approves

July 24 (UPI) — A federal court has allowed Tennessee to use a new congressional map that eliminates the state’s only majority-Black district in November’s midterm elections, rejecting a challenge from civil and voting rights advocates.

The three-judge panel on Thursday denied a motion filed by Black Memphis voters for a preliminary injunction against implementing the map, ruling they lacked evidence of racial motivation for the map’s unorthodox mid-decade redistricting, which could be explained by a political motivation.

“The road to a reliably 9-0 map runs through Memphis. Thus, political motivations readily explain the map’s dilutive effects,” the panel, which consisted of two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee, wrote in its decision.

With the ruling, Tennessee may use the map in next month’s primaries.

November’s midterms have been of increasing concern for President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly voiced worries about impeachment proceedings and investigations if Republicans lose the House to Democrats, and has pushed GOP-led states to redraw their congressional maps to create additional Republican-favored districts.

Texas was the first last summer to agree to Trump’s request, sparking a gerrymandering arms race, with at least 10 states have redrawn their maps. All but Democrat-led California and North Carolina, which has a Democratic governor, are Republican-led.

Tennessee’s GOP-majority legislature passed its redistricting map to eliminate the one Democrat-held seat in May, a week after the Supreme Court issued a controversial decision that weakened a key part of the Voting Rights Act, by greatly limiting the use of race in drawing electoral districts.

The three Black Memphis voters, along with the Black Clergy Collaborative of Memphis, the Memphis A. Philip Randolph Institute and the Equity Alliance sued days later, alleging that the new map unlawfully discriminates against Black Memphis voters by dismantling a district where they had long been able to meaningfully participate in the political process.

In its ruling Thursday, the court said that the plaintiffs had to show that the map redraw was racially motivated, which they failed to do.

“The map’s effects — breaking Black Memphians into three separate congressional districts — are readily explainable by political motivations,” the court said.

“It’s no secret (supported by Plaintiffs’ own statements) that city voters prefer Democratic candidates and that rural voters prefer Republican candidates. So, it makes sense that Tennessee’s legislature would split Memphis into thirds when attempting to create a map that favors Republican candidates. And it’s no surprise that the resulting map would also split the Black population of Memphis into thirds.”

Amber Sherman, a plaintiff in the case, said the court’s decision further disenfranchises Black voters in Memphis.

“It’s painful to know we’ll head into another election under a map that was designed to weaken the Black voters in Memphis,” she said in a statement.

“We deserve the same opportunity to shape our future as anyone else.”

SANTIAGO, Chile, July 22 (UPI) — Chile’s Congress approved most of the economic and tax reforms promoted by President José Antonio Kast — one of the flagship initiatives of his government agenda.

The reforms include a gradual reduction in the corporate tax rate from to 23% from 27% to encourage investment and revive economic growth.

The Chamber of Deputies on Tuesday passed the National Reconstruction and Economic and Social Development bill, which also establishes tax incentives for the repatriation of capital, creates compensation mechanisms for companies when courts overturn projects that have already received Environmental Qualification Resolution approval and eliminates the tax on a first home for older adults.

Finance Minister Jorge Quiroz said the initiative seeks to “restore tax competitiveness” and provide greater certainty for investment.

“We have approved measures to restore certainty for investment in Chile, remove permitting barriers that have kept investment projects and economic activity stalled, and provide security for those who decide to invest,” he said.

The approval represents one of Kast’s main legislative victories since taking office in March, and allows him to advance one of the pillars of his economic agenda — reducing the tax burden to stimulate private investment and accelerate growth.

Jorge Berríos, academic director of the Graduate Diploma in Finance at the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Chile, told UPI that the reform is intended to restore investor confidence and create conditions for the country to return to growth above 3%.

“A reduction of several percentage points in the corporate tax rate has positive effects on companies and the economy, although those results are generally seen over the long term,” he said.

Berrios said some effects could be felt sooner in the labor market because of the subsidies included in the initiative, as well as through an improved perception of Chile among domestic and foreign investors.

“The Chilean market is returning to a structure similar to that of the 1990s, with market-oriented reforms that allowed the country to achieve strong growth and stand out in Latin America,” he said.

Berríos said the Chilean economy experienced several years of uncertainty marked by increased regulation and higher taxes — factors that he believes damaged the country’s standing among investors.

The Confederation of Production and Commerce, the country’s leading business organization, welcomed approval of the bill. Its president, Susana Jiménez, said the initiative represents “an important step toward restoring the economy’s dynamism and returning to growth.”

The only provision still awaiting approval is the compensation mechanism for municipalities, which will lose part of the revenue generated by the tax on residential properties.

Mérida, July 14, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly preliminarily approved two laws granting expanded benefits to landlords and the private real estate sector as part of authorities’ post-earthquake reconstruction plans.

The Tuesday session was held at Simón Bolívar Park in La Carlota, Caracas, after the legislative palace suffered damage from the June 24 double tremor.

The Venezuelan legislature voted in favor of a Law for the Special Regime of Housing Property Leasing and a partial reform of the Law Against Real Estate Fraud. Both projects will now be subject to consultations and revisions before being put to a second and final vote.

“Our main task with this reform is to stimulate the housing rental market,” National Assembly Vice President Pedro Infante stated. “We have to strengthen the legal certainty for property owners and also protect tenants. It’s a legal balance.”

Infante added that officials estimate that there are around 200,000 homes that could enter the rental market but that parliament has to “untie the knots that are holding this market back.”

The existing legislation governing housing rentals was enacted by former President Hugo Chávez in 2011 and it is highly protective of tenants. Grassroots movements participated directly in several housing laws.

In a recent press conference, National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez called the current law “regressive” and argued that parliament needed to make property owners feel “more secure in renting their properties.” Real estate chambers have long lobbied for reforms to housing laws.

The preliminarily approved bill expands conditions for landlords to evict their tenants, including two months of unpaid rent, deterioration of the property, or unauthorized subletting. It additionally establishes that disputes are to be resolved via mediation or municipal courts. Tenant movements have recently denounced a growing trend of landlords bringing “invasion” charges against tenants as a way to evict them, with the complicity of public prosecutors.

The partial reform of the law against real estate fraud, likewise approved during Tuesday’s session, loosens conditions for the sale of housing properties yet to be built or under construction while also reducing collateral requirements for developers.

“The reform seeks to guarantee better conditions, legal security, and financing capacity so that the private sector initiates an aggressive, accelerated process of housing construction,” Infante explained, adding that it “removes rigid price schemes,” allowing real estate developers to factor “variations in the costs of materials in supplies” into house prices.

