Courts

Andras Baka, a strong advocate for judicial independence, becomes Tisza’s pick for Hungary’s next president.

Hungary’s governing Tisza party has nominated Andras Baka, a former Supreme Court chief removed from his post by Viktor Orban’s government in 2012, as its candidate for the country’s presidency.

The nomination, announced Saturday by Prime Minister Peter Magyar, marks the latest step in Tisza’s effort to dismantle Orban’s influence over state institutions since the party’s landslide election victory in April ended his 16-year rule.

The decision to nominate Baka for the presidency comes weeks after Tisza used a constitutional amendment to remove Orban-era President Tamas Sulyok from office.

On Tuesday, Baka, 73, is expected to be elected by parliament, where Tisza holds a constitutional majority.

Magyar wrote on Facebook that the nomination, made by secret ballot within the party’s parliamentary group, was “one of its most important decisions so far”.

Tisza lawmakers said Baka had always “attached paramount importance to the principle of separation of powers, consistently standing up for the rule of law and judicial independence”, adding that his experience represented “a significant asset” as the party lays “the foundations for Hungary’s new constitutional order”.

Fidesz, the party now in opposition, said it would boycott the vote, accusing Tisza of authoritarian tactics – allegations it denies.

Baka served two terms as a judge on the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg before being elected head of Hungary’s Supreme Court in 2009.

He was removed two years later after publicly criticising Orban’s government reforms, which he said threatened judicial independence. The European court later ruled that his dismissal had violated his rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression, a judgement the Council of Europe said Hungary failed to fully implement.

Hungary’s presidency carries mostly ceremonial powers, with limited authority to veto or refer legislation, though the nomination is being treated as a heavily symbolic move.

The rulings allow the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for nationals of the two countries.

Two federal judges have cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s administration to end temporary protections from deportation for people who have come to the United States from South Sudan and Myanmar.

Judges in Boston, Massachusetts and Chicago, Illinois on Friday rejected last-ditch efforts by immigrant-rights advocates to maintain the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designations for the two countries after the US Supreme Court in June allowed the administration to end similar protections for thousands of people from Haiti and Syria.

TPS shields people from deportation and grants work authorisation when their home countries are affected by armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions. The terminations would end protections for about 232 South Sudanese nationals and roughly 4,000 people from Myanmar, according to the Reuters news agency.

The Supreme Court decision had limited lower courts’ ability to block the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to end TPS for people from roughly a dozen countries, arguing the executive branch maintained broad authority to make decisions on the programme.

After the Supreme Court’s ruling, immigrant-rights lawyers made a new challenge, arguing that DHS lacked the authority to terminate TPS.

But US District Judge Patti Saris in Boston rejected the argument, saying it would not only call into question DHS authority to end TPS but also its longstanding authority to extend the protections.

Judge Matthew Kennelly in Chicago made a similar conclusion in the Myanmar case hours later.

Advocates have warned the rulings leave TPS recipients, who had been given an “administrative stay” amid the ongoing legal battle that allowed them to continue to work and live in the US, exposed to possible deportation to countries still gripped by conflict and instability.

DHS had moved in November 2025 to end TPS for South Sudan, which has held the designation since 2011 amid ongoing conflict, and Myanmar, in political turmoil since a 2021 military coup.

James Percival, General Counsel of DHS, said the new rulings leave only TPS terminations for Ethiopian and Somalian nationals, which are still blocked by courts.

“Every day these ‘administrative stays’ are in effect is a day the American people are denied what they voted for,” he wrote on X.

The US president has clashed with Federal Reserve members over his bid to rapidly slash interest rates despite inflation.

The White House has revived its efforts to remove Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a governor at the Federal Reserve, the United States’ central bank.

On Friday, media reports emerged that the administration of President Donald Trump had sent Cook a letter threatening her position at the Federal Reserve.

“You are hereby provided notice that the President is considering removing you from your position,” the letter read.

Signed by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, the letter gave Cook a deadline of three weeks to respond to unproven allegations that she had committed mortgage fraud.

It also warned that the crime she was accused of was punishable by up to 30 years in prison. Her conduct, the letter added, constituted negligence that calls into question her trustworthiness as a Federal Reserve governor.

Trump first unveiled the claims against Cook in August 2025, in a push to fire her from her role.

No other president since the central bank’s founding in 1913 has sought to oust a Federal Reserve governor.

The central bank has historically been insulated from political pressure, and under the law, Federal Reserve governors can only be removed by the president “for cause”. A full term runs 14 years.

Such laws aim is to shield the central bank from making economic decisions based on political pressures.

But Trump has undertaken an aggressive campaign to slash interest rates, which are elevated as a means of combatting inflation.

He has also sought to rid the federal government of appointees aligned with his Democratic predecessors. Cook was nominated in 2022 under President Democrat Joe Biden, Trump’s two-time election rival.

Trump’s claims against Cook centre on the idea that she listed two homes as her primary residence: one in Georgia and the other in Michigan. That could have made her eligible for favourable mortgage rates.

But there is no conclusive evidence so far that Cook sought to deceive lenders, making a successful fraud prosecution unlikely.

