agenda

Mamdani announces transition leaders, vows to deliver on ambitious agenda

Fresh off winning New York City’s mayoral election, Zohran Mamdani announced Wednesday that a team including former city and federal officials — all women — would steer his transition to City Hall, and that he would “work every day to honor the trust that I now hold.”

“I and my team will build a City Hall capable of delivering on the promises of this campaign,” the mayor-elect said at a news conference, vowing that his administration would be both compassionate and capable.

He named political strategist Elana Leopold as executive director of the transition team. She will work with United Way of New York City President Grace Bonilla; former Deputy Mayor Melanie Hartzog, who was also a city budget official; former Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan; and former First Deputy Mayor Maria Torres-Springer.

With his win over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa, the 34-year-old democratic socialist will soon become the city’s first Muslim mayor, the first of South Asian heritage, the first born in Africa and the youngest mayor in more than a century.

He now faces the task of following through on his ambitious affordability agenda while navigating the bureaucratic challenges of City Hall and a hostile Trump administration.

“I’m confident in delivering these same policies that we ran on for the last year,” he said in an interview earlier Wednesday on cable news channel NY1.

More than 2 million New Yorkers cast ballots in the contest, the largest turnout in a mayoral race in more than 50 years, according to the city’s Board of Elections. With roughly 90% of the votes counted, Mamdani held an approximately 9 percentage point lead over Cuomo.

Mamdani, who was criticized throughout the campaign for his thin resume, will now have to begin staffing his incoming administration and planning how to accomplish the ambitious but polarizing agenda that drove him to victory.

Among the campaign’s promises are free child care, free city bus service, city-run grocery stores and a new Department of Community Safety that would expand on an existing city initiative that sends mental health care workers, rather than police, to handle certain emergency calls. It is unclear how Mamdani will pay for such initiatives, given Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul’s steadfast opposition to his calls to raise taxes on wealthy people.

On Wednesday, he touted his support from Hochul and other state leaders as “endorsements of an agenda of affordability.”

His decisions around the leadership of the New York Police Department will also be closely watched. Mamdani was a fierce critic of the department in 2020, calling for “this rogue agency” to be defunded and slamming it as “racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety.” He has since apologized for those comments and has said he will ask the current NYPD commissioner to stay on the job.

Mamdani has already faced scrutiny from national Republicans, including President Trump, who have eagerly cast him as a threat and the face of a more radical Democratic Party that is out of step with mainstream America. Trump has repeatedly threatened to cut federal funding to the city — and even take it over — if Mamdani won.

”…AND SO IT BEGINS!” the president posted late Tuesday to his Truth Social site.

Mamdani, for his part, said at his news conference that “New Yorkers are facing twin crises in this moment: an authoritarian administration and an affordability crisis,” and that he would tackle both.

While saying he was committed to “Trump-proofing” the city — to protect poor residents against “the man who has the most power in this country,” as he explained — the mayor-elect also reiterated that he was interested in talking to the president about ”ways that we can work together to serve New Yorkers.” That could mean discussing the cost of living or the effect of cuts to the SNAP food aid program amid the federal government shutdown, Mamdani suggested.

“I will not mince my words when it comes to President Trump … and I will also always do so while leaving a door open to have that conversation,” Mamdani added.

Mamdani also said during his news conference and interviews that he had not heard from Cuomo or the city’s outgoing mayor, Eric Adams. He did speak with Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa.

A spokesperson for Cuomo, Rich Azzopardi, said he would “let their respective speeches be the measuring stick for grace and leave it at that.”

In his victory speech to supporters, Mamdani wished Cuomo the best in private life, before adding: “Let tonight be the final time I utter his name, as we turn the page on a politics that abandons the many and answers only to the few.”

Asked about the comments Wednesday on NY1, Mamdani said he was “quite disappointed in the nature of the bigotry and the racism we saw in the final weeks.” He noted the millions of dollars in attack ads that were spent against him, some of which played into Islamophobic tropes.

Izaguirre and Colvin write for the Associated Press. AP writers Jake Offenhartz and Jennifer Peltz contributed to this report.

Source link

Sen. Alex Padilla says he won’t run for California governor

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla announced Tuesday that he will not run for California governor next year, ending months of speculation about the possibility of the Democrat vying to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“It is with a full heart and even more commitment than ever that I am choosing to not run for governor of California next year,” Padilla told reporters outside his Senate office in Washington.

Padilla instead said he will focus on countering President Trump’s agenda in Congress, where Democrats are currently on the minority in both the House and Senate, but hope to regain some political clout after the 2026 midterm elections.

“I choose not just to stay in the Senate. I choose to stay in this fight because the constitution is worth fighting for. Our fundamental rights are worth fighting for. Our core values are worth fighting for. The American dream is worth fighting for,” he said.

Padilla said his decision was influenced by his belief that under President Trump, “these are not normal times.”

“We deserve better than this,” he said.

Many contenders, no clear favorite

Padilla’s decision to bow out of the 2026 governor’s race will leave a prominent name out of an already crowded contest with many contenders but not a clear favorite.

For much of the year, the field was essentially frozen in place as former Vice President Kamala Harris debated whether she would run, with many donors and major endorsers staying out of the game. Harris said at the end of July that she wouldn’t run. But another potential candidate — billionaire developer Rick Caruso — remains a question mark.

Caruso said Monday night that he was still considering running for either governor or Los Angeles mayor, and will decide in the next few weeks.

“It’s a really tough decision,” Caruso said. “Within a few weeks or so, or something like that, I’ll probably have a decision made. It’s a big topic of discussion in the house with my kids and my wife.”

Major Democratic candidates include former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, current California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former state Controller Betty Yee and wealthy businessman Stephen Cloobeck. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton are the most prominent Republicans running.

Amid fire recovery aftermath, immigration raids and a high-octane redistricting battle, California voters have yet to turn their attention to next year’s gubernatorial matchup, despite the vast power Newsom’s successor will wield. California is now the world’s fourth-largest economy, and policy decisions in the Golden State often have global repercussions. Newsom is nearing the end of his second and final term.

Recent polling shows the contest as wide open, with nearly 4 in 10 voters surveyed saying they are undecided, though Porter had a slight edge as the top choice in the poll. She and Bianco were the only candidates whose support cracked the double digits.

Candidates still have months to file their paperwork before the June 2 primary to replace Newsom.

June incident brought attention

Known for soft-spoken confidence and a lack of bombast, Padilla’s public profile soared in June after he found himself cuffed by federal agents, at the center of a staggering viral moment during a news conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Despite identifying himself, Padilla was tackled after trying to interrupt Noem with a question. The manhandling of California’s senior senator was filmed by a staffer and broadcast around the world, provoking searing and widespread condemnation.

Days later, Vice President JD Vance joked about the incident and referred to Padilla — his former Senate colleague — as “Jose Padilla,” a misnaming that Padilla suggested was intentional and others characterized as racist.

The event put Padilla on the national spotlight and rumors of Padilla’s interest in the gubernatorial race ignited in late August.

Padilla told reporters on Tuesday that he received an “outpouring of encouragement and offers of support for the idea” of his candidacy and that he had “taken it to heart”

Alongside his wife, Angela, the senator said he also heard from many people urging him to keep his fight going in Washington.

“Countless Californians have urged me to do everything i could to protect California and the American Dream from a vindictive president who seems hell bent on raising costs for working families, rolling back environmental protections, cutting access to healthcare, jeopardizing reproductive rights and more,” he said.

Padilla said he had listened.

“I will continue to thank them and honor their support by continuing to work together for a better future,” he said.

Ceballos reported from Washington, Wick from Los Angeles. Times staff writer Noah Goldberg, in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.

Source link

Argentina Decides Fate of Milei’s Austerity Agenda

Argentina is set to vote in legislative elections on Sunday, which will test support for President Javier Milei’s free-market reforms and austerity measures.

The president’s party, La Libertad Avanza, aims to boost its minority in Congress to maintain investor confidence and maintain support from U.S. President Donald Trump. The election will take place in half of Argentina’s lower Chamber of Deputies and a third of the Senate.

The Peronist opposition movement currently holds the largest minority in both houses, while Milei’s party has only 37 deputies and six senators. The White House and foreign investors have been impressed by the government’s ability to reduce monthly inflation, achieve a fiscal surplus, and enact sweeping deregulation measures.

However, Milei’s popularity has fallen due to public frustration with his cuts to public spending and a corruption scandal linked to his sister. Political experts predict that more than 35% of the vote would be a positive outcome for Milei’s government and could allow him to block opposition lawmakers’ efforts to overturn his vetoes against laws that threaten Argentina’s fiscal balance.

With information from Reuters

Source link

German Governing Coalition’s Internal Divisions Threaten Reform Agenda

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is facing challenges in implementing key policies on pensions and military service, raising concerns about political instability in Germany. Merz’s conservative party and the center-left Social Democrats formed a coalition five months ago to ensure stability after a previous coalition’s collapse. However, this new coalition has a slim parliamentary majority and has experienced internal tensions since its formation, particularly after Merz became the first chancellor to fail re-election in the first voting round.

While coalition leaders maintain a good working relationship, they struggle to manage their lawmakers. Many conservatives are dissatisfied with the compromises made, which conflict with their campaign promises. Merz, lacking prior government experience, has adopted a hands-off approach to internal conflicts. Political experts caution that the coalition may not implement significant changes if it continues along its current path, driven by distrust among parties, differing ideologies, and the challenges Germany faces.

The coalition must act quickly as Germany’s economy is facing its third year of decline and security issues with Russia complicate matters, especially given uncertainties with the United States as a security partner. Proponents argue that the bill for voluntary military service, which may lead to reintroducing the draft, is crucial for strengthening Germany’s armed forces. However, Defense Minister Boris Pistorius’s timeline for implementation by 2026 now appears uncertain.

Political turmoil in Germany follows a string of French government collapses, raising concerns about political paralysis and increased support for far-right parties. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is gaining popularity as support for the conservatives and Social Democrats wanes. Conservative youth lawmakers threatened to withhold support for a pension bill that freezes pensions until 2031, arguing it fails to address financing issues amidst an aging population.

Meanwhile, disagreements about military service proposals between the coalition parties created additional tensions. A proposed compromise was rejected by Pistorius, which prompted some cancellations in joint events. Analysts believe that while the coalition is likely to reach new agreements, they may be fraught with complications and eroded trust. Merz is criticized for not intervening in coalition disputes and for focusing on foreign policies, which has contributed to a significant drop in his approval ratings, making him one of the least popular chancellors recently.

With information from Reuters

Source link

Trump’s UK visit: What’s on the agenda, schedule, what to expect | Business and Economy News

Great Britain is set to roll out the red carpet for Donald Trump this week, honouring the president of the United States with something no other American leader has ever received: a second state visit.