Under the updated law, house sale and pre-sale contracts no longer need to be individually approved by government housing authorities. Instead, the governing body will publish a set of general rules. According to the reform text, banks that finance real estate projects will no longer be liable for their non-completion, with legislators arguing that the measure will boost credit options.

Deputy Alejandra Rodríguez, from opposition party Un Nuevo Tiempo, endorsed the preliminary housing reforms for seeking a “balance between the right to housing, the protection of private property, legal security, and the promotion of responsible investment.”

Venezuelan authorities have prioritized finding housing solutions with over 20,000 people forced into temporary shelters after losing their homes in the June 24 double earthquake, most of them in coastal La Guaira State. The latest official figures placed the death toll at 4,734, with nearly 17,000 injured.

Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has launched the “Venezuela Renace” program to conduct inspections and repair works in affected buildings, as well as revitalize the construction sector to generate new housing complexes in a short time frame. She likewise called on public and private banks to expand mortgage programs, vowing that the government would subsidize them up to 80 percent.

On Monday, Rodríguez met with representatives from business chambers, including construction and real estate, and reiterated calls for the private sector to participate in the post-earthquake reconstruction. 

“Every person who lost their home should have hope of being under a new roof in the short term,” she stated.

Rodríguez announced that the government is working on construction plans in La Guaira alongside the Venezuelan Construction Chamber and the Venezuelan Real Estate Chamber. Authorities are conducting soil studies and identifying potential land plots. She recalled that the export of construction materials is presently banned.

The acting president assured those present that Venezuela remains on a path of economic growth and that household consumption had risen by 33 percent in June.

Rodríguez reiterated calls for the removal of economic sanctions against the country and ongoing efforts to secure the release of frozen Venezuelan assets, including gold reserves held by the Bank of England.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

WASHINGTON — The Senate unanimously approved a measure Tuesday that would make daylight saving time permanent across the United States next year.

The bipartisan bill, named the Sunshine Protection Act, would ensure Americans would no longer have to change their clocks twice a year. But the bill still needs approval from the House, and the signature of President Biden, to become law.

“No more switching clocks, more daylight hours to spend outside after school and after work, and more smiles — that is what we get with permanent daylight saving time,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the original co-sponsor of the legislation, said in a statement.

Markey was joined on the chamber floor by senators from both parties as they made the case for how making daylight saving time permanent would have positive effects on public health and the economy and even cut energy consumption.

“Changing the clock twice a year is outdated and unnecessary,”said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.).

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Americans want more sunshine and less depression — people in this country, all the way from Seattle to Miami, want the Sunshine Protection Act,” added Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

Nearly a dozen states across the U.S. have already standardized daylight saving time.

Daylight saving time is defined as a period between spring and fall when clocks in most parts of the country are set one hour ahead of standard time. Americans last changed their clocks on Sunday. Standard time lasts for roughly four months in most of the country.

Members of Congress have long been interested in the potential benefits and costs of daylight saving time since it was first adopted as a wartime measure in 1942. The proposal will now go to the House, where the Energy and Commerce Committee had a hearing to discuss possible legislation last week.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the chairman of the committee, agreed in his opening statement at the hearing that it is “time we stop changing our clocks.” But he said he was undecided about whether daylight saving time or standard time is the way to go.

Markey said Tuesday: “Now, I call on my colleagues in the House of Representatives to lighten up and swiftly pass the Sunshine Protection Act.”

WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled Senate on Thursday narrowly approved President Reagan’s request for $100 million in aid to the Nicaraguan guerrillas–the first affirmative vote by Congress in three years on an aid package for the rebels that includes military assistance.

The 53-47 vote was a significant victory for the President, who conducted a tireless lobbying drive for his request and saw it narrowly rejected only a week ago by the Democratic-controlled House. The White House hopes that the Senate vote will help stimulate a reversal in the House, where the proposal will be reconsidered in mid-April.

Not since 1983, when Congress approved covert aid as part of the fiscal 1984 defense budget, has either chamber voted for military aid to the contras, as the rebels are called. Sentiment against such assistance rose sharply in early 1984 after it was learned that the CIA had secretly mined Nicaraguan harbors.

A Reassuring Signal

En route to his mountaintop retreat near Santa Barbara at the time of the vote, the President declared that the Senate action would “send a profoundly reassuring signal to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua and to Nicaragua’s threatened neighbors.”

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, hailed Thursday’s vote as a “good victory” for the President. “This is a very important issue for him–having spent two weeks turning heaven and earth to get this result,” he said.

But Democrats insisted that the narrow margin did not constitute an endorsement of Reagan’s Central American policy. “The vote was so close you can’t call it a victory for the Administration’s policy here in a body that his party controls,” Sen. Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.) said.

Eleven Senate Democrats voted with Reagan, but he lost 11 Republicans. Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) voted with the majority; Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) voted against the measure. Among the Democrats supporting Reagan was Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, who earlier had opposed contra aid and is believed to be preparing to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988.

Senate Democrats failed in their effort to withhold military aid for a brief period while forcing Reagan to seek bilateral negotiations with the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. A Democratic alternative authored by Sasser failed by a 67-33 vote, and another proposal by Cranston calling for bilateral talks was rejected, 66 to 34.

Warnings of Another Vietnam

Advocates of bilateral talks frequently warned that Reagan’s more belligerent approach was leading the nation into another Vietnam.

“It’s time to know where we are going in Central America before we find ourselves with U.S. troops on the battlefield and body bags coming home once again,” Sasser said. “We say negotiate first. This Administration owes that to the American people. This Administration owes that to our brave young men who will be called upon to fight and die in Nicaragua unless peace is achieved.”

Although the President was forced to make a few additional concessions to gain a majority, the package approved by the Senate was not significantly different from the compromise that Reagan offered voluntarily a week ago as an executive order in his unsuccessful effort to win House approval.

The measure would provide $25 million to the contras immediately and release $15 million every 90 days thereafter with the understanding that the President would search for a diplomatic solution during that period. With the first allotment of money, the contras would be permitted to buy surface-to-air missiles to use against Nicaraguan helicopters.

No offensive weapons for the contras would be funded until July 1, and then only after the President determines that the conflict cannot be solved by diplomacy. At least $30 million of the money would be used for humanitarian purposes, $3 million of it for human rights programs.

