approves

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.

May 1 (UPI) — Brazil’s Congress approved legislation that could significantly reduce prison sentences for former President Jair Bolsonaro and several supporters convicted over the 2023 attempted coup.

Both chambers of Congress voted Thursday by wide margins to overturn a veto by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, allowing changes to how sentences are served for crimes linked to coup attempts.

Local media described the vote as further evidence of tensions between Lula’s government and a Congress dominated by conservative factions.

Newspapers, including Estadão and Folha de S.Paulo, said lawmakers dealt a “double blow” to Lula in less than 24 hours after the Senate also rejected, for the first time in 130 years, a presidential nominee for Brazil’s Supreme Court.

The legislation would directly benefit Bolsonaro, who was sentenced to 27 years in prison for leading the alleged coup plot, as well as dozens of former officials and hundreds of demonstrators linked to the Jan. 8, 2023, assault on government institutions in Brasília.

After the congressional vote, Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, the former president’s son and a presidential candidate, wrote on X that the decision “is the first step toward full justice for the political persecution victims of Jan. 8.”

“The defeat of the Workers’ Party is the victory of Brazil,” he added.

The measure focuses on changes to sentencing rules. By overturning Lula’s veto, lawmakers established that convicts would no longer serve cumulative sentences for each individual offense, such as criminal association or damage to public property.

Instead, courts would apply only the sentence tied to the most serious crime, sharply reducing total prison time.

In Bolsonaro’s case, the change would cut his sentence from 27 years to a maximum of 12 years. Under Brazilian law, inmates may qualify for legal benefits after serving part of their sentence, potentially allowing the former president to seek parole or the end of his house arrest within an estimated two to four years.

The law is expected to face challenges before the Supreme Federal Court on grounds that Congress may have overstepped judicial authority and violated constitutional principles by altering sentences tied to crimes against the state.

While the court reviews the measure’s constitutionality, judges could suspend its implementation, preventing any immediate reduction of Bolsonaro’s sentence until a final ruling is issued.

Bolsonaro, who has been under temporary humanitarian house arrest since March 27 after suffering bilateral pneumonia, was admitted Friday to DF Star Hospital in Brasília after authorization from Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, according to local outlet G1 Globo.

The 71-year-old former president is scheduled to undergo shoulder surgery to repair a torn rotator cuff and related injuries.

The judicial developments come amid early campaigning ahead of Brazil’s October presidential election, where Flávio Bolsonaro is emerging as Lula’s main challenger. Several polls show the two tied in a potential runoff election.

WASHINGTON — After weeks of delay, the House voted Thursday to fund much of the Department of Homeland Security, but not its immigration enforcement operations, and send the bipartisan package to President Trump to sign, ending the longest agency shutdown in history.

The White House had warned that temporary funding Trump had tapped to pay Transportation Security Administration and other agency personnel would “soon run out,” and that sparked new threats of airport disruptions.

DHS has been without routine funds since Feb. 14, causing hardship for workers, though much of Trump’s immigration agenda that is central to the dispute is being funded separately.

“It is about damn time,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, who proposed the bill more than 70 days ago.

The House swiftly voted by voice, without a formal roll call, to pass the measure.

The House’s narrow Republican majority has repeatedly stalled out under House Speaker Mike Johnson, with his own party tangled in internal disputes on a range of pending issues, including the homeland security funding. While the Senate unanimously approved the bipartisan package a month ago, the bill languished in the House.

Democrats refused to fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol without changes to those operations after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal agents during protests against an immigration crackdown in Minneapolis. Republicans would no go along with a plan pushed by Democrats to fund TSA and the other parts of DHS without the money for ICE and Border Patrol.

To break the impasse, Republicans in both the House and Senate decided to tackle the immigration enforcement funding on their own through what is called budget reconciliation, a cumbersome weekslong process ahead.

By beginning that budget process Johnson, R-La., was able to unlock a broader bipartisan bill for TSA agents and the rest of DHS. House Republicans late Wednesday adopted budget resolution on a largely party-line vote, 215-211, that is focused on eventually providing $70 billion for immigration enforcement and deportations for the remainder of Trump’s time in office and ensure Democrats can no longer block funding. Trump’s term ends in January 2029.

