United News of Bangladesh

Researchers trying to learn what killed the first person to receive a heart transplant from a pig have discovered the organ harbored an animal virus but cannot yet say if it played any role in the man’s death. A Maryland man, 57-year-old David Bennett Sr., died in March, two months after the groundbreaking experimental transplant. University of Maryland doctors said Thursday they found an unwelcome surprise — viral DNA inside the pig heart. They did not find signs that this bug, called porcine cytomegalovirus, was causing an active infection. Also read: US man who got 1st pig heart transplant dies after 2 months But a major worry about animal-to-human transplants is the risk that it could introduce new kinds of infections to people. Because some viruses are “latent,” meaning they lurk without causing disease, “it could be a hitchhiker,” Dr. Bartley Griffith, the surgeon who performed Bennett’s transplant, told The Associated Press. Still, development is under way of more sophisticated tests to “make sure that we don’t miss these kinds of viruses,” added Dr. Muhammad Mohiuddin, scientific director of the university’s xenotransplant program. The animal virus was first reported by MIT Technology Review, citing a scientific presentation Griffith gave to the American Society of Transplantation last month. For decades, doctors have tried using animal organs to save human lives without success. Bennett, who was dying and ineligible for a human heart transplant, underwent the last-ditch operation using a heart from a pig genetically modified to lower the risk that his immune system would rapidly reject such a foreign organ. The Maryland team said the donor pig was healthy, had passed testing required by the Food and Drug Administration to check for infections, and was raised in a facility designed to prevent animals from spreading infections. Revivicor, the company that provided the animal, declined to comment. Griffith said his patient, while very ill, had been recovering fairly well from the transplant when one morning he woke up worse, with symptoms similar to an infection. Doctors ran numerous tests to try to understand the cause, and gave Bennett a variety of antibiotics, antiviral medication and an immune-boosting treatment. But the pig heart became swollen, filled with fluid and eventually quit functioning. Also read:In 1st, US surgeons transplant pig heart into human patient “What was the virus doing, if anything, that might have caused the swelling in his heart?” Griffith asked. “Honestly we don’t know.” The reaction also didn’t appear to be a typical organ rejection, he said, noting the investigation still is underway. Meanwhile doctors at other medical centers around the country have been experimenting with animal organs in donated human bodies and are anxious to attempt formal studies in living patients soon. It’s not clear how the pig virus will affect those plans.

The U.S. says it shared intelligence with Ukraine about the location of the Russian missile cruiser Moskva prior to the strike that sank the warship, an incident that was a high-profile failure for Russia's military. An American official said Thursday that Ukraine alone decided to target and sink the flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet using its own anti-ship missiles. But given Russia's attacks on the Ukrainian coastline from the sea, the U.S. has provided “a range of intelligence” that includes locations of those ships, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. The Biden administration has ramped up intelligence sharing with Ukraine alongside the shipment of arms and missiles to help it repel Russia's invasion. The disclosure of U.S. support in the Moskva strike comes as the White House is under pressure from Republicans to do more to support Ukraine's resistance and as polls suggest Americans question whether President Joe Biden is being tough enough on Russia. Since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion in February, the White House has tried to balance supporting Ukraine, a democratic ally, against not doing anything that would seem to provoke a direct war between Putin and the U.S. and NATO allies. As the war has gone on, the White House has ramped up its military and intelligence support, removing some time and geographic limits on what it will tell Ukraine about potential Russian targets. READ: Russia loses warship, says attacks on Kyiv will increase The official who spoke Thursday said the U.S. was not aware that Ukraine planned to strike the Moskva until after they conducted the operation. NBC News first reported on the American role in the sinking of the ship. Speaking earlier Thursday after a New York Times report about the U.S. role in supporting Ukraine's killing of Russian generals, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said American agencies "do not provide intelligence on the location of senior military leaders on the battlefield or participate in the targeting decisions of the Ukrainian military.” “Ukraine combines information that we and other partners provide with the intel that they themselves are gathering and then they make their own decisions and they take their own actions," Kirby said.