Trump is set to arrive in London late on Tuesday for a visit that coincides with tough trade negotiations between the US and many of its key trading partners, including the United Kingdom. During his stay, both countries plan to announce several deals on technology and civil nuclear energy, and British leaders hope to finalise an agreement on metal tariffs.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Trump and his wife, Melania, will be treated to royal pageantry throughout their two-day stay, including a ceremonial welcome from King Charles at Windsor Castle. The British government is confident that royal soft power will appeal to Trump’s sense of flamboyance.

Before setting off on Tuesday, Trump said he was looking forward to meeting with his friend, King Charles III, whom he described as an “elegant gentleman”.

The president said being welcomed for a second state visit was a first, and noted how it was planned for Windsor Castle, rather than Buckingham Palace.

“I don’t want to say one is better than the other, but they say Windsor Castle is the ultimate,” the president added, noting that much of his trip will be focused on trade.

The state visit will include a glittering banquet and a procession in a horse-drawn carriage. For his part, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer hopes Trump’s visit will offer a measure of distraction from simmering speculation about his leadership amid plummeting approval ratings and high-profile resignations.

Lord Mandelson’s recent sacking as UK ambassador to the US, following new revelations concerning his friendship with child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, has already cast a diplomatic pall over Trump’s visit. The president’s own links to Epstein have also generated plenty of headlines in recent weeks.

When and where

Trump will officially be welcomed to the UK on Tuesday evening by US Ambassador Warren Stephens, British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and Viscount Hood, the king’s lord-in-waiting. On Wednesday morning, the royal activities will begin, with a formal greeting by the king and Queen Camilla, along with Prince William and Princess Catherine, at Windsor Castle. Later that day, he will enjoy a royal salute at the castle and a flypast from the Red Arrows and the carriage procession.

The president will then be treated to lunch with the extended royal family before laying a wreath at Queen Elizabeth II’s tomb in St George’s Chapel.

On Wednesday night, Trump will be the guest of honour at a formal state banquet at the castle.

The president will bid farewell to the royals on Thursday morning before he meets Starmer.

Trade tops agenda

Starmer will host Trump at Chequers, his country residence, on Thursday to discuss various matters, including security in Ukraine. Starmer’s ultimate aim, however, is to ensure that Trump makes good on his promise to lower tariffs on steel and aluminium.

A view of Chequers, the official country residence of the Prime Minister, near Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire, Britain [File: Peter Nicholls/Reuters]
A view of Chequers, the official country residence of the UK prime minister, near Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire [File: Peter Nicholls/Reuters]

The UK was the first country to sign a bilateral trade agreement with the Trump administration in May. Under that deal, the US planned to reduce tariffs on aluminium and steel from 25 percent to zero, but that has not happened yet.

“When it comes to steel, we will make sure that we have an announcement as soon as possible,” Business Secretary Peter Kyle told the BBC on Sunday. Other ministers have expressed optimism that a deal on base metals can be secured during Trump’s visit.

The two countries are also expected to sign a multibillion-dollar deal to develop small nuclear projects, which could, in some cases, help to power new artificial intelligence data centres. On Monday, Starmer announced a joint US-UK project to build a fleet of small modular reactors.

“The UK-US relationship is the strongest in the world,” a representative from Starmer’s office told reporters. “This week, we are delivering a step change in that relationship.”

Investment deals?

A major talking point will be a new potential technology partnership, involving enhanced US investment in the UK and greater British cooperation with Silicon Valley on AI and quantum computing.

That had been Lord Mandelson’s priority and something he described in his outgoing letter to embassy staff last week as his “personal pride and joy” that he claimed would “help write the next chapter of the special relationship” between the US and the UK. Mandelson’s permanent replacement has yet to be named, but James Roscoe is serving as interim ambassador to the US.

Nvidia, OpenAI and Google are expected to announce investment deals as part of the partnership, according to the Reuters news agency. Meanwhile, the British government recently secured 1.25 billion pounds ($1.7bn) in private investment pledges from PayPal and Bank of America.

Elsewhere, private equity firm Blackstone plans to invest 100 billion pounds ($136bn) into British assets over the next decade, with a focus on physical infrastructure. The investment will be part of a previously announced $500bn package of investment into Europe.

Why is this trip significant?

This is Trump’s second visit to the UK in the last two months, following his trip to Scotland in July, but this week marks his second state visit, which no other US president has ever enjoyed. In 2019, Trump was hosted for a state visit by Queen Elizabeth II.

The timing is not ideal. Mandelson was sacked as the UK’s ambassador to the US on September 11, after emails were published that revealed he urged Epstein to fight for early release from prison in 2008.

Trump’s friendship with Epstein has also exposed him to damaging scrutiny, including from his support base. Democrats in the House of Representatives recently released a birthday letter he allegedly wrote to Epstein in 2003, which Trump has denied writing.

For his part, Starmer hopes the pomp of a state visit will offer cover for his own domestic challenges, including criticism about him proscribing the Palestine Action group as a “terror organisation”.

Following missteps on welfare reform, a slapdash cabinet reshuffle and poor economic growth, several lawmakers are increasingly questioning Starmer’s judgement, especially with Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK party surging ahead in the polls.

Starmer’s main goal will be to champion any wins secured during Trump’s visit.

But the president’s stay will also face challenges as local protests are expected in opposition to Trump’s stay at Windsor Castle.

Members of the public walk along the Long Walk in Windsor Great Park, outside of Windsor Castle, west of London [File: Adrian Dennis/AFP]
Members of the public walk along the Long Walk in Windsor Great Park, outside of Windsor Castle, west of London [File: Adrian Dennis/AFP]

The prime minister will also try to convince Trump that Russia’s incursion of 20 drones into Polish airspace last Wednesday was not an accident, as Trump has suggested.

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski rejected that theory on September 12 during a news conference in Kyiv. “We don’t believe in 20 mistakes at the same time,” he said.

Finally, Starmer’s spokesperson said there would also be announcements on deepening cultural ties, including promoting basketball in the UK and developing partnerships between heritage and art institutions.

Source link

FBI chief Patel faces Congress amid missteps in Kirk inquiry, agency turmoil and lawsuit over purge

Hours after the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, FBI Director Kash Patel declared online that “the subject” in the killing was in custody. The shooter was not. The two men who had been detained were quickly released. Utah officials acknowledged that the gunman remained at large.

The false assurance was more than a slip. It spotlighted the high-stakes uncertainty surrounding Patel’s leadership of the bureau when its credibility is under extraordinary pressure, as is his own.

Patel now approaches congressional oversight hearings this week facing not just questions about that investigation but broader doubts about whether he can stabilize a federal law enforcement agency fragmented by political fights and internal upheaval.

Democrats are poised to press Patel on a purge of senior executives that has prompted a lawsuit, his pursuit of President Trump’s grievances over the Russia investigation long after it ended, and a realignment of resources that has prioritized illegal immigration and street crime over the FBI’s traditional pursuits.

The hearings will offer Patel his most consequential stage yet, and perhaps the clearest test of whether he can convince the country that the FBI, under his watch, can avoid compounding its mistakes in a time of political violence and deepening distrust.

“Because of the skepticism that some members of the Senate have had and still have, it’s extremely important that he perform very well at these oversight hearings” on Tuesday and Wednesday, said Gregory Brower, the FBI’s former top congressional affairs official.

The FBI declined to comment about Patel’s coming testimony.

Inaccurate claim after Kirk shooting

Kirk’s killing was always going to be a closely scrutinized investigation, not only because it was the latest burst of political violence in the U.S. but also because of Kirk’s friendships with Trump, Patel and other administration figures and allies.

While agents investigated, Patel posted on X that “the subject for the horrific shooting today that took the life of Charlie Kirk is now in custody.” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said at a near-contemporaneous news conference that “whoever did this, we will find you,” suggesting authorities were still searching. Patel soon after posted that the person “in custody” had been released.

Two people were initially held for questioning in the case, but neither was a suspect.

As the search stretched on, Patel angrily vented to FBI personnel Thursday about what he perceived as a failure to keep him informed, including that he was not quickly shown a photograph of the suspected shooter. That’s according to people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to discuss it by name and spoke on condition of anonymity to the Associated Press. The New York Times earlier reported details of the call.

Asked about the scrutiny of Patel’s performance, the FBI said it had worked with local law enforcement to bring the suspect, Tyler Robinson, to justice and “will continue to be transparent.”

Patel’s overall response did not go unnoticed in conservative circles. One prominent GOP strategist, Christopher Rufo, posted that it was “time for Republicans to assess whether Kash Patel is the right man to run the FBI.”

FBI personnel purge

On the same day Kirk was killed, Patel also faced a lawsuit from three FBI senior executives fired in an August purge that they characterized as a Trump administration retribution campaign.

Among them was Brian Driscoll, who as acting FBI director in the early days of the administration resisted Justice Department demands for names of agents who investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. Driscoll alleged in the lawsuit that he was let go after he challenged the leadership’s desire to terminate an FBI pilot who had been wrongly identified on social media as having been part of the FBI search for classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. Trump, while out of office, was indicted for his role in Jan. 6 and the classified documents case.

The upheaval continues a trend that began before Patel took over, when more than a half-dozen senior executives were forced out under a Justice Department rationale that they could not be “trusted” to implement Trump’s agenda.

There’s since been significant turnover in leadership at the FBI’s 55 field offices. Some left because of promotions or retirements, but others because of ultimatums to accept new assignments or resign. The head of the Salt Lake City office, an experienced counterterrorism investigator, was pushed out of her position weeks before Kirk was killed at a Utah college, said people familiar with the move.

FBI’s priorities shift

Patel arrived at the FBI having been a sharp critic of its leadership, including for the Trump indictments and investigations that he says politicized the institution. Under Patel and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, the FBI and Justice Department have become entangled in their own politically fraught investigations, such as one focused on New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James.

He’s moved quickly to remake the bureau, with the FBI and Justice Department working to investigate one of the Republican president’s chief grievances — the years-old Trump-Russia investigation. Trump calls that probe, which found that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help him get elected but did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Russia and Trump’s campaign, a “hoax.”

The Justice Department appeared to confirm in an unusual statement that it was investigating former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan, pivotal players in the Russia investigation, but did not say for what. Bondi has directed that evidence be presented to a grand jury.

Critics of the new Russia inquiry consider it a transparent attempt to turn the page from the fierce backlash the FBI and Justice Department endured from Trump’s base following the July announcement that those agencies would not be releasing any additional documents from the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation.

Patel has meanwhile elevated the fight against street crime, drug trafficking and illegal immigration to the top of the FBI’s agenda, in alignment with Trump’s agenda.

The bureau defends its aggressive policing in American cities that the Trump administration contends have been consumed by crime, despite falling crime rates in recent years in the cities targeted. Patel says the thousands of resulting arrests, many immigration-related, are “what happens when you let good cops be good cops.”

