Libyan officials said Saturday that the leader of the U.N.-supported government would not support a deal with his primary rival in the country's civil war to lift a months-long blockade on its vital oil trade.
According to an official at his office, Prime Minister Fayez Sarraj opposed the final deal struck with commander Khalifa Hifter, whose east-based forces led a failed year-long siege to take the capital, Tripoli, from the U.N.-backed government.
“The prime minister did not give his approval to the final version of the deal,” the official told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Hifter said in a televised address Friday that his forces would allow the Libyan oil facilities to start operating again for the first time since January “with conditions that ensure a fair distribution of revenue.”
The deal to start pumping Libyan oil again appeared to have been spearheaded by the deputy prime minister, Ahmed Matiq, and emerged days after Sarraj said he planned to hand over power by the end of October to a new administration in Tripoli.
Matiq struck an agreement to distribute the country’s petrodollars more equitably between its warring sides, according to Ahmed al-Mosmari, the spokesman of Hifter’s self-styled Libyan Arab Armed Forces.
The deal between Matiq and Hifter's representatives did not address the scores of Russian mercenaries from Wagner, a Kremlin-linked private security company, stationed across oil fields that the National Oil Corporation says remain a barrier to the resumption of exports.
“Matiq surrendered very loose, very generous concessions to the LAAF, especially in the realm of banking and finance,” said Jalel Harchaoui, a Libya expert at The Netherlands Institute of International Relations.
Harchaoui said the oil deal was already helping to “revitalize" Hifter after months of military setbacks that followed Turkey's military intervention supporting forces loyal to the Tripoli government.
Matiq largely negotiated the deal behind closed doors with Hifter’s son, Khalid, and its final shape took many Libyan leaders by surprise. Matiq and Hifter’s son met earlier this month in Russia, a key supporter of Hifter.
Osama al-Juwaili, a military leader with Tripoli-allied forces, called the agreement a “farce" in televised comments. He urged Sarraj to announce his total position to the deal.
Gomaa al-Gamaty, Sarraj’s envoy to the Maghreb countries, tweeted that the deal is likely to fail since the prime minister, national oil company and the Central Bank in Tripoli were not part of it.
Mustafa Sanallah, the NOC’s chairman, rejected what he called “secret” and “disorganized negotiations” aiming to undercut an internationally-brokered political process to reopen the oil fields.
He said the corporation would not lift force majeure, a legal maneuver that lets a company get out of its contracts because of extraordinary circumstances, until Russian mercenaries, fighting alongside Hifter, leave the oil fields and export terminals.
Libya’s highly prized, light crude has long been a factor in its civil war, as rival militias and foreign powers jostle for control of Africa’s largest oil reserves.
Powerful eastern tribes loyal to Hifter first seized control of the oil fields in January, cutting Libya’s 1.2 million barrels a day to a trickle and starving the country of badly needed cash, to protest what they said were the inequitable distribution of revenues.
Libya was plunged into chaos when a NATO-backed uprising in 2011 toppled and killed longtime ruler Moammar Gadhafi. The country has since split between rival east- and west-based administrations, each backed by armed groups and foreign governments.
The blockade has deprived the Tripoli-based National Oil Corporation of nearly $10 billion in revenue and led to nationwide fuel shortages.
Forced to hide her true self, Joe Horras’ transgender daughter struggled with depression and anxiety until three years ago, when she began to take medication to block the onset of puberty. The gender-affirming treatment helped the now-16-year-old find happiness again, her father said.
A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court late Monday allowing Idaho to enforce its ban on such care for minors could jeopardize her wellbeing once again. Horras is scrambling to figure out next steps and is considering leaving Idaho, where he's lived his whole life, to move to another state.
"It would be devastating for her," Horras, who lives in Boise, told The Associated Press. “If she doesn’t have access to that, it will damage her mental health."
Horras is among the Idaho parents desperate to find solutions after their trans children lost access to the gender-affirming care they were receiving. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision allows the state to put in place a 2023 law that subjects physicians to up to 10 years in prison if they provide hormones, puberty blockers or other gender-affirming care to people under age 18. A federal judge in Idaho had previously blocked the law in its entirety.
The ruling will hold while lawsuits against the law proceed through the lower courts, although the two transgender teens who sued to challenge the law will still be able to obtain care.
At least 24 states have adopted bans on gender-affirming care for minors in recent years, and most of them face legal challenges. Twenty of those states besides Idaho are currently enforcing the bans.