SpaceX brought four astronauts home with a midnight splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico on Friday, capping the busiest month yet for Elon Musk’s taxi service. The three U.S. astronauts and one German in the capsule were bobbing off the Florida coast, near Tampa, less than 24 hours after leaving the International Space Station. NASA expected to have them back in Houston later in the morning. NASA’s Raja Chari, Tom Marshburn and Kayla Barron, and the European Space Agency’s Matthias Maurer, embraced the seven astronauts remaining at the station, before parting ways. “It’s the end of a six-month mission, but I think the space dream lives on,” Maurer said. SpaceX brought up their U.S. and Italian replacements last week, after completing a charter trip to the station for a trio of businessmen. That amounts to two crew launches and two splashdowns in barely a month. Musk’s company has now launched 26 people into orbit in less than two years, since it started ferrying astronauts for NASA. Eight of those 26 were space tourists. READ: SpaceX launches 4 astronauts for NASA after private flight “Welcome home,” SpaceX Mission Control radioed at splashdown. “Thanks for flying SpaceX.” “That was a great ride,” replied Chari, the capsule commander. As for the reintroduction to gravity, he noted: “Only one complaint. These water bottles are super heavy.” The newly returned astronauts said their mission was highlighted by the three visitors and their ex-astronaut escort who dropped by in April, opening up NASA’s side of the station to paying guests after decades of resistance. On the down side, they had to contend with a dangerous spike in space junk after Russia blew up a satellite in a missile test in mid-November. More than 1,500 pieces of shrapnel spread across Earth's orbit for years to come. While the war in Ukraine has caused tensions between the U.S. and Russia, the astronauts have stood by their Russian crewmates, and vice versa. Flight controllers in Houston and Moscow also continued to cooperate as always, according to NASA officials. As he relinquished command of the space station earlier this week, Marshburn called it “a place of peace” and said international cooperation would likely be its lasting legacy. Russian Oleg Artemyev, the new commander, also emphasized the “peace between our countries, our friendship” in orbit and described his crewmates as brothers and sisters. Up there now are three Russians, three Americans and one Italian. It was Marshburn’s third spaceflight, and the first for the three returning with him. Chari and Barron’s next stop could be the moon; they are among 18 U.S. astronauts picked for NASA’s Artemis moon-landing program. Two others in that elite group are now at the space station.

 A judge in Fiji has ruled that U.S. authorities can seize a Russian-owned superyacht — but has put a hold on his order until at least Friday while defense lawyers mount a challenge. The yacht Amadea — worth $325 million — had earlier been stopped from leaving the South Pacific nation because of its links to Russia. That order will stand for now, preventing U.S. authorities from taking the yacht to Hawaii or elsewhere. A question remains over which of two Russian oligarchs really owns the Amadea, with only one of them facing sanctions. There are also questions about how far U.S. jurisdiction extends into Fiji. Suva High Court Justice Deepthi Amaratunga on Tuesday granted an order allowing the U.S. to seize the superyacht after the U.S. had earlier filed a warrant. But the judge has also allowed for a pause while defense lawyers put together their challenge. The judge's next decision in the case will come on Friday, when he will decide whether to continue to put a hold on the yacht's seizure pending a formal appeal by the defense. Also read: US official: Russia plans to annex parts of eastern Ukraine The U.S. Justice Department in March announced the creation of a team of federal agents and prosecutors to pursue wealthy Russians or those aiding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The team, called Task Force KleptoCapture, was set up to seize assets belonging to oligarchs with the aim of pressuring Russia to end the war. The U.S. claims the real owner of the superyacht Amadea is Suleiman Kerimov. The economist and former Russian politician was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2018 for alleged money laundering and has faced further sanctions from Canada, Europe, Britain and other nations after Russia invaded Ukraine. Kerimov made a fortune investing in Russian gold producer Polyus, with Forbes magazine putting his net worth at $14.5 billion. But defense lawyers claim the real owner is Eduard Khudainatov, the former chairman and chief executive of Rosneft, the state-controlled Russian oil and gas company. Khudainatov currently does not appear to face any sanctions, unlike many oligarchs and people with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin who have been sanctioned since the war began. As with many superyachts, determining the real ownership of the Amadea is difficult due to the shadowy trail of trusts and shell companies. On paper, the superyacht is registered in the Cayman Islands and owned by Millemarin Investments Ltd., also based in the Cayman Islands. Defense lawyers have claimed in court that Millemarin Investments Ltd. is the legal owner of the vessel and that the company is linked to the real, or beneficial, owner, Khudainatov. But