Critics say the street crime focus draws attention and resources from the sophisticated public corruption and national security threats for which the bureau has long been primarily, if not solely, responsible for investigating.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Pacific Islands leaders meet with climate change, security on agenda | News

Pacific Island leaders have kicked off their annual summit in the Solomon Islands, with climate change and security expected to take centre stage amid the battle for influence in the region between China and the United States.

The weeklong gathering began in Honiara on Monday with a meeting of the group’s small island states.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The leaders of the 18-member forum, including Australia and New Zealand, will head to the seaside settlement of Munda for a retreat on Thursday.

Notably, this year’s summit will take place without the forum’s two dozen donor partners, including China, the US and Taiwan, after a dispute over Taipei’s attendance caused the Solomon Islands to bar those observers.

Among 18 forum members, three have diplomatic ties with Taiwan, three have defence compacts with the US, and several are French territories. Thirteen of the members have ties with China.

Divavesi Waqa, the secretary-general of the Pacific Islands Forum, said this year’s meeting will cover “regional priorities”, including “climate change, ocean governance, security, [and] economic resilience”.

“These are not just policy issues. They are lived realities for our people,” Waqa told reporters on Sunday.

Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele, who welcomed leaders from neighbouring countries to Honiara, said the meeting’s theme “Lumi Tugeda: Act Now for an Integrated Blue Pacific Continent” reflected the “urgency for regional unity and action”.

“If ever there was a time that demanded strengthened Pacific regionalism and collective action, it is now,” Manele said, according to a statement.

The Solomon Islands leader, who has sought to strengthen relations with Australia after Western criticism of his predecessor’s close ties with China, has previously defended his decision to bar foreign observers.

Manele told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) last month that the decision was temporary while the forum updates its procedures for non-member participation.

“The Pacific region must always lead, drive and own their own agenda and not be distracted by divisive issues pushed by external media,” Manele said, in apparent reference to reports that the decision was related to a decision not to include Taiwan in this year’s meeting.

“We are not under pressure from any external forces,” he said.

“Let me be very clear: Solomon Islands is a sovereign nation. Our government acts in the best interests of our nation and the region.”

At this year’s forum, the Pacific Islands leaders are expected to sign the Fiji-proposed “Ocean of Peace” Declaration, which the country’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said comes as the Pacific region has “endured catastrophic calamities caused by climate change” as well as “its rich resources exploited by many”.

The proposal includes guiding principles, including “protecting and recognising the Pacific’s stewardship of the environment” as well as “peaceful resolution of disputes” and “rejection of coercion”, he said.

According to ABC, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will arrive in Honiara on Wednesday after visiting Vanuatu, where he is expected to sign a landmark pact to strengthen economic and security ties.

Vanuatu recently led an important case before the International Court of Justice, which saw the United Nations’ top court rule that states must act urgently to address the “existential threat” of climate change by cooperating to cut emissions.

Australia’s bid to host next year’s COP31 climate change meeting, as a Pacific COP, will be on the agenda in Honiara, amid criticism of Canberra’s mixed record on reducing its own emissions and fossil fuel exports.

Australia has previously pledged to work closely with its island neighbours to raise awareness of the challenges they face from rising sea levels and worsening storms.

The forum’s 18 members are Australia, the Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

Source link

Poll finds partisan split in California on U.S. direction under Trump

California voters are heavily divided along partisan lines when it comes to President Trump, with large majorities of Democrats and unaffiliated voters disapproving of him and believing the country is headed in the wrong direction under his leadership, and many Republicans feeling the opposite, according to a new poll conducted for The Times.

The findings are remarkably consistent with past polling on the Republican president in the nation’s most populous blue state, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies Poll.

“If you look at all the job ratings we’ve done about President Trump — and this carries back all the way through his first term — voters have pretty much maintained the same posture,” DiCamillo said. “Voters know who he is.”

The same partisan divide also showed up in the poll on a number of hot-button issues, such as Medicaid cuts and tariffs, DiCamillo said — with Democrats “almost uniformly” opposed to Trump’s agenda and Republicans “pretty much on board with what Trump is doing.”

Asked whether the sweeping tariffs that Trump has imposed on international trading partners have had a “noticeable negative impact” on their family spending, 71% of Democrats said yes, while 76% of Republicans said no.

Poll chart shows that among registers voters, tariffs has had a noticeable negative impact on their family's spending.

“If you’re a Republican, you tend to discount the impacts — you downplay them or you just ignore them,” while Democrats “tend to blame everything on Trump,” DiCamillo said.

Asked whether they were confident that the Trump administration would provide California with the nearly $40 billion in wildfire relief aid it has requested in response to the devastating L.A.-area fires in January, 93% of Democrats said they were not confident — compared with the 43% of Republicans who said they were confident.

In a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2 to 1, the effect is that Trump fared terribly in the poll overall, just as he has in recent presidential votes in the state.

The poll — conducted Aug. 11-17 with 4,950 registered voters interviewed — found 69% of likely California voters disapproved of Trump, with 62% strongly disapproving, while 29% approved of him. A similar majority, 68%, said they believed the country is headed in the wrong direction, while 26% said it’s headed in the right direction.

Poll chart shows that Democrats and non-affiliated registered voters disapprove of Trump's job performance as a president, while 83% of Republicans approve.

Whereas 90% of Democrats and 75% of unaffiliated voters said the country is on the wrong track, just 20% of Republicans felt that way, the poll found.

Poll chart shows that among registers voters, say the country is on the wrong track.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the poll.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said the findings prove Trump’s agenda “is devastating communities across California who are dealing with the harmful, real life consequences” of the president’s policies.

“The Trump Administration does not represent the views of the vast majority of Californians and it’s why Trump has chosen California to push the limits of his constitutional power,” Padilla said. “As more Americans across the nation continue to feel the impacts of his destructive policies, public support will continue to erode.”

G. Cristina Mora, co-director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, or IGS, said the findings were interesting, especially in light of other recent polling for The Times that found slightly more nuanced Republican impressions — and more wariness — when it comes to Trump’s immigration agenda and tactics.

On his overall approval and on other parts of his agenda, including the tariffs and Medicaid cuts, “the strength of the partisanship is very clear,” Mora said.

Cuts to Medicaid

Voters in the state are similarly divided when it comes to recent decisions on Medicaid health insurance for low-income residents, the poll found. The state’s version is known as Medi-Cal.

For instance, Californians largely disapprove of new work requirements for Medicaid and Medi-Cal recipients under the Big Beautiful Bill that Trump championed and congressional Republicans recently passed into law, the poll found.

The bill requires most Medicaid recipients ages 18 to 64 to work at least 80 hours per month in order to continue receiving benefits. Republicans trumpeted the change as holding people accountable and safeguarding against abuses of federal taxpayer dollars, while Democrats denounced it as a threat to public health that would strip millions of vulnerable Americans of their health insurance.

Poll chart shows that among registers voters, disapprove of Trump's bill requiring most recipients ages 18-64 of the Medicaid health insurance program for low-income residents to work at least 80 hours per month to keep their benefits.

The poll found 61% of Californians disapproved of the change, with 43% strongly disapproving of it, while 36% approved of it, with 21% strongly approving of it. Voters were sharply divided along party lines, however, with 80% of Republicans approving of the changes and 85% of Democrats disapproving of them.

Californians also disapproved — though by a smaller margin — of a move by California Democrats and Gov. Gavin Newsom to help close a budget shortfall by barring undocumented immigrant adults from newly enrolling in Medi-Cal benefits.

A slight majority of poll respondents, or 52%, said they disapproved of the new restriction, with 17% strongly disapproving of it. The poll found 43% of respondents approved of the change, including 30% who strongly approved of it.

Poll chart shows that among registers voters, disapprove of Trump's bill requiring most recipients ages 18-64 of the Medicaid health insurance program for low-income residents to work at least 80 hours per month to keep their benefits.

Among Democrats, 77% disapproved of the change. Among Republicans, 87% approved of it. Among voters with no party preference, 52% disapproved.

More than half the poll respondents — 57% — said neither they nor their immediate family members receive Medi-Cal benefits, while 35% said they did. Of those who receive Medi-Cal, two-thirds — or 67% — said they were very or somewhat worried about losing, or about someone in their immediate family losing, their coverage due to changes by the Trump administration.

Nadereh Pourat, associate director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, said there is historical evidence to show what is going to happen next under the changes — and it’s not good.

The work requirement will undoubtedly result in people losing health coverage, just as thousands did when Arkansas implemented a similar requirement years ago, she said.

When people lose coverage, the cost of preventative care goes up and they generally receive less of it, she said. “If the doctor’s visit competes with food on the table or rent, then people are going to skip those primary care visits,” she said — and often “end up in the emergency room” instead.

And that’s more expensive not just for them, but also for local and state healthcare systems, she said.

Cuts to high-speed rail

Californians also are heavily divided over the state’s efforts to build a high-speed rail line through the Central Valley, after the Trump administration announced it was clawing back $4 billion in promised federal funding.

The project was initially envisioned as connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco by 2026, but officials have since set new goals of connecting Bakersfield to Merced by 2030. The project is substantially over budget, and Trump administration officials have called in a “boondoggle.”

The poll found that 49% of Californians support the project, with 28% of them strongly in favor of it. It found 42% oppose the project, including 28% who strongly oppose it.

Among Democrats, 66% were in favor of the project. Among Republicans, 77% were opposed. Among voters with no party preference, 49% were in favor while 39% were opposed.

Poll chart shows that among registers voters,

In Los Angeles County, 54% of voters were in favor of the project continuing, while 58% of voters in the Bay Area were in favor. In the Central Valley, 51% of voters were opposed, compared with 41% in favor.

State Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San José), who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, said political rhetoric around the project has clearly had an effect on how voters feel about it, and that is partly because state leaders haven’t done enough to lay out why the project makes sense economically.

“Healthy skepticism is a good thing, especially when you’re dealing with billions of dollars,” he said. “It’s on legislators and the governor right now in California to lay out a strategy that you can’t poke a lot of holes in, and that hasn’t been the case in the past.”

Cortese said he started life as an orchard farmer in what is now Silicon Valley, knows what major public infrastructure investments can mean for rural communities such as those in the Central Valley, and will be hyperfocused on that message moving forward.

“There is no part of California that I know of that’s been waiting for more economic development than Bakersfield. Probably second is Fresno,” he said.

He said he also will be stressing to local skeptics of the project that supporting the Trump administration taking $4 billion away from California would be a silly thing to do no matter their politics. Conservative local officials who understand that will be “key to help us turn the tide,” he said.

Last month, California’s high-speed rail authority sued the Trump administration over the withdrawal of funds. The state is also suing the Trump administration over various changes to Medicaid, over Trump’s tariffs and over immigration enforcement tactics.