In June, a US Supreme Court ruling also blocked Trump’s attempt to fire her, though it did clear the way for the president to fire the heads of other independent agencies.

The letter sent to Cook this week was dated August 5. That same day, Cook spoke at an economic luncheon in Alaska, saying inflation is “too high” and indicating that she is “prepared to act” by raising interest rates, a position shared by others at the Federal Reserve.

Trump has long sparred with the Federal Reserve over interest rates, repeatedly threatening to fire former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for refusing to bow to his demands.

Kevin Warsh, a Trump appointee, took over Powell’s position as chair in May. He has yet to deliver Trump’s wished-for rate cuts, amid stubborn inflation.

“We should have the lowest interest rate in the world,” Trump said after last week’s decision by the Federal Reserve to hold interest rates steady for the fifth consecutive time.

In a statement, Cook’s legal team said “there is no valid cause” for removing her from her position.

“As we did before, we will challenge this latest pretext and preserve her position and the historic role of the Fed,” lawyer Abbe D Lowell said.

A federal appeals court has ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to halt construction on a $400 million ballroom project at the White House. President Trump has vowed to appeal to the US Supreme Court. Aljazeera’s Mike Hanna reports.

A US federal appeals court says EPA likely acted unlawfully in trying to cancel Biden-era clean energy grants.

A United States federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration likely broke the law when it tried to cancel a multibillion-dollar clean energy programme, dealing a blow to the president’s broader push to dismantle Biden-era climate policies.

The full US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled on Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot freeze roughly $20bn in grants awarded to nonprofit groups for clean energy projects, reversing an earlier decision by the same court.

But the money will not be released immediately. The ruling has been temporarily put on hold to give the EPA time to ask the US Supreme Court to intervene.

At the centre of the dispute is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a programme created by Congress through former US President Joe Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

The programme, often referred to as a “green bank”, was designed to give federal money to nonprofit organisations that would give out loans and invest in small energy projects, energy-efficient buildings and clean-energy infrastructure.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has been trying to dismantle the programme, saying it doesn’t align with his agency’s priorities and accusing its recipients of fraud, waste and mismanagement.

In a video posted on social media last February, Zeldin described the fund as an example of government waste.

“Shockingly, roughly $20bn of your tax dollars were parked at an outside financial institution by the Biden EPA,” he said. “This pot of $20bn was awarded to just eight entities that were then responsible for doling out your money to NGOs and others at their discretion.”

“The days of irresponsibly shovelling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over,” he added.

The following month, the EPA froze billions of dollars that were being held at Citibank to be distributed as grants.

The organisations, which included the Climate United Fund, Coalition for Green Capital and three others, denied any wrongdoing and sued, arguing the administration was illegally withholding money already approved by Congress and attempting to kill the programme because it opposed its climate goals, not because of evidence of fraud.

Tuesday’s decision overturns a ruling by a three-judge panel of the same appeals court last September that sided with the administration. The full appeals court agreed to revisit that decision, a rare move reserved for significant cases.

The majority of judges said the EPA’s attempt to terminate the grants and claw back the money “based solely on a policy disagreement” likely violated the Inflation Reduction Act. It also said the agency hadn’t provided assurance that it would leave the funds untouched if the injunction were lifted.

The ruling restores an order issued last year by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who found the EPA had failed to justify cancelling the grants and warned the administration was encroaching on Congress’s power to decide how federal money is spent.

The case is one of several legal challenges to US President Donald Trump’s efforts to reverse Biden’s climate agenda. Since returning to office, Trump has rolled back environmental regulations, expanded support for fossil fuel production and sought to unwind clean energy initiatives, arguing they impose unnecessary costs on businesses and consumers.

US President Donald Trump has threatened to fire US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, after she said the government would not press ahead with criminal charges of vandalism of Washington’s Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool against former Olympic athlete David Hearn.

The reflecting pool project is one of several changes to the landscape of Washington, DC that Trump has pursued during his second term in office.

But following a multimillion-dollar refurbishment ahead of the 250th anniversary of US independence this year, parts of the lining of the pool were seen floating on the surface, and algae turned the water from blue to green, which Trump claimed was caused by vandalism.

Hearn, 67, was among a number of people arrested for suspected criminal damage to the “American flag blue” lining of the pool.

Pirro, however, acknowledged last week that the pool’s peeling sealant appeared to be the result of a “botched installation”, putting her at odds with the US president.

On Monday, Trump sharply criticised Pirro, who he had appointed as attorney for the District of Columbia in May last year, saying she had “choked” under pressure from a judge and “folded like an umbrella”.

Pirro met the president on Monday as he pondered firing her, but sources familiar with the matter told US broadcaster CNN late on Monday that Trump held back from firing his long-term ally.

Who is Pirro, and why has the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool become a flashpoint in her relations with Trump?

Here’s what we know:

Why was Hearn arrested for vandalism?

David Hearn, who said he only visited the reflecting pool to find out what the fuss was about, was among at least seven people arrested or cited over alleged damage to the pool.