U.S. authorities have claimed that behind all the various fronts, the real owner is Kerimov. On April 19, after the yacht had sailed into Fiji from Mexico, the High Court in Suva ordered that the Amadea not leave Fiji until the merits of the U.S. warrant to seize the vessel were determined. Perhaps reflecting the question over ownership, the court later ordered Fijian prosecutors to amend an original summons, which named just Kerimov, to also include Millemarin Investments Ltd. as a second respondent to the case. For now, the yacht continues to sit in a Fijian harbor with its crew of about 25 rotating on and off the vessel, while a police officer remains on board to ensure it stays put. According to Boat International, the Amadea is 106 meters long and was built in 2017. It features a stainless steel albatross that extends off the bow and weighs more than 5 tons, a live lobster tank in the galley, a 10-meter (33-foot) pool, a hand-painted Pleyel piano and a large helipad. The U.S. Embassy in Suva earlier said in a statement that the U.S. was acting with allies and partners around the world to impose costs on Russia because of its “war of choice.” Also read: EU energy ministers meet to discuss Russian gas, sanctions “We continue to ratchet up the pressure on Putin’s oligarchs and we are working with allies and partners to go after corrupt gains from some of the individuals closest to Putin, no matter where they are held around the world,” the embassy said.

A draft opinion suggests the U.S. Supreme Court could be poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a Politico report. A decision to overrule Roe would lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states and could have huge ramifications for this year’s elections. But it’s unclear if the draft represents the court’s final word on the matter — opinions often change in ways big and small in the drafting process. President Joe Biden said Tuesday that the “basic fairness and the stability of our law demand” that the court not overturn Roe. While emphasizing that he couldn’t speak to the authenticity of the draft, Biden said his administration is preparing for all eventualities for when the court ultimate rules and that a decision overturning Roe would raise the stakes for voters in November’s heated midterm elections. “If the court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose,” Biden said. “And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November. At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice Senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.” Whatever the outcome, the Politico report late Monday represented an extremely rare breach of the court’s secretive deliberation process, and on a case of surpassing importance. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” the draft opinion states. It was signed by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority who was appointed by former President George W. Bush. The document was labeled a “1st Draft” of the “Opinion of the Court” in a case challenging Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks, a case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court is expected to rule on the case before its term ends in late June or early July. The draft opinion in effect states there is no constitutional right to abortion services and would allow individual states to more heavily regulate or outright ban the procedure. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” it states, referencing the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey that affirmed Roe’s finding of a constitutional right to abortion services but allowed states to place some constraints on the practice. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” A Supreme Court spokeswoman said the court had no comment, and The Associated Press could not immediately confirm the authenticity of the draft Politico posted, which dates from February. Politico said only that it received “a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court’s proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document.” The draft opinion strongly suggests that when the justices met in private shortly after arguments in the case on Dec. 1, at least five voted to overrule Roe and Casey, and Alito was assigned the task of writing the court’s majority opinion. Votes and opinions in a case aren’t final until a decision is announced or, in a change wrought by the coronavirus pandemic, posted on the court’s website. The report comes amid a legislative push to restrict abortion in several Republican-led states — Oklahoma being the most recent — even before the court issues its decision. Critics of those measures have said low-income and minority women will disproportionately bear the burden of the new restrictions. The leak jumpstarted the intense political reverberations that the high court’s ultimate decision was expected to have in the midterm election year. Already, politicians on both sides of the aisle were seizing on the report to fundraise and energize their supporters on either side of the hot-button issue. An AP-NORC poll in December found that Democrats increasingly see protecting abortion rights as a high priority for the government. Other polling shows relatively few Americans want to see Roe overturned. In 2020, AP VoteCast found that 69% of voters in the presidential election said the Supreme Court should leave the Roe v. Wade decision as