One key Republican, Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, said isolating the immigration-related money on a separate track is “offensive to the men and women who serve in ICE and Border Patrol, and are serving this country every single day.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida Legislature approved a new congressional map intended to maximize Republicans’ advantage in the state as part of the national redistricting battle that President Trump launched ahead of this year’s midterms.

The vote came just two days after Gov. Ron DeSantis unveiled his proposal and the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court rolled back a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. The decision could make it harder for Democrats to challenge Republican efforts to redraw congressional districts in ways that limit the influence of nonwhite voters.

DeSantis’ map could increase Republicans’ advantage in Florida’s House delegation to 24 to 4, up from the current split of 20 to 8. The potential four-seat gain is the same as what Virginia Democrats expect from a recent redistricting referendum, which is being challenged in state court there.

Florida’s new districts are certain to face lawsuits as well, especially because the state constitution prohibits redistricting for explicitly partisan purposes. DeSantis and his aides believe those provisions will not be a legal barrier because they have been weakened previously by the Florida Supreme Court and again by Wednesday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Florida Republicans, comfortable in their supermajority in both legislative chambers, said little about the new districts during the whirlwind special session. The measure’s sponsor, Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka (R-Fort Myers), limited her remarks to careful answers about an “evolving legal landscape” as Democrats’ asked her about the redistricting effort.

“I believe that there is a likelihood that that map will be upheld against legal challenge,” Persons-Mulicka said.

Opposition was vocal but futile

Democrats, activists and some citizens to decried the process as a partisan power play to satisfy Trump, boost DeSantis’ future ambitions and hurt the majority of registered Florida voters who are not Republicans.

“Y’all are doing this because y’all’s daddy in the White House is injecting national political objectives into what should be a state-driven process,” Rep. Michele Rayner (D-St. Petersburg) told her Republican colleagues before an 83-28 vote in favor of the measure.

The Florida Senate later approved the plan in a 21-17 vote.

Rep. Angie Nixon, a Jacksonville Democrat, chided Republicans for yielding the redistricting process to DeSantis, whose second term expires in January.

“Last time I checked, we’re the ones who were supposed to be drawing the map,” she said, “and yet we are allowing y’all to continue to hold the water of the governor, who is a lame duck and just trying to figure out what his next job is going to be.”

Democrats diminished in metro areas

The new map reshapes districts in Democratic areas around Orlando, the Tampa-St. Petersburg area and in south Florida around Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Miami. The changes could cost Reps. Jared Moskowitz and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, among others, their seats.

DeSantis and his aides said before and during the session that new map is necessary to account for population growth in suburban and exurban areas since the 2020 census and to ensure Florida has a “race-neutral” congressional plan.

The proposal presumed the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Wednesday decision, which specifically struck down a Louisiana congressional district drawn for the electorate to be majority-Black. Historically, Black voters have aligned more with Democrats, while a majority of white voters lean toward Republicans.

The changes in Florida include the effective elimination of one nearly majority Black south Florida district that was represented by Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, a Black Democrat, until her resignation earlier this month.

Lawmakers fast-tracked the measures

From the session’s opening bell Tuesday morning, Republican leaders moved swiftly.

In one of just two committee hearings, Senate Rules Chair Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples) said she wanted “everybody who has taken the time and effort to come to Capitol to have an opportunity to speak.” Then she declared each speaker would have 30 seconds.

“I know that doesn’t seem like a lot but it actually is, uh, if you’re concise,” she said.

Deborah Courtney drove more than two hours from from Jacksonville and noted that all citizen speakers expressed opposition.

“Why are you doing this redistricting now?” she asked senators. “I doubt that your phone have been ringing off the hook from your constituents going, hey, we need some new maps.”

Rob Woods came from the Tampa area, which under the new map could have no Democratic representation in the U.S. House. A Black man, Wood told senators he was a veteran who said he “bought in from elementary school” on notions of the U.S. as an equal-opportunity democracy.

Now, he said, “it seems as if we are back in that period of Reconstruction, moving back to Jim Crow.”

On the House floor, Persons-Mulicka sidestepped specifics about what factors went into the map. She repeatedly called it “race-neutral,” citing testimony from DeSantis aide Jason Poreda, who took sole credit for the map during the session and did not disclose the names of any architects. But asked about Poreda’s admission that he examined party affiliation and voting patterns, Persons-Mulicka balked.

“I cannot speak to the intent of the map drawer,” she said.