Mora said the sharp divide among Democrats and Republicans on Trump and his agenda called to mind other recent polling that showed many voters immediately changed their views of the economy after Trump took office — with Republicans suddenly feeling more optimistic, and Democrats more pessimistic.

It’s all a reflection of our modern, hyperpartisan politics, she said, where people’s perceptions — including about their own economic well-being — are “tied now much more closely to ideas about who’s in power.”

Source link

South Korea’s Lee set to meet Trump, with trade and security high on agenda | Donald Trump News

Seoul, South Korea – South Korean President Lee Jae-myung is set to meet United States President Donald Trump for the first time in a high-stakes visit to his country’s closest and most important ally.

After a one-day meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba in Tokyo, Lee arrived in Washington, DC, on Sunday ahead of an official working-level meeting at the White House with Trump.

It will be the first time the two heads of state meet.

Their summit follows a trade deal in July in which Washington agreed to cut its reciprocal tariff on South Korea to 15 percent from an initially proposed 25 percent.

The meeting is crucial for South Korea, whose engagement with the Trump administration was disrupted by domestic political turmoil, ignited by the brief declaration of martial law announced in December by the country’s impeached former president, Yoon Suk-yeol.

Discussion will focus on ironing out details of the unwritten July trade deal, which involves South Korea agreeing to buy $100bn in US energy and invest $350bn in the US economy.

On top of those dizzying sums are direct investments in the US, which are expected from South Korean companies, and which Trump has mentioned will be decided during their talks.

Accompanied by first lady Kim Hea-kyung, Lee will lead a delegation formed by the heads of South Korean top conglomerates, including Samsung Electronics, SK Group, Hyundai Motor and LG Group.

The four companies alone are already known to contribute approximately 126 trillion won ($91.2bn) in direct investments to the US, according to the South Korean daily Maeil Business Newspaper.

Choi Yoon-jung, a principal research fellow at the Sejong Institute in Seoul, said Lee needs to be deliberate and direct with Trump in the talks, as “South Korea is in a tough predicament in terms of trade with the US compared to the past”.

“It will be important for President Lee to explain how investments will be designed to serve US national interests and to remind Trump that the two nations are close trading partners who went through large ordeals to realise their Free Trade Agreement over two decades ago,” Choi told Al Jazeera.

Mason Richey, a professor of international politics at the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (HUFS), said the direction of the talks on investments is likely to be “unpredictable”.

“Not only are the current 15 percent tariffs overwhelmingly likely to stay on, but the investment part of the deal is likely to remain unclear and subject to unpredictable adjustment by the White House,” Richey told Al Jazeera.

Korea shipbuilding
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers under construction at the Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering facility on Geoje Island, South Korea, on December 7, 2018 [Ahn Young-joon/AP]

Analysts say shipbuilding is one area where Trump clearly desires to have South Korea as a key partner to play catch-up to China’s naval fleet, which leads in terms of sheer numbers and is also making technological advancements.

Officials in Seoul have previously stated that a key component of the tariff deal with Washington would include a partnership worth about $150bn to assist in rebuilding the US shipbuilding industry.

To that end, after visiting the White House, Lee will head to Philadelphia to visit the Philly Shipyard, which was bought by the South Korean company Hanwha Group last year.

Analysts also say that battery production and semiconductors are some other sectors where Trump has set clear objectives to increase US capacity, and where South Korea has shown willingness and interest in being that partner.

“The South Korean government is also willing to actively participate in the ‘modernisation’ of its alliance with the US, that could include increasing contributions to upholding the region’s security and development,” said the Sejong Institute’s Choi.

Another major discussion point will be Seoul and Washington’s defence posture regarding the growing threats from North Korea, as well as the development of a strategic alliance to address the changing international security and economic environment.

“The pressures for the role of US forces on the Korean Peninsula to evolve has been growing for years,” Jenny Town, the director of the Washington, DC-based research programme 38 North, told Al Jazeera.

This evolution was especially so with great power competition increasing from China, Town said.

“The Trump administration is focused on how to maximise resources for US interests and priorities, so it is likely that some changes will be made during this term,” Town said.

“How drastic or dramatic those changes will depend on a number of factors, including the state of the US domestic political infrastructure that provides checks and balances to executive decisions,” she said.

A US Senate defence policy bill for fiscal year 2026 includes a ban on the use of funds to reduce the number of US Forces Korea (USFK) troops to below the current level of 28,500 service members.

“This makes it unlikely that there will be an immediate change in troop deployment numbers in South Korea,” Choi said.

“So, the big point of contention will be the job assignment of the troops to match US interests. I think there’s a possibility of Trump asking South Korea to take on a bigger role in regional security, such as taking part in the conflict involving Taiwan.”

Financial negotiations between Trump and Lee may also tip into security details, as the US president has regularly called for South Korea to pay more for the US troops stationed on its soil.

Trump has made that same call since his first presidential term.

In addition to providing more than $1bn for the presence of USFK forces, South Korea also paid the entire cost of building Camp Humphreys, the largest US base overseas, situated 64km (39 miles) south of Seoul.

Trump has said that he wants defence spending to reach closer to 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for all US allies.

Today, South Korea’s defence budget is at 3.5 percent of GDP.

Transfer of wartime operational command – referring to the transfer of control of South Korean forces during wartime from the US to South Korea – has long been a point of discussion between Seoul and Washington.

Under the Lee administration’s five-year governance plan, Seoul hopes to have the transition happen by 2030.

Trump
US President Donald Trump visits the Federal Reserve in Washington, DC, on July 24, 2025 [Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP]

The Trump-Lee meeting also comes after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s powerful sister recently dismissed Washington and Seoul’s stated desires to restart diplomacy aimed at defusing Pyongyang’s nuclear programme.

Kim Yo Jong said that Seoul could never be a “diplomatic partner” with Pyongyang.

For Town, there were “interesting nuances” in Kim Yo Jong’s statements.

“While rejecting any kind of denuclearisation narrative as the basis of negotiations, her statements did create an opening for the US to engage North Korea to improve overall relations,” Town said.

“Kim suggested that there’s a reason for two countries with nuclear weapons to avoid confrontational relations. This begs the question of whether the US is actually interested in building a different relationship with North Korea that is not hinged on denuclearisation, and how US allies would see such an agenda,” Town said.

For Richey, the HUFS professor, the possibility of “Trump bypassing Lee in diplomacy with North Korea” poses a serious risk for South Korea down the road, in terms of influence and security.

In contrast to today’s lack of contact between Washington and Pyongyang, Trump’s first presidential term featured a suspension of US military exercises with South Korea and three separate meetings between the US president and North Korea’s Kim.

His desire to earn a Nobel Peace Prize could also offer another set of motivations for Trump to extend a US hand of friendship to Kim.

The South Korean president’s White House visit also coincides with annual, large-scale South Korean and US joint military exercises, which run for 11 days.

During a visit to North Korea’s most advanced warship last week, Kim denounced the drills as rehearsals for an invasion of North Korea and “an obvious expression of their will to provoke war”.

Also, last week, Beyond Parallel, a project of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, unveiled an undocumented North Korean missile base about 25km (15.5 miles) from the border with China, which likely has intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of reaching the US.

Town added that Russia could also play a cameo role in this summit.

“Lee may bring up the issue of how Russia’s relations with North Korea, especially their military cooperation, poses potential dangers to the alliance’s security interests,” she said.

“Talks could wind up to consideration of whether Trump’s relationship with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin may help mitigate the situation,” she said.

North Korea’s recent dealings with Russia adds another dimension to these inter-country relationships, as reciprocal exchanges of military troops for the receipt of food, energy, cash, weapons and technology have created a stable strategic bond between Moscow and Pyongyang.

Furthermore, North Korea has shown an interest in strengthening ties with another of the US’s biggest rivals – China.

“Ultimately, I believe Trump will continue to make overtures toward North Korea,” Choi said.

“He may seem to be pushing an isolationist strategy, but the matter of fact is that the US continues to be in the middle of negotiations and talks whenever a big conflict arises in the world,” she said.

Source link

This red state fears Californians bringing ‘radical, leftist’ agenda

It’s not easy being from California, especially if you’re hoping to leave the Golden State’s fires and rising home costs behind and move to a more affordable red state.

In Texas, some politicians have adopted “Don’t California my Texas” as both a rallying cry and a fundraising appeal.

In Montana, rising home prices prompted lawmakers to pass a package of bills this year that increased property taxes on people — including many Californians — who own second homes in the state.

And now, in Oklahoma, education officials have entered the fray by requiring teachers from California and New York to take an exam aimed at guarding against “radical leftist ideology.”

The test is being developed by leadership from the Oklahoma State Department of Education and PragerU, a nonprofit advocacy group that produces videos promoting conservative views of history, finance and other topics. PragerU videos have already been approved for use in schools in several states, including Oklahoma.

“Our teacher qualification test is very simple,” PragerU CEO Marissa Streit said in a statement to The Times. “Frankly, every American should be able to pass it. Certainly, every teacher should be able to pass it.”

She added that the full test will be available in the coming weeks. “We encourage you to take a look at the test yourself and make your own decision on whether it’s reasonable or not,” she said.

Superintendent Ryan Walters poses for a portrait in his office.

Superintendent Ryan Walters poses for a portrait in his office.

(Nick Oxford)

Ryan Walters, Oklahoma’s state superintendent of public instruction, told The Times that he launched the test out of concern over state standards in California and New York that require teachers to instruct students about gender identity.

The test comes at a time when Californians are increasingly relocating to other states in search of a slower pace of life and more affordable housing. Some cities seeking to reverse years-long population declines have created incentive programs to attract remote workers.

Tulsa Remote, which pays workers $10,000 to move to the second-largest city in the Sooner State, has attracted more than 3,600 remote workers since its inception in 2019. More than 7,800 Californians have applied to the program and 539 have made the move, cementing California as the second-most common origin state behind Texas.

Amid a nationwide teacher shortage, the Oklahoma schools system has launched a $50,000 signing bonus program — the largest in the country — to help recruit new educators for some of the most difficult to fill jobs, including early elementary and special education instruction.

The so-called “Californian exodus” accelerated during the pandemic, with places like Texas, Florida and Tennessee seeing major influxes from the West.

But by 2024, the exodus had ended, according to state data. The state’s population rose slightly in 2024 after three years of decline.

A Public Policy Institute of California survey in March found that many Californians who leave are either favoring nearby states such as Arizona, Idaho, Nevada and Oregon; larger states such as Texas; or locations without income taxes — not necessarily Oklahoma.

And the emigration of Californians to other states has done little to shift political demographics in their new homes, according to Eric McGhee, a policy director and senior fellow with the Public Policy Institute of California.