is; just 29% said the court should overturn the decision. In general, AP-NORC polling finds a majority of the public favors abortion being legal in most or all cases. Still, when asked about abortion policy generally, Americans have nuanced attitudes on the issue, and many don’t think that abortion should be possible after the first trimester or that women should be able to obtain a legal abortion for any reason. Alito, in the draft, said the court can’t predict how the public might react and shouldn’t try. “We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” Alito wrote in the draft opinion, according to Politico. People on both sides of the issue quickly gathered outside the Supreme Court waving signs and chanting on a balmy spring night, following the release of the Politico report. Reaction was swift from elected officials in Congress and across the country. In a joint statement from Congress’ top two Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “If the report is accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past fifty years — not just on women but on all Americans.” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, also a Democrat, said people seeking abortions could head to New York. “For anyone who needs access to care, our state will welcome you with open arms. Abortion will always be safe & accessible in New York,” Hochul said in a tweet. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch said in a statement, “We will let the Supreme Court speak for itself and wait for the Court’s official opinion.” But local officials were praising the draft. “This puts the decision making back into the hands of the states, which is where it should have always been,” said Mississippi state Rep. Becky Currie. Congress could act, too, though a bill that would write Roe’s protections into federal law stalled in the Senate after passing the House last year with only Democratic votes. At Supreme Court arguments in December, all six conservative justices signaled that they would uphold the Mississippi law, and five asked questions that suggested that overruling Roe and Casey was a possibility. Only Chief Justice John Roberts seemed prepared to take the smaller step of upholding the 15-week ban, though that too would be a significant weakening of abortion rights. Until now, the court has allowed states to regulate but not ban abortion before the point of viability, around 24 weeks. The court’s three liberal justices seemed likely to be in dissent. It’s impossible to know what efforts are taking place behind the scenes to influence any justice’s vote. If Roberts is inclined to allow Roe to survive, he need only pick off one other conservative vote to deprive the court of a majority to overrule the abortion landmark. Twenty-six states are certain or likely to ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned, according to the pro-abortion rights think tank the Guttmacher Institute. Of those, 22 states already have total or near-total bans on the books that are currently blocked by Roe, aside from Texas. The state’s law banning it after six weeks has already been allowed to go into effect by the Supreme Court due to its unusual civil enforcement structure. Four more states are considered likely to quickly pass bans if Roe is overturned. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia, meanwhile, have protected access to abortion in state law. This year, anticipating a decision overturning or gutting Roe, eight conservative states have already moved to restrict abortion rights. Oklahoma, for example, passed several bills in recent weeks, including one that goes into effect this summer making it a felony to perform an abortion. Like many anti-abortion bills passed in GOP-led states this year, it does not have exceptions for rape or incest, only to save the life of the mother. Eight Democratic-leaning states protected or expanded access to the procedure, including California, which has passed legislation making the procedure less expensive and is considering other bills to make itself an “abortion sanctuary” if Roe is overturned. The draft looked legitimate to some followers of the court. Veteran Supreme Court lawyer Neal Katyal, who worked as a clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer and therefore has been in a position to see drafts, wrote on Twitter: “There are lots of signals the opinion is legit. The length and depth of analysis, would be very hard to fake. It says it is written by Alito and definitely sounds like him.” Also read: US appeals court lets Texas resume ban on most abortions

Vice President Kamala Harris tested negative on Monday for COVID-19, six days after she tested positive for the virus, and has been cleared to return to the White House on Tuesday. Harris press secretary Kirsten Allen said Harris, who was prescribed the antiviral treatment Paxlovid last week, was negative on a rapid antigen test. Allen said Harris would continue to wear a “well-fitting mask while around others” in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines until through her tenth day after her positive test. Also Read: Harris positive for Covid-19, Biden not a close contact CDC guidance allows people to leave isolation on the sixth day after they tested positive, as long as they wear a mask around others. The White House exceeds those guidelines, requiring a negative rapid test before people who have been infected are allowed to return to the complex.    