He says he had put his hand into the water to examine a piece of lining which had started peeling away on June 19. But he was accused of pulling the lining away, causing more than $1,000 in damage. He was charged with destruction of government property, an offence that carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years.

His indictment was announced at a news conference held by Pirro on July 2. The prosecutor accused Hearn, an Olympic canoeist, of “forcefully and violently” ripping the newly installed liner of the reflecting pool, part of a renovation project Trump had championed.

She described his actions as “an affront to the dignity of our shared history” and warned that Hearn could face up to 10 years in prison for the destruction of government property.

Then, this week, the charges were dropped when Pirro announced the damage had most likely been caused by faulty installation of the lining.

The pool has since been drained.

Who is Pirro?

Born to Lebanese-American parents in June 1951 in Elmira, New York, Pirro is currently the US attorney for the District of Columbia. She was hand-picked by Trump in May last year for an interim period, and her position in the Senate was confirmed in August 2025.

According to the US government, Pirro has worked in the legal field for several decades, having started as an assistant district attorney for Westchester County, New York, in 1975 and later working as the first female judge in the Westchester County Court from 1990 to 1993.

She also became the first woman elected to serve as Westchester County district attorney for three consecutive terms from 1994 to 2005 and was the first female president of the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York.

Pirro also played a key role in starting the first domestic violence unit in a prosecutor’s office in the US and has authored eight books.

Besides politics, Pirro has also appeared on television in the US true crime series The Jinx, which aired in 2015, as well as hosting the reality show You the Jury, which aired in 2017.

What has Trump said about Pirro?

When Trump hand-picked Pirro as the attorney for the District of Columbia, he said he was confident she would improve Washington, DC.

“Jeanine Pirro, I have no doubt will be an exceptional US attorney for the District of Columbia, one of the truly most important positions in our country of any position, where she will restore public safety in our nation’s capital, break up vicious street gangs and criminal networks, and ensure equal justice under the law. You’ll see very, very big improvements in the DC area, that I can promise you,” Trump said when he appointed her on May 8, 2025.

Pirro, a Trump ally, vowed to tackle violence in the city and said DC would “again become a shining city on the hill in an America that President Trump has promised to make great again and will make safe again”.

But now, relations with Trump have frayed after Pirro refused to support the US president’s claim that the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool had been vandalised.

In a motion filed on Friday afternoon, Pirro acknowledged that the accusations levelled against Hearn did not appear to be substantiated.

“The damage was the result of a botched installation and not vandalism, as initially represented by [the Department of the Interior],” Pirro wrote.

Pirro emphasised she had not received the “new information” until after the criminal indictment against Hearn had been returned. She blamed, in part, the “barebones police reports” her office had received.

“It was not until after the return of the indictment, that the DOI [US Department of the Interior] provided additional documents to the [US Attorney’s Office for Washington, DC] indicating that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in June 2026 was the result of flawed installation by the contractor,” Pirro wrote.

She added that the pressure to finish the reflecting pool renovation project before the Independence Day holiday – marking the 250th anniversary of the US – contributed to the renovation’s failure. Trump had planned several events for the occasion.

“The rush to complete the project led to hasty and botched work that was not remediated before the project was finished and the fencing removed,” Pirro explained, citing delayed installation work, inclement weather and repeated testing failures.

Why is Trump so angry with Pirro?

Trump has aggressively pushed claims that the algae and tears to the lining in the reflecting pool are the result of vandalism.

“We caught some people vandalising our beautiful reflecting pool,” Trump said at a news conference in June. “They took a cutter, a box cutter, or something very sharp. Can you imagine? Where do these people come up with this? And they threw a little fertiliser in the water.”

Separately, he suggested those responsible should face “years in jail” for their alleged crimes.

After Pirro’s announcement, Trump said she should have continued pursuing the case.

“Pirro made a mistake. It was vandalism,” Trump said, adding he was “really disappointed” in Pirro and that “she folded like an umbrella”.

According to US media reports, he has also considered firing Pirro over the reflecting pool saga.

In a post on his Truth Social Platform on Saturday, Trump said: “I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on the reflecting pool. I don’t know what she was thinking? To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM.”

Trump and Pirro spoke by phone on Saturday, according to CNN. Sources familiar with the call said their conversation “wasn’t pretty”.

Following an in-person meeting with Pirro on Monday, sources told CNN that Trump had held back from firing her.

Neither the White House nor Pirro’s office has commented.

What happened to the reflecting pool?

The 618-metre (2,028-foot) Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has served as the backdrop for many iconic moments in US history, including the 1963 March on Washington, when civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.

It sits between the Washington Monument, a large obelisk, and the Lincoln Memorial, two popular tourist sites mere blocks from the White House. But the pool had long struggled with leaks along its granite edge and concrete bottom.

In April, Trump abruptly announced he would address the problem by relining the reflecting pool with swimming pool coating in the colour of the “American Flag Blue”.

The Trump administration granted a $13.1m contract to Atlantic Industrial Coatings, a company the president claimed to have worked with as a real estate developer, and which is led by one of his donors. The deal was struck without taking competitive bids, as is standard, on the basis that the renovation was necessary immediately.