“The partisan balance of people moving to different states tends to be an exaggerated version of the partisan balance of the state they’re moving to,” he said. “So states that are more Republican tend to have migrants from California who are even more Republican than people in the state they’re moving to.”

The number of teachers that would be mandated to take the test in Oklahoma is unclear, but some data indicates that it might be small.

Information from the Commission for Educational Quality and Accountability — which oversees the education department and reviews out-of-state certification assessments for comparability with Oklahoma’s testing standards — shows that since 2020, the agency has reviewed only 19 out-of-state applications from California and New York. In 2025, only one applicant came from California, and none from New York.

Critics say the exam will discourage educators from accepting jobs in Oklahoma, which has been struggling with a teacher shortage and continues to lag behind the national average in reading and math, according to national data.

“This MAGA loyalty test will be yet another turnoff for teachers in a state already struggling with a huge shortage,” American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said.

“[Walters’] priority should be educating students, but instead, it’s getting Donald Trump and other MAGA politicians to notice him,” she said. “Teachers are patriots, and whether they are conservative or liberal, they want what students need: safe and welcoming public schools that are engaging and relevant and that prepare kids for college, career and life.”

Dennis Prager, founder of PragerU, in 2024 in Los Angeles.

Dennis Prager, founder of PragerU, in 2024 in Los Angeles. A test for new teachers in Oklahoma is being developed by leadership from the State Department of Education and PragerU.

(Araya Doheny / Getty Images for DailyWire+)

Experts say the creation of a test where teachers are forced to adhere to a certain viewpoint to get a job is unprecedented in the American education system. It also highlights the growing foothold PragerU has on the education system in certain states, said Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of history of education at the University of Pennsylvania.

“What they’re doing is they’re making Prager into a central player in the operation by vetting teachers based on their affinity for what Prager believes,” Zimmerman said. “I think the other thing that’s unprecedented, frankly, is the involvement of the White House in all of this.”

In January, Trump signed an executive order titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” which sought to cease funding any schools that teach gender ideology or curriculum that portrays the United States as “fundamentally racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory.” The order emphasizes the need for a “patriotic education.”

“I don’t think we’ve ever seen the White House engaging directly in these sorts of questions,” Zimmerman said.

“Historically, in the United States, school has been a state and especially a local concern and it still is,” he added. “The bulk of money for schools comes from states and localities, but I think something’s really different about our moment in the way these issues have become nationalized.”

With respect to California and New York educators, Walters has taken issue with the “gender fluidity argument,” which details that a person’s gender identity is not fixed and can shift or change over time, which he says is a “lie that they continue to push.”

The California Healthy Youth Act, which took effect in 2016, requires that districts provide comprehensive sexual health and HIV prevention education for students in grades 7 through 12 in public schools. The lessons, which parents can opt to take their children out of, include discussions of gender and sexual orientation.

Oklahoma public schools are not required to teach sex education, including gender. In 2021, the state passed a bill, HB 1775, that restricts the teaching of certain concepts related to race and gender in public schools and universities. The ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging what they called “unconstitutional censorship” in schools. That case is ongoing.

New York and California were “the first states that we’ve seen that are actually requiring their teachers to do things that are antithetical to our standards,” Walters said, adding that the test’s goal is to ensure they’ll teach to Oklahoma state standards. Walters is also looking at requiring the test for teachers from other states including Massachusetts, Maine and Minnesota.

Still, the notion that waves of Californians moving to other states are changing the political leanings on a large scale of their destinations isn’t borne out in the research.

The 50 question multiple choice exam, which is expected to be rolled out in the next few weeks, will include questions about gender, civics and American history. A preview of the exam released by the department of education included the question: Why is freedom of religion important to America’s identity?

Teachers must answer all 50 questions correctly to pass the test, Walters said, noting that the state is proud to be focusing on creating good citizens and being “unapologetic about a patriotic education.”

Zimmerman sees the creation of a good citizen a bit differently.

“To me, a good citizen, is somebody who has the capacity and skill to judge matters for themselves. Now how are you going to teach a future citizen to do that if you’re simply giving them one answer? I don’t think you can,” he said.

Source link

As hurricane season collides with immigration agenda, fears increase for those without legal status

If a major hurricane approaches Central Florida this season, Maria knows it’s dangerous to stay inside her wooden, trailer-like home. In past storms, she evacuated to her sister’s sturdier house. If she couldn’t get there, a shelter set up at the local high school served as a refuge if needed.

But with accelerating detentions and deportations of immigrants across her community of Apopka, 20 miles northwest of Orlando, Maria, an agricultural worker from Mexico without permanent U.S. legal status, doesn’t know if those options are safe. All risk encountering immigration enforcement agents.

“They can go where they want,” said Maria, 50, who insisted the Associated Press not use her last name for fear of detention. “There is no limit.”

Natural disasters have long posed singular risks for people in the United States without permanent legal status. But with the arrival of peak Atlantic hurricane season, immigrants and their advocates say President Donald Trump’s robust immigration enforcement agenda has increased the danger.

Places considered neutral spaces by immigrants such as schools, hospitals and emergency management agencies are now suspect, and advocates say agreements by local law enforcement to collaborate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement make them more vulnerable and compel a choice between being physically safe and avoiding detention.

“Am I going to risk the storm or risk endangering my family at the shelter?” said Dominique O’Connor, an organizer at the Farmworker Association of Florida. “You’re going to meet enforcement either way.”

For O’Connor and for many immigrants, it’s about storms. But people without permanent legal status could face these decisions anywhere that extreme heat, wildfires or other severe weather could necessitate evacuating, getting supplies or even seeking medical care.

Federal and state agencies have said little on whether immigration enforcement would be suspended in a disaster. It wouldn’t make much difference to Maria: “With all we’ve lived, we’ve lost trust.”

New policies deepen concerns

Efforts by Trump’s Republican administration to exponentially expand immigration enforcement capacity mean many of the agencies active in disaster response are increasingly entangled in immigration enforcement.

Since January, hundreds of law enforcement agencies have signed 287(g) agreements, allowing them to perform certain immigration enforcement actions. Most of the agreements are in hurricane-prone Florida and Texas.

Florida’s Division of Emergency Management oversees building the state’s new detention facilities, like the one called “Alligator Alcatraz” in the Everglades. Federal Emergency Management Agency funds are being used to build additional detention centers around the country, and the Department of Homeland Security temporarily reassigned some FEMA staff to assist ICE.

The National Guard, often seen passing out food and water after disasters, has been activated to support U.S. Customs and Border Protection operations and help at detention centers.

These dual roles can make for an intimidating scene during a disaster. After floods in July, more than 2,100 personnel from 20 state agencies aided the far-reaching response effort in Central Texas, along with CBP officers. Police controlled entry into hard-hit areas. Texas Department of Public Safety and private security officers staffed entrances to disaster recovery centers set up by FEMA.

That unsettled even families with permanent legal status, said Rae Cardenas, executive director of Doyle Community Center in Kerrville, Texas. Cardenas helped coordinate with the Mexican Consulate in San Antonio to replace documents for people who lived behind police checkpoints.

“Some families are afraid to go get their mail because their legal documents were washed away,” Cardenas said.

In Florida, these policies could make people unwilling to drive evacuation roads. Traffic stops are a frequent tool of detention, and Florida passed a law in February criminalizing entry into the state by those without legal status, though a judge temporarily blocked it.

There may be fewer places to evacuate now that public shelters, often guarded by police or requiring ID to enter, are no longer considered “protected areas” by DHS. The agency in January rescinded a policy of President Joe Biden, a Democrat, to avoid enforcement in places like schools, medical facilities and emergency response sites.

The fears extend even into disaster recovery. On top of meeting law enforcement at FEMA recovery centers, mixed-status households that qualify for help from the agency might hesitate to apply for fear of their information being accessed by other agencies, said Esmeralda Ledezma, communications associate with the Houston-based nonprofit Woori Juntos. “Even if you have the right to federal aid, you’re afraid to be punished for it,” Ledezma said.

In past emergencies, DHS has put out messaging stating it would suspend immigration enforcement. The agency’s policy now is unclear.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in an email that CBP had not issued any guidance “because there have been no natural disasters affecting border enforcement.” She did not address what directions were given during CBP’s activation in the Texas floods or whether ICE would be active during a disaster.

Florida’s Division of Emergency Management did not respond to questions related to its policies toward people without legal status. Texas’ Division of Emergency Management referred The Associated Press to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s office, which did not respond.

Building local resilience is a priority

In spite of the crackdown, local officials in some hurricane-prone areas are expanding outreach to immigrant populations. “We are trying to move forward with business as usual,” said Gracia Fernandez, language access coordinator for Alachua County in Central Florida.

The county launched a program last year to translate and distribute emergency communications in Spanish, Haitian Creole and other languages. Now staffers want to spread the word that county shelters won’t require IDs, but since they’re public spaces, Fernandez acknowledged there’s not much they can do if ICE comes.

“There is still a risk,” she said. “But we will try our best to help people feel safe.”

As immigrant communities are pushed deeper into the shadows, more responsibility falls on nonprofits, and communities themselves, to keep each other safe.

Hope Community Center in Apopka has pushed local officials to commit to not requiring IDs at shelters and sandbag distribution points. During an evacuation, the facility becomes an alternative shelter and a command center, from which staffers translate and send out emergency communications in multiple languages. For those who won’t leave their homes, staffers do door-to-door wellness checks, delivering food and water.

“It’s a very grassroots, underground operation,” said Felipe Sousa Lazaballet, the center’s executive director.

Preparing the community is challenging when it’s consumed by the daily crises wrought by detentions and deportations, Sousa Lazaballet said.

“All of us are in triage mode,” he said. “Every day there is an emergency, so the community is not necessarily thinking about hurricane season yet. That’s why we have to have a plan.”

Angueira writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Dozens of House Democrats left Texas to deny GOP the quorum to vote

Texas Democrats ended a two-week walkout Monday that stalled Republican efforts to redraw congressional districts as part of a national partisan brawl over President Trump’s desire to reshape U.S. House maps to his advantage.

Their return to the Texas Capitol will allow the Republican-run Legislature to proceed as California Democrats separately advance a countereffort to redraw their congressional boundaries in retaliation. The tit-for-tat puts the nation’s two most populous states at the center of an expanding fight over control of Congress ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The battle also has rallied Democrats nationally after infighting and frustrations among the party’s voters since Republicans took control of the White House and Capitol Hill in January.

Dozens of state House Democrats left the state Aug. 3 to deny their Republican-majority colleagues the attendance necessary to vote on redrawn maps intended to send five more Texas Republicans to Washington.

After spending nearly two weeks in Illinois and elsewhere, they declared victory when Republicans adjourned their first special session Friday and Democrats around the country rallied in opposition to the Trump-led gerrymandering effort. They pointed specifically to California’s release of proposed maps intended to increase Democrats’ U.S. House advantage by five seats, in effect neutralizing any Republican gains in Texas.