Mexican authorities say the problem of foul-smelling sargassum — a seaweed-like algae — on the country's Caribbean coast beaches is “alarming.” The arrival of heaps of brown, foul-smelling sargassum on the coast's normally pristine white sand beaches comes just as tourism is recovering to pre-pandemic levels, though job recovery in the country's top tourist destination has been slower. With more algae spotted floating out at sea, experts fear that 2022 could be as bad or worse than the catastrophic year of 2018, the biggest sargassum wave to date. “We can say the current situation is alarming,” said Navy Secretary José Ojeda, who has been entrusted with the apparently hopeless task of trying to gather sargassum at sea, before it hits the beaches. The Navy currently has 11 sargassum-collecting boats operating in the area. But the Navy's own figures show that the portion they have been able to collect before it hits the beach has been falling. In 2020, the Navy collected 4% of sargassum at sea, while 96% was raked off beaches. But that figure fell to 3% in 2021, and about 1% so far in 2022. Allowing the algae to reach the beaches creates not only a problem for tourists, but for the environment, said Rosa Rodríguez Martínez, a biologist in the beachside town of Puerto Morelos who studies reefs and coastal ecosystems for Mexico’s National Autonomous University. READ: Tour boat in Mexico hits whale or whale shark, 6 injured So much algae is reaching the beaches that hotels and local authorities are using bulldozers and backhoes, because the normal teams of rakes, shovels and wheelbarrows are no longer enough. “The heavy machinery, when it picks it (sargassum) up, takes a large amount of sand with it,” contributing to beach erosion, Rodriguez Martinez said. “There is so much sargassum that you can't use small-scale equipment anymore, you have to use the heavy stuff, and when the excavators come in, they remove more sand.” Rodríguez Martinez worries that 2022 could be worse than 2018, the previous peak year. “In the last few days there have been amounts washing up, and in places, that I didn't see even in 2018,” she said. However, the University of South Florida Optical Oceanography Lab said in a report that “2022 is likely going to be another moderate or major sargassum year,” with observable amounts in all waters lower than in 2018 and 2021. But given the vagaries of ocean currents, it may just be a very bad year for Mexico. Rodríguez Martinez is already suffering the effects herself, at her beachside offices. “Where I am, I'm about 50 meters (yards) from the beach and the smell is very unpleasant,” she said. “Right now my head is hurting and another friend said her head hurts, and I said it must be the (hydrogen) sulfide gas from the sargassum, no?” The problem comes just as resorts like Cancun, Playa del Carmen and Tulm are recovering from the brutal two-year drop in tourism caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Not all beaches have been hit equally; many in Cancun and Isla Mujeres are often free of much sargassum, but much of the Riveria Maya has been hit hard. Carlos Joaquin, governor of the coastal state of Quintana Roo, said the number of tourists arriving by air so far this year — some 3.54 million travelers — is 1.27% above 2019 levels, before the pandemic. But Joaquin said that only about 83% of the 98,000 jobs lost during the pandemic have returned. Sergio León, the former head of the state's employers' federation, said the seaweed invasion “has definitely affected us, it has affected our image on the domestic and international level. Obviously, not just visually, but in term of environmental damage and pain.” “The Navy is making an effort, but it needs more, it isn't enough,” said León. “The ideal thing would be to gather it before it gets to our beaches.” Rodriguez Martinez said that, given the limited number of Navy boats and funds, the best solution might be to hang floating offshore barriers and collect the sargassum in waters closer to the shore. But she notes another problem: what to do with the thousands of tons of stinking algae collected each year, mainly by private hotel owners. Some have simply been tossing the mounds collected from the beach into disused limestone quarries, where the salt and minerals collected in the ocean can leech into groundwater. Other simply toss into woodlands or mangrove swamps, which is equally as bad. “The algae has a lot of salt ... so that is not good, even for palm trees, which are pretty salt resistant,” she noted. While some have tried to use sargassum to create bricks or fertilizer, the lack of official policies and long term plans make it hard to obtain big investments for such plans. Initial reports in the 2010s suggested the masses of seaweed came from an area of the Atlantic off the northern coast of Brazil, near the mouth of the Amazon River. Increased nutrient flows from deforestation or fertilizer runoff could be feeding the algae bloom. But other causes may contribute, like nutrient flows from the Congo River, increased upwelling of nutrient-laden deeper ocean water in the tropical Atlantic and dust blowing in from Africa.