By early June, Trump had announced the project was complete. But within days, a thick layer of green algae had appeared on the surface of the pool, and the blue coating appeared cracked, with sheets of paint flapping in the water.

On June 11, a National Park Service engineer observed that the reflecting pool’s new lining had begun to peel, Pirro said in her announcement.

Citing the engineer’s report, Pirro wrote that the damage to the pool appeared to have been caused by “over spraying and delamination”.

The states claim the new levies are a pretext to re-impose tariffs that were ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court.

A group of 25 Democratic-led states has sued Donald Trump’s administration over its latest tariffs, claiming that the US president has exceeded his legal authority to implement the levies.

The lawsuit, filed in the US Court of International Trade on Monday, targets new double-digit tariffs imposed on 60 trading partners last month over allegations they were not doing enough to stop the importation of goods produced with forced labour.

These latest tariffs took effect just as the clock ran out on temporary tariffs that Trump had turned to after the Supreme Court struck down his flagship “liberation day” levies in a February ruling.

“After losing at the Supreme Court, the administration is once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses with a new round of tariffs,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The states that sued over the new tariffs, including Oregon and New York, all have Democratic attorneys general or governors.

In response, White House spokesman Kush Desai said the levies were an appropriate and legal response to unfair trade practices in other nations.

“A foreign country’s failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is unreasonable and burdens US commerce, including American workers, and must be addressed,” Desai said.

Revive US manufacturing

Trump, who argues that high tariffs will revive US manufacturing, last year overturned decades of Washington policy that favoured lower tariffs and ever-freer trade.

Invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), he imposed double-digit tariffs on imports from almost every country, saying the US’s longstanding trade deficit amounted to a national emergency.

But the Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA did not authorise tariffs. The decision forced the administration to establish a refund process for importers who had paid the tariffs.

Eager to make up the lost revenue, Trump turned to temporary 10 percent worldwide tariffs, but they expired at midnight on July 24.

The latest round of global tariffs was imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, meant to combat unfair or discriminatory economic practices by other nations. The tariffs imposed in July affect more than 99 percent of US imports.

The states’ complaint, like two previous lawsuits filed by small businesses over the tariffs, argued that the new tariffs used “forced labor” as a pretext to re-impose the tariffs that had already been ruled illegal in court. They said that a sweeping tax on imports would do nothing to address the real problems of forced labour around the world.

The former president and his wife were sentenced to 15 years last year after being convicted of money laundering.

Former Peruvian President Ollanta Humala has been released from prison after the country’s Constitutional Court overturned his 15-year prison sentence for a case linked to a globe-spanning corruption scandal involving Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht.

Humala was serving his sentence at a special detention facility in eastern Lima that houses several of Peru’s jailed former leaders. The 64-year-old and his wife, Nadine Heredia, were found guilty last year of money laundering for receiving illegal contributions from Odebrecht, now known as Novonor, and the Venezuelan government in two presidential campaigns.

Heredia subsequently received asylum in Brazil.

“It has been decided to declare the entire criminal proceedings against Ollanta Moises Humala Tasso null and void,” read the Constitutional Court ruling dated July 15 and published on Thursday.

Humala, a former army officer who led the country from 2011 to 2016, was the first Peruvian ex-leader to face trial in the Odebrecht corruption scandal, which has also tainted three other former presidents.

He had filed a habeas corpus petition – a legal request asking the court to examine whether he had been unlawfully imprisoned – which the Constitutional Court declared to be “well-founded” because it found that he had been convicted for conduct that was not legally defined as money laundering when the campaign contributions were received.

The former president’s lawyer, Wilfredo Pedraza, said that his side has received the judgement “with considerable satisfaction”.

In 2016, Odebrecht agreed to pay $3.5bn in penalties after having spent $788m in bribes to foreign leaders and government officials in order to win infrastructure projects across Latin America.

Odebrecht admitted to having paid at least $29m in bribes to Peruvian officials between 2005 and 2014.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has moved to drop a criminal charge against former Olympic athlete David Hearn, in a remarkable about-face.

In a motion filed on Friday afternoon, US Attorney Jeanine Pirro acknowledged that the accusations levelled against Hearn — blaming him for vandalising the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool — did not appear to be substantiated.

“The damage was the result of a botched installation and not vandalism, as initially represented by [the Department of the Interior],” Pirro wrote.

Earlier this month, the prosecutor had accused Hearn, an Olympic canoeist, of “forcefully and violently” ripping the newly installed liner of the Reflecting Pool, part of a renovation project Trump had championed.

She described his actions as “an affront to the dignity of our shared history” and warned that Hearn could face up to 10 years in prison for the destruction of government property.

But in Friday’s court filings, a different narrative emerged.

Pirro repeatedly emphasised she did not receive the new information until after the criminal indictment against Hearn had been returned. She blamed, in part, the “barebones police reports” her office had received.

“It was not until after the return of the indictment, that the DOI provided additional documents to the [US Attorney’s Office for Washington, DC] indicating that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in June 2026 was the result of flawed installation by the contractor,” Pirro wrote.