Direct Talks Not Required

Under the Senate plan, the President is not required to seek direct bilateral talks unless the Sandinistas are willing to negotiate with the contras as well–something the Nicaraguan government has declined to do. Reagan staunchly refused to agree to talks without contras involvement, even though it would have won him broad bipartisan support for the aid package.

Despite Reagan’s opposition, Lugar insisted that the Administration’s special envoy, Philip C. Habib, eventually would go to Managua seeking talks. But Democrats noted that Reagan never kept a pledge for bilateral negotiations that he made to the Senate in a letter last year to win approval of $27 million in humanitarian aid for the contras.

The rejected Democratic alternative proposed by Sasser would have withheld all military aid for six months to encourage negotiations. The President would have been required to enter into the talks if the Nicaraguans first agreed to a cease-fire.

Republicans said that Sasser’s proposal might have gained some GOP support if he had limited the waiting period to 90 days and provided some assistance for defensive weaponry during that period. “He went too far out to the left,” a top GOP aide said.

Cranston’s amendment would have withheld the money for only 90 days but, like Sasser’s proposal, it provided nothing but humanitarian aid during that period.

Amendments Defeated

The Senate also defeated amendments from the far left and far right. The vote was 74 to 24 against a proposal by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) to eliminate all aid. A proposal by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.)–what he described as a “put up or shut up” provision–which would have released all aid on May 15 if the Sandinistas refused to adhere to democratic principles by then, was defeated by a 60-39 vote.

The only amendment that succeeded was one offered by Sen. Alan J. Dixon (D-Ill.) that would prohibit American trainers and advisers inside Nicaragua. It passed by voice vote.

Although the Administration seized upon the recent incursion of Nicaraguan troops into Honduras as evidence of the need for contras aid, Lugar insisted that the fighting along Nicaragua’s northern border had no impact on the outcome in the Senate. However, the Administration hopes that House Democrats will be swayed by the incursion.

Despite the narrow vote, it was apparent that the mood of Congress had changed significantly since last year when the President had to fight almost as hard to get congressional approval of $27 million in humanitarian aid for the contras. Many Democrats who opposed all aid last year voted for the Sasser proposal this time.

As a result, it was frequently compared during floor debate to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that opened the way for U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) predicted that the amount would continue to increase in the years ahead as it has since 1981 when the Administration first provided covert aid to the contras.

‘Tinkering With $100 Million’

“I don’t believe $100 million is going to do the trick, and I don’t think anybody does,” Bumpers said. “If Nicaragua represents a serious security threat to this hemisphere, why are we tinkering with $100 million?”

Wilson insisted that it was not a Gulf of Tonkin resolution for Central America. “We are asked not to send our sons, but to send a pittance,” the California Republican said.

But Sen. David Durenberger (R-Minn.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, which has access to Administration intelligence reports from Central America, charged that Reagan had overstated the threat posed by the Sandinistas.

As it did in the House last week, Reagan’s highly partisan campaign on behalf of his contras aid request succeeded only in angering many senators, who resented White House efforts to portray their opponents as supporters of the Marxist regime in Managua.

“No one is more anti-Communist than I am,” Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) said. “I deeply resent the President’s sickening display of neo-McCarthyism in this debate.”

June 26 (UPI) — New York City’s rental board has approved Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s two-year rent-freeze proposal for nearly 1 million rent-stabilized apartments, fulfilling a major campaign promise.

New York City’s Rent Guidelines Board voted 7-1 to set a 0% increase for rent-stabilized one-year and two-year leases commencing on or after Oct. 1, and on or before Sept. 30, 2027.

Cheers erupted from the spectators assembled as it was announced that the motion passed.

“This is a historic victory for New York City tenants,” Mamdani said in a statement following the vote.

“After reviewing the data and hearing from New Yorkers across the city, the independent RGB has delivered a freeze on one-year leases, and the first-ever freeze on two-year leases in our city’s history. This is the relief that working people across our city deserve.”

Mamdani, a democratic socialist, campaigned heavily on making life more affordable for the average New Yorker, including by creating new affordable housing and freezing rents where legally permitted.

The mayor said he is grateful for the board members’ “thoughtful consideration of the data” before casting their votes.

“I’ll continue to deliver a more affordable city by building and preserving affordable housing, lowering building operating costs like insurance, and ensuring tenants know their rights,” he said.

According to a New York City housing survey from 2023, there were 996,600 rent-stabilized units, representing about 41% of all rental units across the city. Rent stabilization generally applies to buildings with six or more units built before 1974.

The only vote against the rent freeze came from Arpit Gupta, an associate professor of finance at New York University’s Stern School of Business.

In a statement published online following the vote, Gupta argued that the rent freeze will not solve the housing crisis while possibly making it worse and ultimately driving up rents. He also said the rent freeze could prevent building owners from considering improvements and renovations.

“Residents might continue to enjoy low rents but at the cost of being trapped in units that no longer fit their needs, and with few alternatives and steadily deteriorating conditions,” he said.

“A better option is to undertake the harder reforms needed to make housing more affordable and accessible — that is, build more of it.”

The vote was held following a series of hearings in which nearly 330 people participated and nearly 700 people submitted written, audio or video testimony about their experiences.

New York State Assembly Member Tony Simone said the rent freeze will impact about 2 million New Yorkers and is expected to save renters as much as $6.8 billion over Mamdani’s four-year term.

“This immediate action reflects the urgency needed to prevent more working-class New Yorkers from being priced out of our city,” he said in a statement, while stating that the structural factors that are driving up prices must be addressed.

“To truly address the housing crisis, we need to tackle its root cause: the housing shortage,” he continued.

“New York needs to build more housing units.”

Constitutional amendment will keep President Mnangagwa in office until 2030 and allow parliament to elect the president.

Zimbabwe’s Senate has overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that will keep President Emmerson Mnangagwa in office until 2030.

According to Senate President Mabel Chinomona, the controversial amendments were passed on Wednesday after 75 senators voted in favour and four against extending the term for Mnangagwa, 83.

The raft of sweeping changes, which critics have called a “constitutional coup”, includes a provision that extends presidential and parliamentary terms from five to seven years.

The bill also includes a provision for the president to be elected by parliament rather than by direct popular vote.

With parliament’s backing, the bill now has to be signed by Mnangagwa to become law.

Mnangagwa’s Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party holds a strong majority in parliament and has ruled since independence in 1980.

Last year, the ruling party resolved to change the constitution to prolong presidential terms, and the plan received cabinet backing in February.

The bill then passed through the National Assembly last week, with 216 lawmakers voting in favour of the draft legislation and 42 against it.