Four cadets at Canada's Royal Military College died Friday in an accident involving a motor vehicle. “Their families have now been notified,” Commodore Josee Kurtz told a news conference. “As you can appreciate the entire RMC community is devastated by this tragic loss.” The officer cadets have been identified as Jack Hogarth, Andrei Honciu, Broden Murphy and Andrés Salek. Kurtz released few details about the accident. A Department of National Defense release said the accident occurred around 2 a.m. “An investigation into this incident by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service is ongoing,” Kurtz said. The campus is located on the Point Frederick peninsula, where Lake Ontario meets the St. Lawrence River. READ: 10 killed in India road accident Prime Minister Justin Trudeau extended condolences to the families and friends of the four cadets. “My heart breaks for the families and friends of the four cadet officers who lost their lives early this morning in Kingston,” Trudeau said in a statement on Twitter. The four students were completing their Bachelor of Arts degrees. Hogarth and Salek were studying military and strategic studies and were going to become armored officers in the army. Honciu was studying business administration and was set to become a logistics officer. Murphy was specializing in business administration with intentions on becoming an aerospace environment controller in the Royal Canadian Air Force.

President Joe Biden and Mexico's Andres Manuel López Obrador agreed in a phone call Friday to do more to promote “just, humane and effective efforts to reduce irregular migration" at the southern border, the White House reported after their nearly hourlong conversation. López Obrador tweeted that the conversation was “cordial” and that they “spoke of issues of interest to the bilateral relationship.” The agenda also included the upcoming Summit of the Americas in June in Los Angeles, and the end of coronavirus restrictions on asylum seekers trying to come to the U.S. The two leaders also talked about addressing the root causes of migration through development initiatives in Central America and Mexico, according to a statement from the Mexican president’s office. They discussed the need to guarantee safe and sustainable ways of life for their citizens and migrants, as well as expanding legal pathways for migrants and refugees. “In view of the unprecedented flows of migrants from throughout the hemisphere to our two countries, the presidents reiterated the need to build stronger tools for managing regional migration surges,” the White House said in a statement. López Obrador, for his part, called on the U.S. government to invite all nations of the Americas to the summit “without excluding anyone.” The Biden administration has suggested that Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua are unlikely to be invited. READ: Biden wants $33B more to help Ukraine battle Russia Both the U.S. and Mexico want to accelerate development and infrastructure projects along their shared border to continue strengthening North American supply chains and the cross-border agricultural and commercial activity, the statement said. The meeting came at a moment of international and domestic tensions, as the war in Ukraine has contributed to inflation worldwide amid concerns about likely shortages of oil, natural gas and food. Moreover, the expected end on May 23 of the public health ban on asylum seekers could trigger a rush of migrants to the U.S.-Mexico border. That would exacerbate tensions over immigration ahead of U.S. midterm elections to decide if Democrats retain control of the House and Senate. The Trump administration imposed the so-called Title 42 restrictions on asylum seekers in March 2020 as the coronavirus pandemic began to accelerate. Officials said at the time that the ban was to protect public health, but immigration control advocates also saw it as a way to seal the border to migrants, a longstanding priority of then-President Donald Trump. Mexico is viewed as a key partner in managing the increase in migrants once the ban is lifted. López Obrador said in his tweet that Foreign Affairs Secretary Marcelo Ebrard would visit Washington on Monday regarding "issues of cooperation for development and about the Summit of the Americas.” Ahead of Friday's meeting, López Obrador had said of the planned conversation, “It’s important that there’s this communication, to listen to President Biden who has treated us with respect, as President Trump also treated us with respect, and we have to ensure a good relationship.” López Obrador is also scheduled to visit four Central American countries and Cuba next week. In Central America, he plans to speak to his counterparts about economic development and social programs that could lessen the pressure for people in those countries to migrate. He has previously urged the U.S. government to support some of his initiatives in Central America. On Ukraine, Mexico has condemned Russia’s invasion, but refused to follow the U.S. and other countries in implementing sanctions. The Biden administration has imposed sanctions and frozen central bank assets with the goal of eroding Russia's military capabilities. On another subject, the U.S. government has voiced objections to controversial energy sector reforms pushed by López Obrador that would favor state-run electric power generators over private plants. A law along those lines passed, but a similar constitutional reform failed in Mexico’s Congress last week.