DeSantis unveiled the map on Fox News

Persons-Mulicka and Sen. Don Gaetz, who sponsored the map in the Senate, deflected questions about why DeSantis unveiled the plan on Fox News.

Gaetz, a Crestview Republican, confirmed he had no part in drafting the map and forwarded the governor’s proposal to other senators as soon as he received it late Monday morning.

There’s no guarantee that new maps across the country will play out the way two parties hope. For example, Texas based its revised lines largely on Trump’s performance in 2024, redistributing the president’s voters across more districts to pull them into the Republican column. But Trump’s popularity has waned since his reelection, including among Latino voters who figure prominently in the state.

Florida could face a similar conundrum. Creating more majority-Republican districts could leave margins thin enough to allow for Democratic victories, especially if there’s an anti-Trump backlash at the polls this year.

Some Republicans have expressed worry about that possibility, and a handful voted against the measure in the Florida Legislature.

The governor already took a hit because of the session. He had wanted lawmakers to adopt state regulations on artificial intelligence, ostensibly protecting minors from harmful material, while rolling back vaccine mandates for students in Florida’s public schools. House Speaker Daniel Perez, a Republican but not a DeSantis ally, spiked both ideas.

DeSantis called it “political shenanigans.”

House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell (D-Tampa) lamented that Republicans still delivered DeSantis the big-ticket item that he wanted.

“On destroying our democracy, they’ve been aligned,” she said, “and that’s what we did here today.”

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

Players at the World Cup could face a red card if they cover their mouths when speaking to opponents during confrontations.

The decision was taken during a special meeting of the Fifa Council in Vancouver, Canada, on Tuesday, where two Fifa-proposed law amendments were approved.

Players who leave the pitch in protest at a referee’s decisions could also now face a red card, following ugly scenes at the Africa Cup of Nations final between Morocco and Senegal.

Both law changes have been approved as competition opt-ins by the International Football Association Board (Ifab).

Fifa has confirmed they will be adopted at this summer’s World Cup.

The issue of players covering their mouths became high profile in February when Benfica winger Gianluca Prestianni raised his shirt while speaking to Real Madrid’s Vinicius Jr during a Champions League game.

The Argentina international was accused of racist abuse and provisionally banned for one match. Following a Uefa investigation, Prestianni was found guilty of homophobic conduct and banned for six matches – three of which were suspended.

The issue was discussed at the Ifab annual general meeting in Wales later that month where it was agreed the matter would be on the agenda at the Fifa Council.

The decision remains at the absolute discretion of the referee, who will consider all circumstances before issuing a red card.

The proposed 76-metre arch would tower over other iconic landmarks in Washington, DC, and has attracted scrutiny.

United States President Donald Trump’s goal of erecting a colossal arch in Washington, DC, has taken another step forward, with a key agency approving his proposed design for the monument.

The US Commission of Fine Arts, whose members were appointed by Trump, gave its go-ahead to the president’s design for a lofty 76-metre-high (250-foot) arch.

If given final approval, the arch would be built on Memorial Circle, between the Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial. It would tower above other landmarks in the national capital.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle hailed the commission’s approval as a “step in accomplishing President Trump’s promise to the American people from the campaign trail — to Make America Safe and Beautiful Again”.

But the arch has faced criticism, including for potentially obscuring views of the national cemetery, a resting place for war veterans.

Public Citizen Litigation Group is representing some Vietnam War veterans in a lawsuit against the proposed construction, which they argue needs congressional approval.

Even the vice chair of the Commission of Fine Arts, James McCrery II, suggested that Trump’s proposed “Triumphal Arch” ditch the winged statue and eagles on its top. He also opposed the lions at its base, pointing out that African animals are “not a beast natural to the North American continent”.

The enormous arch is another effort by the US president to leave his mark on the physical landscape of Washington, DC.

In January, he told reporters he wants the arch to be the “biggest one of all”. The commission still needs to vote on final approval for the proposal after reviewing updated designs.

Current plans show the arch would be significantly larger than the Lincoln Memorial, which is 99 feet (30 metres) tall, and about twice as tall as the famous Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which the design resembles.

The phrases “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice for All” would be written in gold lettering atop either side of the monument.

About three out of every four people who delivered public comments about the project expressed opposition, many of them citing its enormous size.

But the arch is one of several Trump projects that have received public pushback.