She added that the pressure to finish the Reflecting Pool renovation project before the Independence Day holiday — marking the 250th anniversary of the US — contributed to the renovation’s failure. Trump had planned several events for the occasion.

“The rush to complete the project led to hasty and botched work that was not remediated before the project was finished and the fencing removed,” Pirro explained, citing delayed installation work, inclement weather and repeated testing failures.

Reshaping Washington, DC

The Reflecting Pool project is one of several changes to the landscape of Washington, DC, that Trump has pursued during his second term in office.

In seeking to leave his mark on the US capital, the Republican leader has torn down the East Wing of the White House, gilded statues with a fresh coat of gold leaf, and proposed to build a large triumphal arch on the road to the Arlington National Cemetery.

Just this week, he unveiled a $22.5bn project to revamp the Dulles international airport, the main air terminal for the capital region.

Several of his public works projects have been challenged in court, including an attempt to affix his name to the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

The Reflecting Pool renovation was among Trump’s most controversial.

The 618-metre (2,028-foot) pool has served as the backdrop for many iconic moments in US history, including the 1963 March on Washington, when civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.

It sits between the Washington Monument, a large obelisk, and the Lincoln Memorial, two popular tourist sites mere blocks from the White House. But the pool had long struggled with leaks along its granite edge and concrete bottom.

In April, Trump abruptly announced he would address the problem by resurfacing the Reflecting Pool’s bottom with swimming pool coating in a shade of “American Flag Blue”.

The project, he added, would be finished “long before July 4” and at relatively little cost to the government.

By early June, Trump had announced the project was complete. But within days, a thick layer of green algae appeared on the surface of the pool, and the blue coating appeared cracked, with sheets of paint flapping in the water.

The project also attracted criticism for how the government contract for the renovations was awarded.

The Trump administration granted a $13.1m contract to Atlantic Industrial Coatings, a company he claimed to have worked with as a real estate developer, led by one of his donors. The deal was struck without taking competitive bids, as is standard, on the basis that the renovation was necessary immediately.

Within two days of the site’s final inspection, on June 11, a National Park Service engineer observed that the Reflecting Pool’s new lining had begun to peel, according to Pirro.

Citing the engineer’s report, Pirro wrote that the damage to the pool appeared to have been caused by “over spraying and delamination”.

Accusations of vandalism

But Trump had aggressively pushed accusations that the algae and tears in the Reflecting Pool’s new bottom had been the result of vandalism.

“We caught some people vandalising our beautiful Reflecting Pool,” Trump said at a news conference in June. “They took a cutter, a box cutter, or something very sharp. Can you imagine? Where do these people come up with this? And they threw a little fertiliser in the water.”

Separately, he suggested those responsible should face “years in jail” for their alleged crimes.

Hearn, a three-time Olympian representing the US, has said he was among the members of the public drawn to the hullabaloo surrounding the Reflecting Pool’s controversial renovation.

In media interviews, he admitted he bicycled past the pool, reached in and felt the peeling sealant, out of curiosity. He has adamantly denied, however, damaging any property.

Hearn was among at least seven people arrested or cited over alleged damage to the Reflecting Pool. His indictment was announced at a news conference held by Pirro on July 2.

Friday’s motion to dismiss arrived just four weeks later. In it, Pirro acknowledged the peeling was not caused by vandalism.

She wrote that the revelation came around July 17, when her office inspected the Reflecting Pool site, which had once again been drained for repairs.

“It was at that time that [the US Attorney’s Office] first became aware of the significant damage throughout the pool and accordingly requested all documents from [the Department of the Interior] concerning how the pool was lined,” Pirro said.

Her office received “695 megabytes of additional documents” in return, revealing “a rushed and flawed installation process”.

Since indicting Hearn, Pirro’s office has faced questions about whether it was pursuing justice — or simply doing Trump’s political bidding, as he seeks to save face after the botched renovation.

The withdrawn indictment also comes as courts have repeatedly pressed the Department of Justice about prosecutions that appear to be hastily submitted and lacking in evidence.

“ Did you ultimately decide to charge this so harshly at the president’s direction?” one reporter asked Pirro at the outset of Hearn’s case.

“I didn’t charge anything harshly. I charge according to the evidence,” she replied at the time.

In a statement, Hearn’s legal team called the case an “abuse of government power”. They added that the Trump administration owes their client an apology.

Kizza Besigye, who faces treason charges, is reported to be ‘unconscious’ in hospital after collapsing in court.

Detained Ugandan opposition leader Kizza Besigye has been hospitalised in an unresponsive state after he collapsed during a court hearing on Wednesday, according to his wife.

Besigye, who has been in prison since late 2024 on treason charges, is now “unconscious, unable to speak, and unresponsive”, his wife, Winnie Byanyima, said in a post on X on Thursday.

He has been admitted to the intensive care unit at Mulago National Referral Hospital in the capital, Kampala, added Winnie Byanyima, who also ‌heads the United Nations AIDS programme UNAIDS.

Byanyima has called for her husband to be transferred out of Mulago hospital, a public facility, and into a private facility where he can be treated by his personal physician.

“[Besigye’s] family is saying he needs special treatment and they do not trust the government hospital,” reported Al Jazeera’s Catherine Soi from Nairobi in neighbouring Kenya.