Mnangagwa came to power after a 2017 military coup ousted longtime leader Robert Mugabe, who had been in power since independence in 1980.

Still, the country’s opposition, which has been weakened by years of repression, charges that the measures would entrench ZANU-PF’s control over the country.

Moreover, activists who have tried to mobilise in the country have reported intimidation and violence, including arrests or assault by suspected agents of the state.

Legal challenges have also failed to stop or invalidate the amendment process.

In March, Human Rights Watch said that Zimbabwe’s authorities were using violence and intimidation against those who were opposing the amendments.

“Over the last few months, the police and unidentified armed men have threatened, harassed, and beat up several people who are opposed to the proposed constitutional amendment,” it said in a statement.

The United States Senate has voted in favour of invoking its war powers to force President Donald Trump to halt his military campaign against Iran or seek congressional approval before any further action is taken.

Here is a closer look at Tuesday’s vote – the 10th attempt Congress has made to rein in the US-Israel war on Iran – and what this means for the US government.

Why did this vote take place?

A similar measure had already been approved in the House of Representatives on June 3 by a vote of 215 to 208, and on Tuesday, the Senate passed it in a 50-48 vote. Trump’s Republican Party has slim majorities in both chambers.

Speaking on the Senate floor before the vote, top Democrat Chuck Schumer advocated for the war powers resolution as he criticised Trump’s military campaign against Iran.

“For years, Trump promised to put maximum pressure on Iran, but he ended up delivering maximum confusion, maximum chaos, maximum cost to the American people with his disastrous war,” Schumer said.

“Time after time, the vast majority of Senate Republicans sided with Trump and his war instead of the American people. The American people have paid the price for Trump’s historic blunder in Iran. It’ll go down in the history books as one of the worst foreign policy forays America has ever made.”

The war against Iran has proved highly unpopular in the US. A poll released on Tuesday by the news agency Reuters and the research firm Ipsos found that 24 percent of respondents felt the war had been worth the cost.

The Senate passed its first war powers resolution against the Iran conflict on May 20, but that effort was a procedural move only and did not progress.

Who voted and how?

Four Republican senators crossed party lines to vote for the resolution, and all but one of the chamber’s Democrats also voted in favour.

Tuesday’s breakaway Republicans were Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky. A further two Republicans did not vote: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania.

The lone Democrat to vote against the measure was Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman.

What does the resolution say?

The war powers resolution “directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran”.

Only if “explicitly authorised by a declaration of war or a specific congressional authorisation” would Trump be allowed to use further military force against Iran, it says.

The resolution, however, does allow for a limited military presence to remain in the Middle East to prevent any “imminent attack” against the US or its allies.

What is the significance of the vote?

The vote reflects growing unease even among some of Trump’s Republican supporters about the unpopular conflict, which began with US-Israeli air strikes on Tehran on February 28.

This is the first time both chambers of Congress have passed a resolution directing a president to remove US armed forces from a warzone under the War Powers Act although it was not immediately clear how the votes might affect the conflict.

Technically, the Trump administration should now seek explicit congressional approval for further strikes on Iran. However, previous administrations have found routes around this by securing more limited authorisations for the use of military force (AUMFs) instead.

For example, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed an AUMF that gave then-President George W Bush broad powers to conduct what would become the global “war on terror”.

And one year later, it passed another AUMF, allowing the use of the military against the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which became the basis of the 2003 invasion.

The two authorisations remain in place, and presidents continue to rely on them to carry out strikes without first seeking congressional approval. The assassination of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020 in Baghdad was authorised by Trump under the 2003 AUMF.

In addition, a resolution does not have the force of law. Experts said, therefore, that while the Senate vote is viewed as a rebuke to Trump, it is largely symbolic.

What effect will this have on US-Iran talks in Switzerland?

Before the vote on Tuesday, some Republican senators had warned that the war powers resolution would weaken Trump’s standing in the Switzerland negotiations.

“If this passes, the Iranians are going to simply stand up and walk away from negotiations,” Senator James Risch of Idaho told the Senate on Tuesday.

“They’re going to say: This thing’s over. The Congress has told the president of the United States, ‘Leave us alone. We can do whatever we want to do,’ and they will walk away.”

How will the Trump administration respond?

Risch also argued that the resolution is essentially useless, given its symbolic nature. “It’s going to have no effect. The president isn’t going to pay any attention to it,” he said.

The US Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war, but that division of power has eroded over the past 75 years as successive presidents alone have committed US forces to overseas conflicts.

Trump has pointed to that precedent to argue that he does not need congressional authorisation at all.

In an appearance on The Axios Show last week, Trump denied learning any “lesson” about the limits of his executive powers during the Iran war. “There are no limits,” he said.

The last time Congress voted to go to war was during World War II although it has passed AUMFs in the decades since, which allow for limited military engagement without congressional approval for all-out war.

During Trump’s first term, there were concerns that he could use the 2001 AUMF to strike Iran under the unfounded claim that Tehran supports al-Qaeda.

Some critics pointed out that Republicans may be more willing to confront Trump over the issue of congressional authorisation now as they defend their seats before November’s midterm elections.

June 24 (UPI) — Senate lawmakers have approved a war powers resolution directing President Donald Trump to halt U.S. hostilities with Iran or seek congressional authorization.

The Senate voted 50-48 on Tuesday, with four Republicans — Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky — joining their Democratic colleagues in passing H.Con.Res. 86. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., was the only Democrat to vote against the measure.

The measure’s legal force was disputed. Though concurrent resolutions are non-binding, Democrats argue H.Con.Res. 86 is binding because it was adopted under the War Powers Resolution.

Either way, the measure shows the deepening fissure in support among Trump’s Republican Party for the war his administration unilaterally launched in late February.

Democrats have been forcing repeated war powers resolution votes for months, most of which have been stonewalled by Republicans. But GOP support for the war has waned as it has dragged on, culminating Tuesday when the Senate approved the measure that the House narrowly passed 215-208 earlier this month.

“Both chambers have now made clear that the president cannot continue this war of choice and must cease all hostilities against Iran,” Rep. Gregory Meeks, the resolution’s sponsor and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Tuesday after the vote.

“Regardless of what President Trump says, this measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution, and I will explore all legal avenues to ensure the Executive complies with the will of Congress.”

Democrats argue that the U.S. war with Iran — as well as other military actions taken by Trump, including attacks on suspected drug-trafficking boats in international waters — is illegal as Congress has not authorized war, a power the Constitution gives to Congress.