Trump has sought to paint the granite of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building white, and his allies plan to close the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, a national theatre complex, for two years of renovations, after adding Trump’s name to the exterior.

One of the most permanent changes so far has been the abrupt demolition of the White House’s East Wing, in order to make room for an enormous ballroom, long one of Trump’s priorities.

But that project is likewise entangled in legal battles, with critics arguing that congressional approval is required.

On Wednesday, Judge Richard Leon clarified that construction on underground structures at the ballroom site could continue, as part of an exemption he previously allowed for national security concerns.

But he maintained his short-term injunction against construction on the ballroom itself, batting down Trump’s position that the whole project should proceed.

“Defendants argue that the entire ballroom construction project, from tip to tail, falls within the safety-and-security exception and therefore may proceed unabated,” Leon wrote in Thursday’s ruling.

“That is neither a reasonable nor a correct reading of my Order!”

The president responded on social media by calling Leon an “out of control Trump hating” judge. Leon was appointed in 2002 under Republican President George W Bush.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s design for the Triumphal Arch he wants built at an entrance to the nation’s capital moved a step forward Thursday after a key agency reviewed the proposal for the first time. One commissioner suggested changes, including losing the Lady Liberty-like statue and pair of eagles that would sit on top of the arch and add to its height.

The arch is one of several projects that the Republican president is pursuing alongside a White House ballroom to leave his lasting imprint on Washington.

The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts voted to approve the concept design for the arch. The seven commissioners, all appointed by Trump, will review an updated version of the design before taking a final vote at a future meeting.

Trump said last week on social media that the arch “will be the GREATEST and MOST BEAUTIFUL Triumphal Arch, anywhere in the World” and a “wonderful addition to the Washington D.C. area for all Americans to enjoy for many decades to come!”

Also on the agenda for the commission’s monthly meeting was his plan to paint the gray granite exterior of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which is next to the White House, white.

A third White House-related project, construction of an underground center to conduct security screenings of tourists and other guests, was also up for consideration.

Triumphal Arch

The arch would stand 250 feet tall from its base to a torch held aloft by a Lady Liberty-like figure atop the structure. That figure would be flanked up top by two eagles and guarded at the base by four lions — all gilded. The phrases “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice for All” would be inscribed in gold lettering atop either side of the monument.

The commission’s vice chairman, architect James McCrery II, said he preferred the arch without the figure and eagles on top. McCrery also objected to the lions on the base.

The arch would be built on a human-made island managed by the National Park Service on the Virginia side of the Potomac River at the end of Memorial Bridge from the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. The arch would dwarf the Lincoln Memorial, which is 99 feet tall, and be close to half the height of the Washington Monument, an obelisk that is about 555 feet tall.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that the arch’s 250-foot height will honor America’s 250 years of existence.

A group of veterans and a historian has sued in federal court to block construction on the grounds that the arch would disrupt the sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House at Arlington National Cemetery, among other reasons.

Underground screening center for White House visitors

The U.S. Secret Service, Interior Department, National Park Service, and the Executive Office of the President want to start construction in August on a 33,000-square-foot (3,066-square-meter) center to screen tourists and other visitors to the White House.

It would be built beneath Sherman Park, federal land southwest of the White House, to provide a more secure place to screen those going on White House tours or attending events. The new facility would have seven lanes to ease processing and reduce wait times.

Officials want it operating by July 2028, six months before Trump’s term ends.

Eisenhower Executive Office Building paint job

Trump said the Executive Office Building is beautiful, but he does not like its gray exterior.

“It’s one of the most beautiful buildings anywhere in Washington,” Trump said in August. “I think it’s just incredible, but you have to get past the color because the stone they used was a really bad color.”

Two proposals were given to the commission: Cover the entire building in bright white or paint most of it white while leaving untouched the granite on the exposed basement and subbasement.

In written materials, the White House said the building has been largely neglected since its construction. It said the building’s color, design and massing do not “align visually with the surrounding architecture” and lack ”any symbolic cohesion with the White House.”

The paint job is also the subject of litigation in federal court.

The building sits across a driveway from the West Wing. It was completed in 1888 after 17 years of construction, and its granite, slate, and cast iron exterior makes it one of America’s best examples of the French Second Empire style of architecture.

It originally housed the departments of State, War and Navy. It currently houses offices for the vice president and the National Security Council, among others.

The building is a National Historic Landmark and is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.