Monday’s ruling was the first time the U.S. Supreme Court waded into the issue. The court’s 6-3 ruling steered clear of whether the ban itself is constitutional. Instead, the justices went deep into whether it’s appropriate to put enforcement of a law on hold for everyone, or just those who sue over it, while it works its way through the courts.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch said “lower courts would be wise to take heed” and limit use of “universal injunctions” blocking all enforcement of laws that face legal challenges. In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court should not decide the fate of those actions without reading legal briefs and hearing arguments on the issue.
Rights groups in Idaho are supporting families to make sure they're aware the measure has taken effect. The American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho said it plans to hold a virtual event over Zoom with licensed counselors and legal experts to help people process the shock and answer any questions they may have about the law.
“Yesterday was really just an outpouring of fear, questions, people trying to figure out how this is going to affect them personally,” said Jenna Damron, the group's advocacy fellow. “Getting information out quickly that is accurate is kind of our first priority.”
Paul Southwick, legal director for ACLU of Idaho, said the group wants families to know what their options are.
“Gender-affirming medical care is now immediately illegal for minors in the state of Idaho. However, care remains legal for adults, and it’s also legal for minors to seek gender-affirming medical care out of state,” he said.
In Boise, Horras' 16-year-old daughter wears an estrogen patch and receives estrogen injections every six months. Her last shot was in December and Horras now has two months to find a new out-of-state provider who can continue administering the medication. The situation has left him feeling scared, he said, and angry toward the state politicians who passed the law last year.
“It's cruel,” he said.
Advocates, meanwhile, worry that lower-income families won't be able to afford to travel across state lines for care. Arya Shae Walker, a transgender man and activist in the small city of Twin Falls in rural southern Idaho, said he was concerned that people would alter the doses of their current prescriptions in order to make them last longer. His advocacy group has already taken down information on its website on gender-affirming care providers for young people in the area out of concern of potential legal consequences.
The broader issue of bans on gender-affirming care for minors could eventually be before the U.S. Supreme Court again. Last year, a ban on gender-affirming care for minors in Arkansas was shot down by a federal judge, while those in Kentucky and Tennessee were allowed to be enforced by an appeals court after being put on hold by lower-court judges. Montana’s law is not being enforced because of a ruling from a state judge.
Laws barring transgender youth from playing on sports teams that align with their gender identity are also being challenged across the country. An appeals court on Tuesday ruled that West Virginia’s transgender sports ban violates the rights of a teen athlete under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. Hours later, an Ohio law that bars transgender girls from girls scholastic sports competitions was put on hold by a judge. Set to take effect next week, the law also bans gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
Those who support the bans say they want to protect children and have concerns about the treatments themselves.
Gender-affirming care for youth is supported by major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association. However, England is limiting the ability of people younger than 16 to begin a medical gender transition.
The National Health Service England recently cemented a policy first issued on an interim basis almost a year ago that sets a minimum age at which puberty blockers can be started, along with other requirements. NHS England says there is not enough evidence about their long-term effects, including “sexual, cognitive or broader developmental outcomes.”
Medical professionals define gender dysphoria as psychological distress experienced by those whose gender expression does not match their gender identity. Experts say gender-affirming therapy can lead to lower rates of depression, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts among transgender people.
Chelsea Gaona-Lincoln, executive director of Idaho-based advocacy group Add The Words, said she's anticipating “a pretty horrendous ripple effect.” But seeing her community uniting in support has given her a glimmer of hope.
“There are people coming together, and it’s so important, for especially our youth, to feel seen and affirmed as they are," she said.
Southwick, the legal director of ACLU of Idaho, said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to hold a hearing this summer on its lawsuit challenging the law.
Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, contributed.
This story was first published on April 16, 2024. It was updated on April 18, 2024, to make clear that the 20 states enforcing bans on gender-affirming care for minors are in addition to Idaho and all are among the 24 that have passed laws imposing the bans.
FILE - The Idaho State Capitol in Boise, Idaho, is seen on June 13, 2019. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Monday, April 15, 2024, allows the state to put in place a 2023 law that subjects physicians to up to 10 years in prison if they provide hormones, puberty blockers or other gender-affirming care to people under age 18. A federal judge in Idaho had previously blocked the law in its entirety. (AP Photo/Keith Ridler, File)
Idaho's ban on youth gender-affirming care has families desperately scrambling for solutions
Idaho's ban on youth gender-affirming care has families desperately scrambling for solutions
FILE - People gather in front of the Idaho Statehouse in opposition to anti-transgender legislation moving through an Idaho Republican congress, Friday, Feb. 24, 2023, in Boise, Idaho. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Monday, April 15, 2024, allows the state to put in place a 2023 law that subjects physicians to up to 10 years in prison if they provide hormones, puberty blockers or other gender-affirming care to people under age 18. A federal judge in Idaho had previously blocked the law in its entirety. (Darin Oswald/Idaho Statesman via AP, File)