Trump has responded that he does not need authorization, and any war powers resolution is moot due to the fragile U.S.-Iran cease-fire that went into effect in early April.

Amid the cease-fire, Trump has been seeking an agreement to end the war, and his administration was actively negotiating terms with Iran when the vote was held Tuesday.

In a social media statement, Trump lambasted Congress over the vote, saying it was informing Iran that the United States does not support him while hee has “Iran on the ‘ropes,’ ready to go down for the fall.”

“Four Republican Losers voted with the Dumocrats,” he said, while calling the measure “poorly timed and meaningless.”

“These Senators have just made my job more difficult, but I will get it done, one way or the other, because I always get it done.”

WASHINGTON — The Senate for the first time approved a war powers resolution Tuesday seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran, as lawmakers warily watch President Trump’s efforts to resolve a conflict that the administration launched on its own and now needs Congress to fund.

It was the 10th time the Senate has tried to stop the war, and the outcome, on a vote of 50 to 48, was a stunning turnaround from past efforts. While the resolution is largely symbolic, and does not fully carry the force of law, it reflects the growing concerns from a number of Republican lawmakers in both the House and Senate over both the war and the deal Trump struck with Iran to end it. The House approved the resolution earlier this month.

“Time after time, the vast majority of Senate Republicans sided with Trump and his war instead of the American people,” said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

Schumer said Americans have paid the price for “Trump’s historic blunder in Iran. It’ll go down in the history books as one of the worst foreign policy forays America has ever made.”

In the past, as many as four GOP senators have voted for the war powers resolutions, and they did so Tuesday — Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, voted against the resolution.

On this vote, the absence of two Republicans, including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who was admitted to the hospital recently for an undisclosed matter, left the GOP without a full majority to halt the effort. Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) also missed the vote.

The vote also comes as the Pentagon is seeking $80 billion from Congress, mostly for the Iran war as it backfills munitions and stockpiles.

Trump to meet senators as Republicans balk at Iran deal

Trump himself is headed to the Capitol this week to meet with GOP senators as Vice President JD Vance has been overseas working to negotiate with Iran to end its nuclear ambitions — which had been among the stated rationales for the war.

The president is not pleased with the Republicans who have been critical of the deal he struck with Iran, according to one GOP senator granted anonymity to discuss the private dynamics.

The terms of the Iran deal are spelled out in a memorandum of understanding that Trump signed last week, starting a 60-day clock for the sides to reach a broader agreement over ending Iran’s nuclear program.

But Republicans have particularly objected to the $300-billion fund to help Iran rebuild, which is far greater than the $1.7 billion then-President Obama refunded the country under his administration’s 2015 Iran deal.

“I believe President Trump is getting very poor advice on Iran,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said last week on his podcast after the deal was made public.

Democrats have repeatedly forced Iran votes

Over and again, Democrats have been forcing votes on the Iran war, almost since the U.S. and Israel launched missile strikes on Iran on Feb. 28.

Nearly each week they’re in session, the Senate Democrats have put forward war powers resolutions, but they have failed to amass the majority needed for passage in the narrowly split chamber, where Trump’s Republican Party holds the majority.

The House pushed its own version to passage earlier this month, with four Republicans joining all Democrats in approving the war powers resolution, over the objections of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and the GOP leadership.

While such resolutions do not go to the president for his signature, passage stands as a powerful, if symbolic, statement from Congress and a rebuke of the administration’s military actions.

Sen. Tim Kaine, the Democrat from Virginia who has led his party’s efforts, said the pause in warfighting, as Trump’s team works to shore up a fragile ceasefire, provides the perfect time for Congress to step back and assess “what should the next chapter be.”

Hegseth seeks $80 billion from Congress for the Iran war

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is also on Capitol Hill this week, seeking roughly $80 billion in supplemental funding to shore up defense supplies in the aftermath of the Iran war, which is drawing scrutiny when many Americans are reeling from high gas prices and costs of living.

The Pentagon early on had estimated the war cost $11.3 billion during its first week, and experts have put the overall price tag at close to $100 billion.

The Defense Department’s funding request is part of a broader beef-up of military money the White House wants as part of its budget request this year.

The Trump administration is seeking $1.5 trillion in defense funding this year — a 50% increase — including $350 billion that it wants in a so-called budget reconciliation package. Johnson and GOP leaders are working to pass that package on their own, over the objections of Democrats, much the way they approved Trump’s big tax cuts bill last year.

The 2025 tax cuts package also included a sizable increase of about $175 billion for the military.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

The U.S. Justice Department has cleared the way for Paramount Skydance’s $111-billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery — a major milestone that moves David Ellison closer to his goal.

After a months-long review, Justice Department antitrust regulators on Friday concluded the combination would not violate federal anticompetition laws. Approval had been expected because President Trump — who has friendly ties with Ellison and his father, tech billionaire Larry Ellison — favors the deal.

The government stopped short of asking Paramount to make concessions or divestitures.

Buying Warner Bros. would allow Paramount — Hollywood’s smallest major company — to bulk up with such prestigious properties as HBO, CNN, HGTV and Food Network. Those would be combined with properties Paramount already owns, including CBS, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon and MTV.

The deal would put two historic film studios and two prominent news organizations under the same roof. It would give Paramount four streaming services, including HBO Max, and dozens of cable channels.

In its four-page closing statement, the Justice Department emphasized that career antitrust regulators — not political appointees — had performed a rigorous review, sifting through some two million documents the government received from dozens of sources, including third-party organizations.

They conducted meetings and deposed senior-level executives and other witnesses.

“These investigative efforts all led to the same conclusion: the film and television industry is highly dynamic, and the proposed transaction is not likely to harm competition or American consumers,” Justice Department regulators wrote in their summary.

Regulators zeroed in on three potential areas of concern. They looked at whether the merger would give Paramount too much power in the streaming video-on-demand market; the traditional linear television channel space; as well as in “studio development, production, or distribution of films for theatrical release,” the Justice Department said.

Competition in streaming would not be crimped, according to the regulators.

“To the contrary, the combined firm is likely to increase competition by offering consumers a more robust competitive alternative to the larger [streaming] offerings,” they wrote.

The antitrust division also found that theatrical distribution and opportunities for creators, including writers and actors, would not be harmed as long as the combined company maintained current production levels.

Ellison has promised to continue releasing 30 films a year with a combined Warner Bros.-Paramount studio. He also has said he would protect the HBO brand.