The experiences of panicked concertgoers who couldn’t breathe and had no clear path to escape a massive crowd surge at last year’s deadly Astroworld music festival in Houston are featured in a documentary set for release Friday. But lawyers for Live Nation, which is being sued for its role as the festival’s promoter, say they’re concerned that publicity from the documentary, “Concert Crush: The Travis Scott Festival Tragedy,” could “taint the jury pool.” A gag order has been issued in the case, but Live Nation’s lawyers say an attorney who filed lawsuits related to the tragedy also co-produced the documentary. Charlie Minn, the film’s director, said he believes he has made a balanced and fair film that tries to show the public what happened. “My job is to make the most truthful, honest, sincere documentary from the victim’s point of view ... We need to know about these stories to prevent it from happening again,” Minn told The Associated Press. Around 500 lawsuits have been filed following the Nov. 5 concert headlined by Scott, a popular rapper. Ten people died and hundreds of others were injured during the massive crowd surge. Scott is also being sued. The documentary, opening in 11 Texas cities including Austin, Dallas and Houston, includes interviews with several people who survived the crowd surge. The film also features cellphone video shot by concertgoers in which people can be heard repeatedly screaming for help. “It’s hard to explain to friends and family what we saw and what we actually went through and I think (the documentary) will give a lot of people the opportunity, if you weren’t there, to understand,” said Frank Alvarez, who attended the concert but does not appear in the film. Also read: 8 dead, several injured at Astroworld Festival in Houston The film highlights what concertgoers experienced and what led to the tragedy, said Minn, who has also made documentaries about the deadly 2018 shooting at a suburban Houston high school and violence along the U.S.-Mexico border. The film suggests Scott could have done more to prevent the conditions that led to the casualties, but Minn said it isn’t a “hit piece toward Travis Scott.” He said it also questions whether others, including Live Nation and Houston police, could have done more to improve safety or respond more quickly to the danger. Minn said Scott, Live Nation and Houston police declined to be interviewed for the documentary. Houston police are investigating the disaster. In a report released this month, a task force created by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott uncovered problems with permits for such events and called for “clearly outlined triggers” for stopping such a show. Attorneys for Live Nation expressed their concerns in a letter this month to state District Judge Kristen Hawkins, who is handling all pretrial matters in the lawsuits. Also read: 9-year-old Dallas boy dies after Astroworld festival crush “The involvement of plaintiffs’ lawyers in the film, and the publicity the filmmakers and producers are trying to generate for it raise significant issues about efforts to taint the jury pool,” Neal Manne and Kevin Yankowsky, two of Live Nation’s attorneys, wrote in the letter. But the attorneys have not asked Hawkins to take any specific action regarding the documentary. Manne and Yankowsky did not respond to emails seeking comment. Live Nation has said it’s “heartbroken” by what happened but has denied responsibility. Scott’s attorneys said in an email Thursday that they don’t know if he has seen the documentary, and referred to the concerns raised by Live Nation when asked if they had any issues with it. “Mr. Scott remains focused on his philanthropic work in his hometown of Houston and in lower-income communities of color across the country, both of which are longstanding efforts,” his attorneys said. Cassandra Burke Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said she would be shocked if the judge would take any action regarding the documentary because of First Amendment concerns, even with the gag order. “I think the public interest here in exploring what happened and avoiding similar tragedies in the future, that’s a really big interest. That is likely to outweigh the interests of the particular outcome of the particular lawsuit,” Robertson said. Brent Coon, an attorney representing about 1,500 concertgoers who was interviewed in the documentary, said he doesn’t think the film would impact the ability to choose an impartial jury if the case goes to trial, which could be years away. “I don’t think any lawyer in this case could fan the flames much to change ... what the public’s perception of all this is going to be,” Coon said. Robertson, who is not involved in the litigation, said the fact that one of the film’s co-producers, Rick Ramos, is representing concertgoers who have filed lawsuits could raise some ethical concerns. It was unclear how Ramos was benefitting financially from his involvement in the documentary. Ramos declined to comment Thursday. “I personally would not co-sponsor something like that during pending civil litigation. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. It’s just something I wouldn’t do,” Coon said. Minn said the questions asked about Ramos’ participation are valid but he never hid his involvement. “People have to watch the film and judge it for what that is,” Minn said.