gamble, petrochemical trade groups like the Chemical Manufacturers Association (which later became the American Chemistry Council), and tobacco lobby group the Tobacco Institute, created a taskforce to direct opposition.

The Council for Solid Waste Solutions (CSWS), an industry group funded by major petrochemical producers such as Exxon, Dow, DuPont and Chevron, hired consultants to develop a plan for opposing legislative bans.

CSWS also facilitated the creation of a “front group”, which purported to represent local business interests. And it lobbied state lawmakers to water down the measure, promoting recycling instead of packaging bans.

Another strategy: pitting environmentalists and organized labor against one another. CSWS recruited members of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO to oppose the measure at hearings. Soon after, the labor organization passed a resolution opposing the ban. (The Tobacco Institute took credit for the success of the “labor resolution process”, writing in a document: “Labor and consumer groups are natural allies to environmental organizations; however, efforts are underway to diffuse such alliances on this issue.”)

CSWS also sued to invalidate the measure on a technicality, arguing that because the petition’s signatures and text did not appear on the same page, the signatories may not have reviewed the proposal. This was ultimately successful on appeal; within months, the ballot initiative was dead.

The industry also successfully fended off a similar ballot initiative in Oregon, the report says. And politicians in Oregon, California and Wisconsin introduced a bill drafted by the rightwing thinktank American Legislative Exchange Council promoting recycling over packaging bans.

Plastic interests appear to be using similar tactics today. Using Facebook’s advertising database, the researchers found that the petrochemical trade group the American Chemistry Council had run $10m worth of seemingly local ads in US states in recent years encouraging people to contact local officials to oppose anti-plastic measures and support for so-called advanced recycling, which breaks plastic polymers down but is energy-intensive and creates pollution.

Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers, part of American Chemistry Council, called the research a “misdirected distraction” from the resources the industry is putting into preventing pollution, and said it ignored “the environmental benefits of plastics,” citing a McKinsey study that environmentalists have contested.

Legal theories

The effects of this deception and plastic pollution are widespread, the report argues. Plastic has clogged sewer grates, leading to increased flooding, while also forcing municipalities to invest in expensive skimmers to remove materials from waterways. It has also exposed populations to microplastics, which studies show are pervasive and which researchers believe to be harmful.

The report outlines different legal theories that could help governments pursue accountability for these harms. Nuisance could account for the harms themselves, products liability could put companies on the hook for damage caused by poor design, and consumer-protection law could be used to combat deceitful marketing practices.

Existing lawsuits have made use of these theories. Baltimore sued six plastic companies this month and filed a similar suit against cigarette manufacturers for littered plastic cigarette filters. New York in 2023 also filed a case against PepsiCo. But the damages are more widespread than these suits indicate, the authors say.

Other attempts at accountability are under way. In California, a two-year-old investigation by the attorney general, Rob Bonta, into the plastics industry and its communication about recycling could potentially result in a case against oil interests.

A February report from the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) found that companies knew for decades that plastic recycling is not feasible, but promoted it anyway. Both reports add to a “growing body of evidence” showing the plastics crisis was “created and perpetuated by a decades-long campaign of deception”, said Alyssa Johl, CCI vice-president.

Brian Frosh, former attorney general for Maryland, who reviewed both reports, said if currently an attorney general, he would be actively pursuing legal action.

“This is a crisis that’s been imposed on the public, and one that needs redress,” he said.