The proposed merger is controversial because many in Hollywood fear it will bring thousands of job losses, which was the result of past consolidations, including Walt Disney Co.’s 2019 takeover of Fox entertainment properties. More than 5,000 entertainment industry workers, including Jane Fonda, J.J. Abrams, Javier Bardem and Mark Ruffalo, have signed an open letter calling for the merger to be blocked.

There’s a political dimension as well. Paramount’s standing with the Trump administration (Paramount+ is set to televise Sunday’s UFC fight spectacle at the White House to celebrate Trump’s birthday as part of the company’s relationship with the UFC) has given left-leaning groups pause.

They worry about collapsing CNN and CBS News into one unit, particularly after all the turmoil that has ensued at CBS News since the Ellison family bought Paramount in August and installed Bari Weiss as CBS News editor in chief.

This month witnessed a dramatic shakeup at the iconic “60 Minutes,” with top executives and three well-known correspondents tossed out.

“We’ve already seen how far Paramount and the Ellison family are willing to go to diminish a once-proud network and news organization like CBS,” Craig Aaron, co-chief executive of the progressive group Free Press, said in a statement. His group fears the Ellisons would “do worse if they get their hands on Warner Bros., HBO, CNN and all the rest.”

Paramount, for its part, said it was grateful for “the Department of Justice’s thorough review of this transaction, as well as the work of the other agencies that have completed their reviews and provided clearance to date.”

“This deal is pro-competitive, resulting in a stronger company better positioned to compete against dominant technology platforms in an industry increasingly defined by intense competition for audiences, talent, technology, and investment,” Paramount said. “We remain focused on completing the transaction as soon as possible and delivering its benefits to consumers, creators, and the entertainment industry as a whole.”

Paramount wants to finalize its purchase by September.

With Friday’s victory, Paramount is staying on that timetable, but regulators in Europe and Britain have opened their own regulatory investigations and are expected to make their own determinations in the coming months.

Separately, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and other state attorneys general have been scrutinizing the proposed merger, and are widely expected to file a lawsuit, perhaps as early as this month, to try to block it.

Paramount applied for Justice Department approval in December — more than two months before it edged out Netflix in the Warner sweepstakes.

In its statement, the Justice Department said it began its review last fall when it was clear Warner Bros. was in play. Regulators said they were familiar with Warner’s businesses, because the division had scrutinized four other mergers involving the company, dating back to the disastrous AOL-Time Warner merger in 2001.

Paramount’s deal would mark the third time Warner has changed hands in the last decade. AT&T bought the company in 2018 and then sold it to the smaller Discovery four years later. That deal left Warner Bros. burdened by debt, setting the stage for the Ellison takeover.

Justice Department approval could complicate efforts by Bonta and other state attorneys general to block the deal. Should Bonta or others sue, they would have to convince a judge that the nation’s top antitrust regulators failed to make a proper finding despite their lengthy review.

That may pose a high bar for the state officials, who are facing political pressure to stop the deal.

“State AGs must block this merger,” U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a statement Friday, adding that the Justice Department’s approval was “terrible news for every American who doesn’t want Trump-aligned billionaires to control what they watch and how much they pay.”

The Justice Department said state attorney general offices had participated in its investigation, which allowed federal and state officials “to share information with each other and for the States to attend and participate in the [antitrust] Division’s depositions.”

Last month, David Ellison appeared before the regulators in a two-hour session.

Paramount’s Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim, who previously served as the nation’s top antitrust regulator during the first Trump administration, also was busy quarterbacking Paramount’s outreach with regulators.

June 12 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Justice on Friday said the proposed merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery does not harm competition or consumers in the United States.

The Justice Department said that it finds the proposed merger is unlikely to harm competition among similar companies or the ability of American consumers to access video-based media, it said in a press release.

Paramount in January hiked up its offer well beyond what Netflix had offered for the entertainment conglomerate, circumventing the streaming leader from acquiring it, and triggering antitrust investigations in a number of nations both operate in.

At least ten state attorneys general said last week they would sue the federal government to stop the proposed merger, which would create a monolith company comprised of several of the most significant companies in television, film and entertainment.

“This investigation included a review of reams of documentary evidence, hours of deposition testimony of senior-level executives, interviews with third-party witnesses and staff-led meetings with the parties themselves,” the Justice Department said in the release.

“These investigative efforts all led to the same conclusion: The film and television industry is highly dynamic and the proposed transaction is not likely to harm competition or American consumers,” the department said.

The Justice Department said in the release that, among other discoveries that drove its decision, the fact that Warner Bros. has “been a repeated acquisition target in the media and entertainment industry” shows that it is appropriate to approve the merger.

WASHINGTON — The House approved a war powers resolution Wednesday that would halt the U.S. military action against Iran, defying President Trump as a handful of Republicans joined with Democrats to end the three-month-long war that has reordered politics at home and abroad.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had tried to prevent an outcome that would show the mounting opposition to the war, abruptly shutting down floor action two weeks ago when the war powers resolution was on the verge of approval. But displeasure has only grown as the conflict drags on and as Trump struggles to negotiate a quick resolution.

The roll call Wednesday was 215-208, and cheers erupted in the House chamber.

“This reckless and costly war of choice needs to end today,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said earlier in the week.

“All we need are a handful of Republicans to join us and we can end this reckless and costly war of choice — a war that has cost the American taxpayer over $100 billion — that’s extraordinary — and left our country in a weaker position relative to Iran.”

Opposition to war grows

It’s the fourth time the House has tried to curb the U.S. war against Iran, and the first time the House was able to pass the measure. The Senate advanced its own war powers resolution last month when a handful of GOP senators broke ranks with the Republican president in a rare show of political pushback from his party.

Each time Democrats have pushed forward the war powers resolution, the vote tallies have inched higher as political unease with the U.S. war swells. Trump had campaigned for the White House on a promise to end U.S. entanglements abroad and focus more on domestic issues, but the war has shifted attention back to the Middle East.

Johnson insisted Trump is “laser focused” on the domestic front, particularly ahead of the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.

The speaker said he spent three hours at the White House with the president this week as Trump is calling on allies to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz for commerce, especially the flow of oil.

Since the U.S. joined Israel in launching the Feb. 28 strikes on Iran, Americans have seen gas prices spike at the pumps, adding to inflationary pressure on consumer spending.

Iran has been able to interrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital channel for a large segment of the world’s oil, natural gas and related products such as fertilizer.

“We’re working on that final piece,” said Johnson, R-La. “The entire world has an interest in the Strait of Hormuz being reopen for commerce. That what he’s working on.”