“There’s a lot of frustration. The court has not granted that permission for him to be transferred.”

‘Not responding to anything’

Besigye, 70, was seen falling into the dock during his Wednesday courtroom session while protesting against his trial without lawyers of his own choosing, after authorities also detained and charged his main lawyer, Erias Lukwago.

“Before he collapsed, he cried out that he was being injured,” said Byanyima.

Ingrid Turinawe, a close confidant of Besigye, told The Associated Press that she and others were not allowed to see Besigye at Mulago hospital.

“He is in the ICU, and he is not responding to anything,” she said, adding that Besigye’s personal physician was able to see him several hours after he collapsed.

Besigye, a former ally-turned-critic of longtime President Yoweri ‌Museveni, has been in custody since November 2024. He was jailed together with his aide Obeid Lutale in Kenya and ⁠both were repatriated to Uganda where they were subsequently charged with treason.

Besigye’s lawyers, ⁠supporters and rights activists say ⁠that the charges are politically motivated and that his prolonged detention is part of an ongoing crackdown on opponents by ‌Museveni.

Both Museveni and his son, military chief Muhoozi Kainerugaba, have already weighed in against Besigye.

Kainerugaba, alleging that Besigye plotted to kill his father, has previously described the opposition figure as “a dead man walking”. And Museveni himself has said Besigye must answer for “the very serious offences he is alleged to have been planning”.

In recent days, prosecutors have moved to present evidence they say will prove Besigye and others plotted to overthrow the government

Museveni, 81, was declared winner of the last election in January although the results were rejected by ‌runner-up ‌Bobi Wine, who has since gone into exile in the United States.

Interim United States Attorney General Todd Blanche is facing a possible roadblock from within the Republican Party as he faces a confirmation hearing to formally lead the Department of Justice.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Republican Senator John Cornyn said he was still sceptical about confirming Blanche to the top federal law enforcement position in the country.

“I’m not prepared to vote yes,” said Cornyn.

The senator’s comments come a day before a key committee vote in the US Senate to move Blanche’s nomination forward.

Cornyn cited concerns about Blanche’s current stewardship of the Department of Justice, which he has led in an acting capacity since April.

Previously, Blanche served as deputy attorney general, and before joining President Donald Trump’s second term, he worked as the Republican leader’s criminal defence lawyer.

But Cornyn has questioned a rare settlement Blanche brokered in May, in response to a lawsuit Trump filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Under the deal, Trump and his family would be shielded from future IRS audits. The scheme also created a so-called “anti-weaponisation fund”, under which individuals deemed to have faced alleged political persecution could seek financial compensation.

Blanche has backed away from the “anti-weaponisation fund” amid bipartisan backlash. Critics had described it as a slush fund that would benefit the president’s allies.

Earlier this month, a federal judge also ruled the settlement illegal, accusing Blanche of double-dealing by working on behalf of both the federal government and Trump as a private citizen.

During his confirmation hearing, Blanche again assured lawmakers that the fund was dead, but Cornyn said he was awaiting written guarantees on the matter.

“I haven’t seen a single piece ⁠of writing that is responsive to what I’ve requested,” Cornyn told reporters.

Committee vote looms

Cornyn spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hold a Thursday vote on Blanche’s nomination, the first step in a wider Senate debate on his confirmation.

All Republicans on the committee would need to vote in favour of Blanche for him to progress to the broader confirmation hearing.

While Republican lawmakers have generally been wary of opposing Trump, Cornyn has become an increasingly public critic of the president in recent months.

Trump endorsed Cornyn’s primary opponent, former Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in May. Paxton went on to win the Republican Party’s nomination in May, allowing him to progress to the midterm election in November.

That race will see Paxton take on Democratic upstart James Talarico in what is expected to be one of the closest Senate races of the season.

Cornyn will leave the Senate, where he has served for more than two decades, at the end of his term in January.

In an Oval Office news conference on Wednesday, President Trump was asked about Cornyn’s reticence about approving Blanche for the attorney general role.

“ Well, all I can say is Todd Blanche is outstanding,” Trump said, before questioning Cornyn’s motives.

“Maybe John Cornyn’s upset with me because I didn’t endorse him. I don’t know what it is, but I haven’t heard that there’s a problem.”

Critics have accused Blanche of placing his loyalty to Trump above all else, including by using the Department of Justice to prosecute the president’s political adversaries.

Under Blanche’s watch, for instance, the Justice Department chose to file a second indictment against James Comey, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, over a social media message made of seashells.

Blanche has denied any claims that his relationship with Trump presents a conflict of interest, saying he acts independently of the president.

However, he did little to shed the perception during a mid-July hearing before US lawmakers. Senator John Kennedy, a Republican, asked at the time if Blanche considered Trump a “friend”.

“I’m his lawyer,” Blanche replied, before quickly correcting himself to say “was his lawyer”.

The Department of Justice has had a long tradition of prosecutorial independence, whereby criminal charges are not meant to be influenced by politics.

By almost every measure, Latino communities are bearing the brunt of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign, according to a new report.