Many of the absent Democrats left Chicago early Monday and landed hours later at a private airfield in Austin, where several boarded a large charter bus to the Capitol. Once inside, they were greeted by cheering supporters. And for the first time since Trump’s redistricting push accelerated into a national issue, the Texas House floor was near full capacity when lawmakers convened briefly Monday afternoon.

Republican House Speaker Dustin Burrows did not mention redistricting on the floor Monday but promised swift action on the Legislature’s agenda.

“The majority has the right to prevail. The minority has the right to be heard,” the speaker said. “We are done waiting.”

Democrats cheered at the Austin statehouse

Cheering supporters greeted returning lawmakers inside the Capitol before the House convened for a brief session.

“We killed the corrupt special session, withstood unprecedented surveillance and intimidation, and rallied Democrats nationwide to join this existential fight for fair representation — reshaping the entire 2026 landscape,” Texas House Minority Leader Gene Wu said in a written statement.

Wu has promised Democrats would challenge the new designs in court.

The House did not take up any bills Monday and was not scheduled to return until Wednesday.

Trump has pressured other Republican-run states to consider redistricting as well, while Democratic governors in multiple statehouses have indicated they would follow California’s lead in response. Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom has said that his state will hold a Nov. 4 special referendum on the redrawn districts.

The president wants to shore up Republicans’ narrow House majority and avoid a repeat of the 2018 midterms during his first presidency. Democrats regained House control then and used their majority to stymie his agenda and twice impeach him.

On a national level, the partisan makeup of existing district lines puts Democrats within three seats of a majority. Of the 435 total House seats, only several dozen districts are competitive. So even slight changes in a few states could affect which party wins control.

Texas’ governor jumped to the president’s aid

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott added redistricting to an initial special session agenda that included a number of issues, but most notably a package of bills responding to devastating floods that killed more than 130 people last month.

Abbott has blamed Democrats’ absence for delaying action on those measures. Democrats have countered that Abbott’s capitulation to Trump is responsible for the delay because he insisted on in effect linking the hyper-partisan matter to the nonpartisan flood relief.

Redistricting typically occurs once at the beginning of each decade to coincide with the census. Many states, including Texas, give legislators the power to draw maps. California is among those that empower independent commissions with the task, giving Newsom an additional hurdle in his bid to match or exceed whatever partisan moves Texas makes.

Abbott, Burrows and other Republicans tried various threats and legal maneuvers to pressure Democrats’ return, including issuing civil warrants for absent lawmakers’ arrest. As long as they were out of state, those lawmakers remained beyond the reach of Texas authorities.

The Democrats who came back to the chamber Monday did so without being detained by law enforcement. However, plainclothes officers escorted them from the chamber after Monday’s session. And Burrows’ office said Texas Department of Public Safety officers will follow the Democratic returnees around the clock to ensure that they return again.

Additionally, the lawmakers who left face fines of up to $500 for each legislative day they missed. Burrows has insisted Democratic lawmakers also will pick up the tab for state troopers and others who attempted to corral them during the walkout.

California lawmakers were scheduled to convene later Monday.

Barrow and Figueroa write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

Source link

Trump-Putin Alaska summit: What’s on the agenda and what’s at stake? | Russia-Ukraine war News

United States President Donald Trump and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin are set to meet in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday in a bid to find common ground that could lead to a lasting ceasefire deal in Russia’s three-year-long war on Ukraine.

The highly anticipated meeting is the latest in Trump’s numerous, but so far unsuccessful, attempts to end the Ukraine war and keep the promises he made on the campaign trail last year, when he claimed he would end the conflict within 24 hours if elected.

It also marks the first time in a decade that Putin will visit the US, as well as the first-ever visit of a Russian leader to Alaska.

While President Trump has tried to downplay expectations ahead of the meeting, he also warned on Thursday that Russia could face “serious consequences” if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire.

Here’s what to know about the Alaska meeting:

When and where are Trump and Putin meeting?

Both leaders will meet at the US military’s Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska.

The time of the meeting is scheduled for about 11:30am Alaska time (19:30 GMT), although this could change.

Accompanying Russian delegation members include: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defence Minister Andrei Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, Presidential Aide Yuri Ushakov, and Special Presidential Envoy on Foreign Investment and Economic Cooperation Kirill Dmitriev.

It is not yet clear who will accompany Trump for the meeting from the US side.

Are Zelenskyy and European leaders attending?

No, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will not attend the Alaska meeting, nor will European leaders.

Asked why Zelenskyy was not at the table, Trump chided the Ukrainian president at a White House news briefing on August 11, saying that Zelenskyy had ruled for three years and “nothing happened” in terms of ending the war.

“I would say he could go, but he’s gone to a lot of meetings,” Trump said.

Analyst Neil Melvin of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a London-based think tank, said Europe was essentially an observer in a matter that could determine its fate because it lacked leverage. “​European leaders have been relegated to the margins with the [European Union] seen by Trump and Putin as largely irrelevant,” he said.

Ahead of the meeting, on Wednesday, Trump, alongside US Vice President JD Vance, held a virtual meeting with Zelenskyy and other European leaders. Analysts say it was a final attempt on the part of the Europeans to steer the meeting in Ukraine’s favour.

Zelenskyy joined the virtual meeting from Berlin. Other leaders who attended were from Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Finland and Poland. European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen and NATO chief Mark Rutte were also present.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (L) is welcomed by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz upon arrival in the garden of the chancellery in Berlin to join a video conference of European leaders with the US President on the Ukraine war ahead of the summit between the US and Russian leaders, on August 13, 2025. European leaders will hold online talks with US President Donald Trump, hoping to convince him to respect Ukraine's interests when he discusses the war with Putin in Alaska on Friday. JOHN MACDOUGALL/Pool via REUTERS
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, left, is welcomed by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin to join a video conference of European leaders with the US president on the Ukraine war ahead of the summit between the US and Russian leaders, on August 13, 2025 [John Macdougall/Reuters]

What’s the significance of Alaska as the venue?

Alaska, which is located northwest of the US mainland, is the closest point at which Russia and the US are neighbours. The US state is closer to Russia than it is to the US mainland. On the Russian side, it is closest to the autonomous Chukotka district.

Originally inhabited by Indigenous Americans, the region was first colonised by the old Russian empire in the 18th century. Due to the high costs of maintaining the faraway location, Moscow sold Alaska to the US in 1867 for $7.2m, the equivalent of $162m today. Russian influence still abounds in the region, visible in the Russian Orthodox churches still present, and even in the Russian surnames of some Alaskans.

The Elmendorf-Richardson base, where the meeting will be held, is also significant: It was originally an air force base built in 1940, during World War II. But its role expanded significantly during the Cold War that followed. The US was worried about possible Soviet attacks on Alaska, and thus built monitors and anti-aircraft systems to counter any threats. The airbase was an important part of that mission. The air squadrons based there are still positioned to intercept any Russian aircraft that might seek to enter US airspace.

Still, the US has not clarified why it chose Alaska as the venue for the summit.

INTERACTIVE-ukraine-Conflict at a glance-AUG 12, 2025-1755156371What’s on the agenda?

The two leaders will discuss the terms for a possible ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine.

On the agenda is how such a deal could look, including possible territorial concessions on either side.

Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Its military currently controls about 19 percent of Ukrainian land across Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, Kherson and small parts of Kharkiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv, and Dnipropetrovsk provinces.

Ukraine controlled parts of Russia’s Kursk region from August 2024 but has since lost most of the territory.

What land swaps could Trump and Putin discuss?

Trump, on Monday, suggested in a news briefing that Ukraine and Russia could swap territory in order to reach a land deal.

However, he walked back that suggestion on Tuesday at another briefing as his suggestion proved controversial across Europe. Trump promised to get back some Ukrainian territory.

“Russia occupied a big portion of Ukraine. They occupied prime territory. We’re going to try to get some of that territory back for Ukraine,” he said.

As part of any swap deal, analysts believe that Putin will press for Ukraine to withdraw from the parts of Donetsk that its troops still control. That would give Russia complete control of the Donbas region, which includes Luhansk and Donetsk – Russia already controls almost all of Luhansk – in addition to Crimea and chunks of Kherson, Zaporizhia and other southern regions. It will also want Ukraine to relinquish the tiny part of Kursk in Russia that Kyiv’s forces occupy.

In exchange, Russia might be willing to give up the small areas in the Sumy and Kharkiv regions under its control.

Moscow invaded and illegally occupied Crimea in March 2014. Pro-Russian militias seized parts of the Donbas starting from April 2014, triggering conflict with resisting Ukrainian troops. Much of the region was then taken over by invading Russian forces following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

What are Trump’s expectations for the summit?

President Trump said on Monday that he expects this meeting to be a “feel-type” conversation between him and Putin, one where he understands what the Russian leader wants.

A second meeting, he has said, is likely going to come from it soon and will include Zelenskyy and Putin, with Trump likely hosting it.

However, Trump sounded a more severe tone on Wednesday. He warned that if the Friday meeting ended without Russia agreeing to peace in Ukraine, there would be “very severe consequences” for Russia.

Trump did not specify what US actions might be. He’d earlier threatened economic sanctions on Russia “within 50 days” if Moscow did not end the war. However, the Alaska meeting was announced as the deadline of August 8 arrived, with no significant action from Washington.

Presently, Russia is under significant Western sanctions, including bans on its banks and its crude oil. In late July, the US slammed India with tariffs for buying Russian oil, and this week, US officials have warned of secondary sanctions on that country if Friday’s talks fail.

What has Russia said it wants from the meeting?

Moscow presented a proposal to the US on August 6, last week, stating its requests, according to reporting by the Wall Street Journal.

Russia’s asks remain similar to its stated goals in June 2024. Moscow says it will stop the war if:

  • Kyiv drops its ambitions to join NATO, and if the country disarms significantly.
  • If Kyiv pulls back and cedes all of the Donbas in return for Russia halting advances on Kherson and Zaporizhia, and handing back small occupied parts of Sumy and Kharkiv.
  • If Western sanctions are relaxed as part of a peace deal.

But Russian officials have since also indicated that they want any movement towards peace to also serve as a launchpad for improved ties with the US. Putin’s delegation for the Alaska summit suggests that Russia might make economic offers – including the promise of investments in the US – to Trump.

Ukrainian recruits undergo training in Zaporizhzhia
Ukrainian recruits undergoing military training at an undisclosed location in the Zaporizhia region, southeastern Ukraine, August 11, 2025, amid the Russian invasion [Handout/Ukraine’s 65th Mechanised Brigade via EPA]

What are Ukraine and Europe seeking from the talks?

Zelenkyy has in the past said that Ukraine will not cede territory.