While a ceasefire in the conflict was declared in April, it remains uneasy and uncertain. Talks for a more durable end to the fighting have dragged, increasingly complicated by Israel’s broadening war with Iran-backed Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. Meanwhile, military strikes between the U.S and Iran continue to flare.

Congress exerts its war powers authority

The war powers resolution from the House would not immediately stop the war, but it would provide a symbolic if not legal step against further military action.

If approved, it would then go to the Senate, where four Republican senators last month joined Democrats in advancing a similar measure to curtail the U.S. campaign against Iran. The Senate has yet to take a final vote to approve or reject its own war powers resolution.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Wednesday testifying at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that the Iranians would think that the administration’s “hands are going to be tied” if Congress approved a war powers resolution. He said they would think ”we won’t be able to do anything to them, so why make a deal?”

It’s not the only action Congress is taking in the national security arena as Democrats, in the minority, work to peel off Republican support for measures beyond the war against Iran.

The House is also voting Wednesday on another Democratic-led effort that would authorize U.S. support for Ukraine’s military operations as it battles Russia and to help reconstruct the war-torn country. The House this week is also expected to consider a war powers resolution to block U.S. action in Lebanon.

While Congress has the authority under the Constitution to declare war, the president also has power as the commander in chief to engage in military action, creating a legal dispute over which branch of government has ultimate say in matters of war and peace.

Under the war powers act, the White House has a 60-day window to seek approval from Congress for military action. The administration, however, has indicated that because a ceasefire has been declared in the current conflict in Iran, the hostilities have ceased.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

May 29 (UPI) — Mexico’s Congress approved a constitutional reform that adds foreign intervention or interference in electoral processes as a new ground for annulling elections.

The measure, promoted by the ruling party, the National Regeneration Movement, or Morena, has sparked debate over national sovereignty, electoral security and the limits of legal interpretation in future elections.

The reform amends Article 41 of the Constitution to establish that an election may be annulled when acts of foreign intervention or interference that influence electoral results are proven.

The initiative was initially approved by the Chamber of Deputies and later received Senate approval. It must now be ratified by at least 17 state legislatures before it can take effect.

The proposal was introduced by Ricardo Monreal, Morena’s coordinator in the Chamber of Deputies, who argued that Mexican law had until now lacked a specific sanction for cases of foreign interference in elections.

“Currently there is no sanction for anyone who seeks to invade our country or interfere in electoral processes,” Monreal said during the legislative debate, according to El Universal.

The lawmaker said the annulment could only be applied when there is “full and conclusive evidence” that foreign governments or external agents intervened in an election.

The Chamber of Deputies approved the reform with 307 votes in favor, 128 against and one abstention.

The ruling coalition argues that the measure seeks to strengthen national sovereignty against possible attempts at external influence, including irregular financing, disinformation campaigns, digital operations or political pressure originating abroad.

President Claudia Sheinbaum publicly backed the initiative and said there is a “real risk” of foreign intervention in future Mexican electoral processes.

Several local media outlets reported that the government has linked the reform to an international environment marked by growing geopolitical disputes, digital influence campaigns and external pressure on Latin American governments.

However, opposition parties questioned both the substance of the reform and the speed with which it advanced through Congress.

Rubén Moreira, parliamentary leader of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, warned that the initiative was introduced only days before it was debated and argued that there was not enough time to thoroughly analyze the legal implications of concepts such as “interference” or “foreign intervention,” according to reports by El País.

Lawmakers from the National Action Party and the Citizens’ Movement party also warned of the risk that the new provision could be used discretionarily to challenge election results under broad interpretations of what constitutes foreign influence.

During the legislative debate, Morena rejected those accusations and said the reform is not intended to censor news media, social media platforms or individual expressions.

Monreal said that a news article, an interview or a social media post would not, by themselves, be sufficient grounds to justify the annulment of an election.

He also said secondary legislation will be needed to precisely define the legal circumstances under which foreign intervention occurred and which authorities will be empowered to determine it.

The debate comes amid growing political tensions between Mexico and United States over issues related to drug trafficking, border security and regional cooperation.

It also coincides with a broader debate across Latin America over the influence of foreign governments, transnational digital campaigns and mechanisms to protect electoral sovereignty.

May 29 (UPI) — Louisiana’s Republican-led legislature on Friday voted to approve a new congressional map that eliminates one of two majority-Black districts in favor of Republican-leaning districts, pushing forward the national redistricting race.

The new map contains one majority-Black district — in a state with a population that is one-third black — that covers an arc running from Baton Rouge to New Orleans, covering a smaller section of the state, NBC News and The New York Times reported.

Louisiana is the latest state to enact rare mid-decade congressional redistricting efforts, which were kicked off when President Donald Trump last year started pushing Republican led states to do so, leading to Democratic-led states to join in a year-long tit-for-tat contest.

The new map follows a Supreme Court ruling in the Louisiana vs. Callais case earlier this month that invalidated a 2024 map because the state’s legislature was not justified in using race to construct the districts.

The map, based on voting records, is expected to send five Republicans and one Democrat to the House from Louisiana, compared to the old map’s four-to-two split.

“We focused on Democrat numbers, not the racial numbers, when drawing,” Republican state Rep. Beau Beaullieu said during debate over the map.

“We focused in this case on partisanship, which is what Callais said, and I mentioned in my intro, is clear permissible,” Beauillieu said.

Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry is expected to sign the new map into law.

Landry had pushed off the state’s May 16 congressional primaries, for which some mail-in votes had already been cast, and delayed it until Nov. 3 so that the legislature could produce a new map for use in this year’s federal elections.

During the debate on the Thrusday, Democratic state Rep. Kyle Green Jr. pointed out that the map reduced Black Louisianians’ “minority opportunity representation to a single seat out of six, from 33% of the population to 16% of the representation numbers.”

The map is expected to be challenged in court, but members of both parties in the state legislature said that the map is unlikely to change again before November’s elections.

Approval of populist former leader is a shift for the EU country that was recently run by a liberal government.

Slovenia’s parliament has voted to bring back right-wing politician Janez Jansa as prime minister, after his last stint in power ended in 2022.

Legislators in the 90-member assembly voted 51-36 for Jansa on Friday – marking a shift for the small European Union country recently run by a liberal government.

Jansa will need to return to parliament within the next 15 days for another vote to confirm his future Cabinet.

His appointment concludes a post-election stalemate after the vote two months ago ended in a tie when former liberal Prime Minister Robert Golob’s Freedom Movement was unable to create a parliamentary majority by only securing a thin margin.