The League of United Latin American Citizens or LULAC, a Latino civil rights organization, found that court-sanctioned racial profiling has contributed to the disproportionate targeting of Latinos regardless of their immigration status.

“The impact of mass deportation is falling on Latinos as an ethnic group, not on undocumented immigrants as a legal category,” the report read in part. “U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, work-authorized immigrants, and multi-generational American families are absorbing measurable harm: economic, physical, and civic.”

Although other immigrant groups have been targeted, LULAC found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have mostly focused on immigrants from Latin America, particularly workers with no criminal history, who are also more likely to face violence or be placed in detention centers with substandard conditions.

Citing a recent UCLA study, LULAC said from January to October, federal immigration agents arrested more than 187,000 Latinos and deported more than 126,000.

Latino arrests also jumped from under 3,900 to nearly 6,000 after Stephen Miller, White House senior advisor and chief architect of President Trump’s immigration policy, set a new goal of arresting 3,000 undocumented people a day.

In an email response to The Times, a spokesperson with the Department of Homeland Security rejected the report’s findings.

“Allegations that DHS law enforcement engages in ‘racial profiling’ are disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE,” the spokesperson wrote. “What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is if they are illegally in the U.S.—NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity.”

“Law enforcement officers use ‘reasonable suspicion’ to investigate immigration status and probable cause to make arrests consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” the spokesperson added. “The Supreme Court has already vindicated us on these practices.”

LULAC’s report comes amid recent court filings claiming that federal immigration agents were caught on body camera footage and in text messages using racial slurs when referring to Latinos.

Additionally, Congress recently approved nearly $70 billion in immigration enforcement funding to cover the rest of Trump’s term with at least $38 billion to go to ICE and $26 billion to Customs and Border Protection.

LULAC said in putting the report together it reviewed public data and published studies to provide a fact sheet that paints a broader picture about the impact mass deportations are having on Latinos.

“The people being removed are disproportionately working-age, employed and without criminal records — the demographic core of the workforce in construction, hospitality, agriculture, food processing, and care work,” the report read.

As of July 11, more than 65,000 people were being held in detention and about 70% of the population had no criminal convictions, according to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data gathering organization.

ICE detention data show that about 40% of detainees were being held for civil immigration violations including visa overstays and work visa violations.

Unless previously deported, living in the country illegally is considered a civil violation rather than a crime and carries penalties such as arrests, fines and deportation proceedings.

The indiscriminate immigration raids that terrorized Latino communities appeared to have worsened after the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in September, according to LULAC’s report.

The Supreme Court justices overturned a district court injunction that barred immigration agents in Los Angeles from roving around Home Depots and car washes, stopping brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking day laborers and others from arrest on immigration charges.

But once the injunction lifted, federal immigration agents descended once more on Latino communities, even stopping U.S. citizens, according to LULAC.

This month, the American Civil Liberties Union reviewed more than 1,200 enforcement incidents across eight states, identifying 155 U.S. citizens who were detained, targeted, or experienced law enforcement misconduct, and 437 incidents involving likely racial profiling. It also identified 214 children affected, including 32 Americans.

LULAC said the immigration raids had an economic impact. Citing a recent UCLA study, it said small business and Latino entrepreneurs in Los Angeles County saw foot traffic drop significantly, losing millions in potential revenue in June 2025.

A spokesperson for LULAC could not immediately be reached for comment.

POP superstar George Michael’s estate is suing his former best pal over footage from the recording of a lost album.

Andros Georgiou, 63, faces court for charging fans to watch scenes which he recorded of the ex-Wham! star.

George’s former best friend said he would be “turning in his grave” after the pop singer’s estate sued him over video footage of a secret unreleased album.

The Wham! star’s lawyers are taking Andros to court after he released almost 90 minutes of unseen footage shot in 1992 and 1993.

Andros launched a website last month charging fans to watch the film Trojan Souls — The Greatest Album That Was Never Made.

The record was to feature Elton John, Stevie Wonder, Janet Jackson, Aretha Franklin, Bryan Ferry, Seal and Sade.

NAGA QUITS

Bullying row & crude jokes – Naga’s Munchetty’s downfall as she quits BBC

wild ROMANCE

Princess Andre can’t keep up with ‘extreme’ mum Katie Price’s marriage to Lee

But the legal team from George’s estate has now lodged a case against him at London’s Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, claiming its rights have been breached.

Furious Andros, 63, said the legal claim was “a case of sheer greed”.

On George, he said: “Yes, we fell out, but we loved and cared for each other deeply, and I find the baseless claims and the constant attempts to erase me from history both disrespectful and, frankly, a bit desperate.

“The film belongs to me.

“Trojan Souls belongs to me.

“They’ve opened Pandora’s Box.

“They won’t want me on the stand.

“I know way too much.

“Bring it on.”

Andros’s film shows the making of tracks for Trojan Souls: The Voice of Reason, a collaboration album with global superstars.

Pop fans are being asked to pay £4.99 for 48 hours of access to the 90-minute video online.

Tribe Media is also selling £19.99 VIP tiers, promising access to never-before-heard recordings of George’s unreleased songs from the record.