He reiterated that on August 9, in light of Putin’s proposal to Trump, and stated that Ukraine would not “gift land to the occupier” and that it was impossible to do so under Ukrainian law.

Europe, meanwhile, has been nervous about what Trump might agree to. Following the three-way call between Trump, Zelenskyy and European leaders on Wednesday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and the UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer outlined what the European coalition wanted:

  • That the US not agree to any territorial deals without Ukraine being present
  • Ukraine needs credible security guarantees as part of any peace deal, that is, a guarantee of non-invasion by Russia.
  • Zelenskyy reiterated those calls and added that Ukraine should still be allowed to join NATO if a ceasefire is reached. He also said sanctions should be strengthened if Russia fails to agree to a peace deal on Friday.

What could the outcome be?

Some analysts are hopeful about the prospects of the beginnings of a peace deal emerging from the summit. The big question, they say, is whether Ukraine will agree to a possible deal between the two leaders in Alaska, if its terms are unplatable to Kyiv.

However, others, like Melvin of RUSI, think this meeting is ultimately a play by Russia to stall the US from making good on its sanctions threat, while allowing Moscow to keep advancing militarily in Ukraine.

“Putin believes that he can win [and] is anxious to stall the United States and any further pressure it may seek to put on Russia,” he said. “The most likely outcome of the summit is then that there may be some announcements of steps forward, but the war will continue.”

Source link

Texas Republicans plan another special session to deliver Trump more GOP congressional seats

Texas Republican leaders said Tuesday that they were prepared to end their stalemated special session and immediately begin another standoff with Democrats in the GOP’s efforts to redraw congressional maps as directed by President Trump.

It’s the latest indication that Trump’s push to redraw congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections will become an extended standoff that promises to reach multiple statehouses controlled by both major parties.

Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows confirmed the plans during a brief session Tuesday morning that marked another failure to meet the required attendance standards to conduct official business because dozens of Democrats have left the state to stymie the GOP’s partisan gerrymandering attempts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Burrows said from the House floor that lawmakers will not attempt to reconvene again until Friday. If Democrats are still absent — and they have given no indication that they plan to return — the speaker said Republicans will end the current session and Gov. Greg Abbott will immediately call another.

The governor, a Trump ally, confirmed his intentions in a statement.

“The Special Session #2 agenda will have the exact same agenda, with the potential to add more items critical to Texans,” Abbott wrote. “There will be no reprieve for the derelict Democrats who fled the state and abandoned their duty to the people who elected them. I will continue to call special session after special session until we get this Texas first agenda passed.”

Abbott called the current session with an extensive agenda that included disaster relief for floods that killed more than 130 people. Democrats balked when Abbott added Trump’s redistricting idea to the agenda. Burrows on Tuesday did not mention redistricting but chided Democrats for not showing up for debate on the flood response package.

The redistricting legislation would reshape the state’s congressional districts in a design aimed at sending five more Republicans to Washington.

The scheme is part of Trump’s push to shore up Republicans’ narrow House majority and avoid a repeat of his first presidency, when the 2018 midterms restored Democrats to a House majority that blocked his agenda and twice impeached him. Current maps nationally put Democrats within three seats of retaking the House majority — with only several dozen competitive districts across 435 total seats.

Texas Republicans have issued civil warrants for the absent Democrats. Because they are out of state, those lawmakers are beyond the reach of Texas authorities.

Burrows said Tuesday that absent Democrats would have to pay for all state government costs for law enforcement officials attempting to track them down. Burrows has said state troopers and others have run up “six figures in overtime costs” trying to corral Democratic legislators.

Barrow and Lathan write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

Source link

EU-China summit – who’s attending and what’s on the agenda? | Donald Trump News

Brussels, Belgium – Just before the summer lull hits Brussels, the European Union and China will hold a top-level summit in Beijing on Thursday, commemorating 50 years of diplomatic ties.

The mood before the meeting on Thursday, however, has not been particularly celebratory but, rather, tense with low expectations for any concrete bilateral deals. The summit which was meant to be a two-day affair, was also condensed into a single day’s event by Beijing earlier this month, citing domestic reasons.

A series of trade disagreements, particularly over market access and critical rare earth elements, and geopolitical tensions, primarily Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, have marred EU-China relations.

Gunnar Wiegand, the former managing director for Asia and the Pacific at the European External Action Service (EEAS) and currently a distinguished fellow at the Indo-Pacific Program of the German Marshall Fund’s  Brussels Office, told Al Jazeera that the EU’s current partnership with China is complex.

“The EU views China as a partner for global challenges, an economic competitor when it comes to developing new technologies and also a systemic rival because of Beijing’s governance system and its influence on global affairs,” he said, adding that the question of whether China is also a threat to European security has come up over the last few years in the context of Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine.

Who is attending the summit?

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa will visit China on Thursday, seeking to address these disputes at the summit.

“This Summit is an opportunity to engage with China at the highest level and have frank, constructive discussions on issues that matter to both of us. We want dialogue, real engagement and concrete progress,” Costa said in a statement in advance of the summit.

The EU leaders will meet Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday morning, and Premier Li Qiang will co-chair the 25th summit between the two parties, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs told reporters in Beijing on Monday.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson added that after 50 years of EU-China development, their ties “can cope with the changing difficulties and challenges”.

Is Russia’s war in Ukraine on the agenda?

According to EU officials, discussions with President Xi on Thursday morning will focus on global affairs and bilateral relations, followed by a banquet lunch.

However, the Russia-Ukraine war is likely to arise because of Beijing’s close ties with Moscow, which has been a thorny issue for Brussels.

“You can expect the EU addressing Russia’s war in Ukraine,” a senior EU official told reporters in Brussels on July 18. “China, of course, talks to us often about core issues. Well, this is a core issue for Europe. It’s an issue fundamental to European security,” the official added.

In an address to the European Parliament earlier this month, von der Leyen also accused China of “de facto enabling Russia’s war economy”.

Brussels has sanctioned several Chinese companies for facilitating the supply of goods which are used for weapons production in Russia, and on July 18, the EU also slapped sanctions on Chinese banks for the first time, for reportedly financing the supply of such goods.

China has rejected such accusations and warned of retaliations. Beijing has also reiterated that its position on the Ukraine war is all about “negotiation, ceasefire and peace”.

But according to an article by the South China Morning Post, during a meeting with the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, in early July, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Beijing did not want to see Russia lose the war in Ukraine, since the United States would then focus on China.

Wiegand said Europe should have no illusions.

“For China, having good and close relations with Russia is of utmost importance to increase its own strength in the global context. They will not sacrifice this relationship,” he said.

“This is the most important negative factor which has impacted the overall [EU-China] relationship,” he added.

Besides the Ukraine war, EU officials in Brussels said, the 27-member bloc will also discuss tensions in the Middle East and other security threats in Asia.

How difficult will trade discussions be?

Another contentious issue between Brussels and Beijing is trade. This is likely to be central to the summit’s agenda in the afternoon with Chinese Premier Li Qiang, followed by a dinner, EU officials involved in planning the summit told reporters in Brussels on July 18.

China is the EU’s third-largest trading partner, but the two have recently been squabbling over a series of trade issues, including 45 percent European tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) and Beijing’s control of rare earth minerals, which are vital for chip making and producing medical devices.

In her speech at the European Parliament earlier this month, von der Leyen accused Beijing of “flooding global markets with subsidised overcapacity – not just to boost its own industries, but to choke international competition”.

The EU has a trade deficit with China of more than 300 billion euros ($352bn) as of 2024. EU exports to China amounted to 213 billion euros ($250bn), while EU imports from China amounted to 519 billion euros ($609bn), according to figures from the European Commission.

EU officials say Chinese companies are benefitting from massive government subsidies and, due to sluggish demand for goods locally, cheap Chinese goods like EVs are being shipped to the EU instead.

To protect European interests, Brussels has begun taking action and imposed tariffs of up to 45 percent on Chinese EVs last October. The bloc also barred Chinese companies from medical devices tenders in June, among other trade barriers, after concluding that European firms were not being granted access to Chinese markets.

The EU is also concerned about Beijing’s export controls on rare earth minerals.

At the Group of Seven summit in Canada in June, von der Leyen accused China of “blackmail” and said, “No single country should control 80-90 percent of the market for essential raw materials and downstream products like magnets.”

“The present situation is not sustainable. We need rebalancing … China benefits from our open market but buys too little,” a senior EU official told reporters in Brussels before the summit. “Trade access is limited and export controls are excessive. We will go there [to Beijing] with a positive and constructive attitude … but China has to acknowledge our concerns.”

In her speech at the European Parliament in July, the European Commission president said the 27-member bloc is “engaging with Beijing so that it loosens its export restrictions” on rare earth minerals.

Wiegand said while trade negotiations have been ongoing, achieving common ground or any trade deal at the summit this week looks unlikely.

“There is a constructive tone [from the EU] when it comes to ‘de-risking’, not ‘de-coupling’ from China. The Chinese, however, don’t like the term ‘de-risking’. They think it is disinformation. But it is simply the process of reducing trade vulnerabilities by diversifying and improving our own capacities,” he said.

How does China view trading relations with the EU?

China wants the EU to view their trading partnership “without emotion and prejudice”, according to the Foreign Ministry.

He Yongqian, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, told a news conference in Beijing on Monday that China hopes that Brussels will also “be less protectionist, and be more open”.

In an email statement to Al Jazeera before the forum, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce to the EU (CCCEU) said it hopes the summit will “address critical challenges, including market and investment barriers faced by Chinese companies in the EU”.

“Recent EU measures, such as the Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) and International Procurement Instrument (IPI), have disproportionately impacted Chinese firms in clean tech, high-tech, and medical devices. We urge constructive dialogue to ensure fair treatment,” CCCEU noted.

Will human rights be discussed at the summit?

EU-China relations have also been icy over human rights issues. In 2021, Brussels slapped sanctions on Chinese officials over reported human rights abuses against Uighur Muslims in China’s Xinjiang region.

Beijing denied these allegations and retaliated by sanctioning EU lawmakers. The tit-for-tat sanctions were accompanied by a halt in bilateral dialogues between the European Parliament and the National People’s Congress (NPC) of China.

Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International’s China director, told Al Jazeera that on the 50th anniversary of EU-China diplomatic relations, there is “little to celebrate” when it comes to talking about human rights in China in 2025.

“Amnesty International has regularly documented serious and widespread human rights violations, from arbitrary detention and persecution in the Uighur region, for which no official has been held to account; to assaults on the rule of law and the chipping away of civil and political freedoms in Hong Kong, despite international treaties guaranteeing those rights; to the systematic use of national security legislation to target rights defence and criticism, at home and increasingly abroad. The EU, at least on paper, has also come to similar conclusions,” she said.