On Thursday, Jansa and his populist Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) signed a coalition agreement with several centre-right groups to form a new government, which now holds 43 seats in the assembly.

It will be the fourth time 67-year-old Jansa has been in office.

He was the country’s leader from 2004 to 2008, 2012 to 2013 and 2020 to 2022.

In the March 22 elections, the SDS came second with 28 seats, behind Golob’s Freedom Movement, which secured 29 seats.

The new coalition government is made up of the SDS, New Slovenia, Democrats, the Slovenian People’s Party and Focus. It also secured additional backing from the right-wing Resnica party, which will not formally join the government.

In a speech laying out the government’s future goals, Jansa listed the economy, the fight against corruption and red tape, and decentralisation.

He also promised to lower taxes for the rich and support private education and healthcare.

Earlier this month, Jansa told reporters that the coalition would ensure a “cheaper state but with better quality”.

Jansa is an admirer of US President Donald Trump and was also a close ally of Hungary’s former populist Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who was defeated in a landslide election last month.

The former PM is a supporter of Israel and was a staunch critic of the Golob government’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state in 2024.

During his last term in office, Jansa faced accusations of clamping down on democratic institutions and press freedoms, leading to protests then and scrutiny from the European Union.

Published on 20/05/2026 – 2:31 GMT+2•Updated
2:36

Diplomats and MEPs reached an agreement late on Tuesday to implement the contentious EU-US agreement, which eliminates duties on most US industrial goods imported into Europe.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The negotiations concluded two weeks after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose 25% tariffs on EU cars if Europeans did not implement the agreement — clinched by Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Turnberry, Scotland, last summer — by 4 July.

The so-called “Turnberry Agreement,” criticised by MEPs as unbalanced, raises US tariffs on EU goods to as much as 15%.

“The EU and the United States share the world’s largest and most integrated economic relationship. Maintaining a stable, predictable and balanced transatlantic partnership is in the interest of both sides,” Cyprus trade Minister Michael Damianos said, adding: “Today, the European Union delivers on its commitments.”

MEPs had kept the deal frozen for several weeks following Trump’s threats over Greenland earlier this year. They also suspended it after the US adopted new tariffs following a Supreme Court ruling that declared illegal the tariffs imposed by the White House since Trump’s return to power.

Demanding clarity from the Americans, EU lawmakers finally agreed to enter into negotiations with the EU Cyprus presidency — representing EU member states — after the Commission assured them that the US would honour its side of the agreement and cap its tariffs at 15%, as agreed.

Fragile EU-US relations

However, EU-US relations remain fragile and there is concern in Brussels that the US administration could still use tariffs to put political pressure on the EU if the bloc does not comply with the White House’s demands on other issues.

Trump’s threats over EU cars two weeks ago also targeted Germany, whose Chancellor Friedrich Merz has criticised the war in Iran launched by the Americans alongside Israel.

Trump has repeatedly called on European countries to deploy ships to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, a move Europeans have been reluctant to make.

Many disagreements also continue to strain EU–US relations over Ukraine — including the recent US extension of a sanctions waiver allowing purchases of Russian oil — and over NATO, which Trump has repeatedly threatened to leave.

On Tuesday night, MEPs tried to secure the deal by attaching conditions, risking US anger with additional provisions to which Washington had not agreed.

Under the Turnberry Agreement, the EU also committed to investing $600 billion across strategic sectors in the United States through 2028 and to purchasing $750 billion worth of US energy.

Rights groups warn that the bill makes the death penalty easier to impose and strips fair trial protections.

Israeli legislators have approved a bill to establish a special tribunal with the power to impose the death penalty on Palestinians accused of involvement in the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023.

The bill passed 93-0 in Israel’s 120-seat parliament, the Knesset, late on Monday.

The remaining 27 legislators were absent or abstained from voting.

Israeli and Palestinian rights groups warn that the bill will make the death penalty too easy to impose while also doing away with procedures safeguarding the right to a fair trial.

Muna Haddad, a lawyer with Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, told Al Jazeera that the bill intentionally lowers the legal protections to a fair trial to secure the mass conviction of Palestinians.

“The bill explicitly permits mass trials that deviate from standard rules of evidence, including broad judicial discretion to admit evidence obtained under coercive conditions that may amount to torture or ill-treatment,” Haddad said.

“This constitutes a severe violation of fair trial guarantees that falls well short of international law requirements.”

In a departure from standard Israeli judicial practice, which typically prohibits courtroom cameras, the bill mandates the filming and public broadcasting of key moments in the trials on a dedicated website.

This includes opening hearings, verdicts and sentencing.

Haddad warned that this provision effectively “transforms proceedings into show trials at the expense of the accused’s rights”.

“The provisions governing public hearings… violate the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and the right to dignity,” Haddad explained. “The framework effectively treats indictment as a finding of guilt, before any judicial examination has begun.”

Israel has been holding an estimated 200-300 Palestinians, including those captured in the country during the October 7 attacks, who have not yet been charged.

The Hamas-led assault on Israeli communities along Israel’s southern fence with Gaza killed at least 1,139 people, mostly civilians, according to an Al Jazeera tally based on official Israeli statistics. About 240 others were seized as captives.

Israel’s subsequent genocidal war on Gaza has killed at least 72,628 Palestinians, including at least 846 since a United States-brokered “ceasefire” came into effect last October.

The war, which United Nations experts say could amount to genocide, has left the Palestinian territory in ruins.

Several Israeli rights groups – including Hamoked, Adalah and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel – said on Monday that while “justice for the victims of October 7 is a legitimate and urgent imperative”, any accountability for the crimes “must be pursued through a process which includes rather than abandons the principles of justice”.

The bill is separate from a law passed in March that approved the death penalty for Palestinians convicted of murdering Israelis, a measure harshly condemned by the international community and rights groups as discriminatory and inhumane.

That law applies to future cases and is not retroactive, so it could not apply to the October 2023 suspects.

Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassem said the new law “serves as a cover for the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza”.

The International Criminal Court is probing Israel’s conduct of the Gaza war and has issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant, as well as ‌three ‌Hamas leaders who have all since been killed by Israel.

Israel is also fighting a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.

It rejects the allegations.

Tennessee has approved a new congressional map that breaks apart a majority-Black district centred on Memphis, triggering protests inside the state Capitol and accusations of racial gerrymandering. The move could help Republicans strengthen their narrow majority in the US House ahead of November’s midterm elections.