“At the summit, the EU’s leadership needs to ensure that those words become action and use every tool at their disposal to create positive human rights change for people – not more empty promises at the negotiating table or the speaker’s podium,” she added.

While China lifted some of its sanctions in April this year and hinted at resuming political dialogues between the European Parliament and the NPC, the 2021 EU sanctions remain in place. The bloc said last week that it had “not observed changes in the human rights situation in China/Xinjiang”.

“Promoting and protecting human rights is important to the EU. We will raise the EU’s concern on the deterioration of rights in Xinjiang, Tibet, and other regions,” an EU official said.

Will the issue of US tariffs arise?

The meeting between the EU and China comes amid US President Donald Trump’s global tariff war, which both Brussels and Beijing are trying to navigate.

Trump has announced imposing a tariff of 30 percent on goods EU imports from August 1, and Brussels has been holding trade negotiations with Washington, seeking to strike a trade deal.

China and the US agreed to slash tit-for-tat heavy tariffs for 90 days in May. That suspension expires on August 12. In June, the US said it would impose 55 percent tariffs on Chinese goods, down from the 145 percent Trump had imposed in April. In return, Beijing said, it will impose a 10 percent tariff on goods it imports from the US, down from 125 percent. But trade negotiations are ongoing.

Earlier this year, some analysts in Brussels hinted that tariff tensions with Washington could improve Brussels-Beijing trade ties.

The CCCEU also told Al Jazeera that with US tariffs looming, “China and the EU share a responsibility to uphold free trade and multilateralism while mitigating external pressures” and pushed Brussels to improve its business environment for foreign companies and enhance supply chains.

But in the run-up to the summit, expectations remain low.

“It is quite clear the US tariff issue is an over-encompassing issue … we are negotiating with the US at present. It is clear that there is a need to find and engage with other actors worldwide due to the impact of US tariffs,” a senior EU official told reporters in Brussels before the summit.

“But with China, we are certainly not agreeing to compromise on our values,” the official stressed.

Wiegand also pointed out that Europe’s economic relationship with the US is stronger than that with China since they are also NATO allies.

“With Russia’s war in Ukraine threatening Europe, Brussels will not be pushed closer to Beijing,” he said.

“But as Brussels negotiates tariffs with Washington, certainly there will be an important China dimension in the finalisation of a deal with the US administration.”

Source link

House meets for debate on Trump budget, legislative agenda bill

July 2 (UPI) — House members are meeting to debate U.S. President Donald Trump‘s key Senate-passed domestic policy bill, with lawmakers still aiming for a July 4 deadline to pass it.

Members went over over a key procedural vote Wednesday morning after the House Rules Committee pushed the Senate version overnight, setting the stage for a possibly dramatic and uncertain floor vote to pass Trump’s broad tax and spending bill.

On Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said in a joint statement with House GOP leaders that they will “work quickly” to pass the bill and put it on Trump’s desk “in time for Independence Day.”

“Don’t let the Radical Left Democrats push you around,” Trump posted Wednesday morning on social media. “We’ve got all the cards, and we are going to use them.”

The new version of the legislation, titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” includes steeper cuts to Medicaid, a debt limit increase, rollbacks to green-energy policies, and changes to local and state tax deductions.

“All legislative tools and options are on the table,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Tuesday after the Senate vote.

It extends trillions in dollars in tax cuts, largely for the wealthiest Americans, but substantially cuts healthcare and other nutritional programs in order to partially beef-up border security and defense spending.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Trump’s Senate-passed bill would add at least $3.3 trillion to America’s debt over the next decade, which is a trillion-dollar increase from the bill’s last version.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has accused GOP lawmakers of “trying to rip away healthcare from 17 million Americans” with Medicaid cuts stemming from Republicans’ legislation.

Meanwhile, provisions stripped from the House included the sale of public land in over 10 states, a 10-year moratorium for states to regulate AI and an excise tax on the renewable energy industry.

“Every single House Democrat will vote ‘hell no’ against this one, big ugly bill,” Jeffries wrote.

On Wednesday, a GOP fiscal hawk was critical of the Senate’s new product.

It “violated both the spirit and the terms of our House agreement” in attempts to reduce the national debt, Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, told USA TODAY.

Any newer alterations in the House will again require Senate approval or force a committee conference of both the Senate and House to hash out a final version.

The initial version passed the House in a 215-214 vote in May and the Senate on Tuesday after a four-day “vote-a-rama” in a 51-50 vote that saw three GOP defections in the tie-breaker vote cast by Vice President JD Vance.

Meanwhile, the president is expected to meet at the White House with a handful of House Republicans to help bring his tax bill to the finish line. The hardline conservative House Freedom Caucus members also are expected to meet with Trump.

Rep. Mike Lawler, a moderate New York Republican, was seen Wednesday with other colleagues entering the West Wing, but it was not immediately clear which GOP lawmakers arrived.

It arrives in the face of what former White House adviser Elon Musk called in a June 30 X post “the biggest debt increase in history,” saying members of Congress who campaigned on spending reductions, “should hang their head in shame!” and added “they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.”

“It’s unconscionable, it’s unacceptable, it’s un-American and House Democrats are committing to you that we’re going to do everything in our power to stop it,” according to Jeffries.

He called out Pennsylvania Republicans Rob Bresnahan, Scott Perry and their California House colleagues David Valadao and Young Kim, whose districts in particular will be hard hit by Trump’s medicaid cuts.

“All we need are four Republicans, just four,” added New York’s Jeffries.

Source link

How Trump’s big budget bill would jumpstart his immigration agenda

Building the border wall. Increasing detention capacity. Hiring thousands of immigration agents.

The budget bill narrowly approved by the Senate on Tuesday includes massive funding infusions — roughly $150 billion — toward immigration and border enforcement. If passed, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” will cement Trump’s hard-line legacy on immigration.

The budget bill would make Immigration and Customs Enforcement the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the federal government, exceeding its current yearly $3.4-billion detention budget many times over. It also would impose fees on immigration services that were once free or less expensive and make it easier for local law enforcement to work with federal authorities on immigration.

The 940-page Senate bill will now head back to the House, which passed its version in May, also by one vote, 215-214. The two chambers must now reconcile the two versions of the bill.

Though the legislation is still evolving, the immigration provisions in the House and Senate versions are similar and not subject to the intense debates on other issues, such as Medicaid or taxes.

Many of the funds would be available for four years, though some have longer or shorter timelines. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that, if enacted, the bill would increase the deficit by nearly $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

Here are key elements concerning immigration:

Border wall

  • $46.5 billion toward fortifying the U.S.-Mexico border wall and interdicting migrant smugglers at sea.

This includes construction and installation of barrier sections, building access roads, and barrier-related technology, such as cameras, lights and sensors. The legislation doesn’t reference specific locations.

Trump, in his first term, repeatedly vowed that Mexico would pay for the wall. It didn’t.

Staffing

  • $32 billion for immigration enforcement, including staffing of ICE and expanding so-called 287(g) agreements, in which state and local law enforcement agencies partner with federal authorities to deport immigrants.
  • $7 billion for hiring Border Patrol agents, customs officers at ports of entry, air and marine agents and field support staff; retention bonuses; and vehicles.
  • $3.3 billion to hire immigration judges and support staff, among other provisions.

Trump has said he wants to hire 10,000 ICE agents, as well as 3,000 Border Patrol agents.

Detention

  • $45 billion to build and operate immigrant detention facilities and to transport those being deported.
  • $5 billion for new Customs and Border Protection facilities and improvements to existing facilities and checkpoints. It’s unclear how this could affect California or the well-known Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 5 near San Onofre.

The bill allows for families pending a removal decision to be detained indefinitely. Heidi Altman, vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center, called that a blatant violation of the so-called Flores settlement agreement, which has been in place since 1977 and limits the amount of time children can legally be detained to 20 days.

Local assistance

  • $13.5 billion to reimburse states and local governments for immigration-related costs. These are divided into two pots of funding: $10 billion for the “state border security reinforcement fund” and the “Bridging Immigration-related Deficits Experienced Nationwide” or BIDEN fund. Both would fund the arrest of immigrants by local law enforcement who unlawfully entered the U.S. and committed any crime.

Altman said: “You can think of it like a gift for [Texas Gov. Greg] Abbott.”

Immigration fees

  • A fee of at least $100 for those seeking asylum, down from a $1,000 fee outlined in the House bill. Applicants also would pay $100 every year the application remains pending. This is unprecedented — a fee has never before been imposed on migrants fleeing persecution.
  • At least $550 ($275 on renewal) to apply for employment authorization for those with asylum applications, humanitarian parole and temporary protected status. Currently there is no fee for asylum seekers and a $470 fee for others.
  • At least $500 for temporary protected status, up from $80 including biometrics.

The stated fees are minimums — the bill allows for annual increases and, for many, prohibits waivers based on financial need.

“The paradox of a fee for an employment authorization document is that you’re not allowed to work, but you need to pay for the fee,” said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst with the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

Altman noted that imposing a yearly fee on asylum seekers for their pending applications punishes people for the U.S. government’s own backlogged system, which is out of the applicant’s control.

Other sections exclude lawfully present immigrants, such as refugees and those granted asylum, from benefits including Medicare, Medicaid and the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP). Another provision excludes children from the Child Tax Credit if their parent lacks a Social Security number.

Praise and scorn

Altman, whose organization has closely tracked the immigration aspects of the funding bill, said people can look at the bill two ways: big picture — as a $150-billion infusion to supercharge what the Trump administration has already started — or surgically, as a series of policy changes that will not be easy to undo “and make an already corrupt system subject to even fewer safeguards and really go after people’s most basic needs.”

Bush-Joseph had a different view. She said the funding reinforces an outdated and inflexible immigration system without fundamentally changing it.

“That’s why there’s all this money going to the border even though there aren’t a lot of people coming now,” she said.

Money alone won’t change things overnight, said Bush-Joseph. It takes time to hire people and to open detention facilities. Immigration judges will still have a massive backlog of cases. And getting foreign countries to agree to accept more deportees is tricky.

“Arresting and detaining people with private contractors doesn’t get you to an agreement from El Salvador to take five more planes per week,” she said.

During a White House event June 26, Trump urged Congress to pass the bill quickly, saying it “will be the single most important piece of border legislation to ever come across the floor of Congress.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of three senators who voted against the bill Tuesday, had called it “reckless spending,” writing on X: “I’m all for hiring new people to help secure our borders, but we don’t need it to the extent that’s in this bill, especially when our border is largely contained.”

Across the political aisle, Democrats including California Sen. Alex Padilla have slammed the bill, saying the immigration-related funding increases amount to a substantial policy change.

“You would think that maybe just for a moment, Republicans would take this reconciliation process as an opportunity to do what they said before they wanted to do and modernize our nation’s immigration system,” Padilla said last month. “But they’re not.”

Source link