Andros shot the video using a camcorder given to him by Sony while they were in Japan on George’s Faith tour.

Andros said: “First and foremost — my brother in arms, my best friend, George Michael to you, Yog to me — would turn in his grave knowing what Russells (the estate’s lawyers) are attempting — and spending his money to do it.”

He went on: “It is well known Yog and I were working on Trojan Souls through my record label, Hardback Records.

“The film I have released was shot by me, with Yog’s full approval.

“This was a home video leaked over 30 years ago.

“It kept resurfacing on YouTube.

“So I decided, if you can’t beat them, put the film out myself, since others were already profiting from my home video.”

The legal case lists Andros and Tribe Media, the production house distributing the film.

The claimants are Robobuild Limited and Big Geoff Overseas Limited, the holding companies George used to manage royalties and world tours.

Andros and George were estranged before the star’s death on Christmas Day, 2016, but had been planning to reconcile.

They fell out after George’s arrest in an LA public toilet in 1998.

But Andros had spoken to his pal on the phone in the final weeks of his life.

The pair had a close friendship for decades after their fathers moved to the UK from Cyprus together in 1953.

Most of the one-hour 24-minute film shows George playing the piano, performing vocals with backing singers, grabbing a bass and talking to producers about his track list in an LA studio.

George lost interest in the album when his then-partner Anselmo Feleppa’s health declined.

Anselmo, who suffered from Aids, died in March 1993.

George never completed the album.

It can take up to two years for a case at the court to reach trial.

Lawyers for George Michael’s estate were asked to comment.

A lower court blocked the mail-in ballot restrictions, ruling Trump lacked authority to change state election rules.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow it to move ahead with sweeping restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of November’s midterm elections, as it continues its push to reshape how federal elections are run.

In an emergency filing on Monday, the Justice Department asked the country’s highest court to pause a lower court ruling that blocked parts of Trump’s March executive order in 23 Democratic-led states and Washington, DC. The pause would remain in effect as the legal challenges play out, per the request.

The executive order directed federal agencies to help create state lists of eligible voters and required the US Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. It also instructed the Justice Department to prioritise investigations into election officials accused of issuing ballots to ineligible voters.

US District Judge Indira Talwani blocked the order in June, ruling that Trump lacked the authority to unilaterally change how states administer federal elections. She noted that under the Constitution, states oversee voter-eligibility requirements.

Over the weekend, the First US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause that ruling, prompting the administration to take the issue to the Supreme Court.

In its request to the top court, the administration argued that the order amounted to “general policy guidance” rather than a directive dictating how states should administer elections.

Solicitor General John Sauer wrote: “The injunction is especially indefensible because the agencies are still deliberating over how (if at all) to implement the Order, yet the district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful.”

He urged the Supreme Court to act quickly as the new policy would have to be in place by August to be effective by the midterm election in November.

Trump has long claimed, without evidence, that widespread voter fraud undermined the 2020 presidential election and has repeatedly questioned the security of mail-in voting, despite studies showing that such fraud is rare.

He has promised to end the widespread use of mail ballots before the midterms, which will determine which party takes control of the US House of Representatives and Senate.

Voting rights advocates say restricting mail-in voting could disproportionately affect Democratic voters, who have historically been more likely than Republicans to cast their ballots by mail.

WASHINGTON — In its latest move to restrict the legal immigration system, the Trump administration announced a sweeping change Monday that could lead to the deportations of thousands of asylum seekers.

The change from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services allows asylum officers to bypass the need to interview certain applicants and instead refer them directly to immigration judges for removal proceedings.

The agency estimates that up to a third, or 444,000 of the more than 1.4 million asylum cases in its backlog, could be affected by the rule.

The administration framed the move as an effort to streamline the process and reduce the backlog of cases. The interim final rule takes effect Tuesday and is subject to a 60-day public comment period.

“For far too long the asylum system has been exploited for purposes of delay and work authorization, not legitimate claims of protection,” USCIS Director Joseph Edlow said in a news release.

“America’s asylum system exists to protect individuals who genuinely fear persecution and this rule will help ensure that resources are directed to the timely adjudication of those claims instead of to those seeking to use the system as a loophole,” Edlow added.

But advocates for immigrants said the change leaves asylum seekers who tried to follow the law vulnerable to deportation.

Migrants can apply for asylum two ways: affirmatively or defensively.

Those who entered the country legally, such as on a visa, and still have lawful status apply with USCIS and have their cases decided by an asylum officer. Those who crossed the border illegally or who are undocumented can apply after being placed into removal proceedings, where they make their case to an immigration judge.

Immigration courts are not an independent system — they are housed under the Department of Justice and judges are federal employees.

That shift is significant because the Trump administration has fired more than 100 immigration judges and replaced them with military lawyers and former prosecutors for the Department of Homeland Security. Many of the fired judges were appointed during the Biden administration or previously worked as lawyers representing immigrants.

In recent months, immigration courts have approved a dwindling percentage of asylum claims as judges face pressure to approve more deportations. After immigration agents began arresting people in courthouses, many immigrants grew wary of showing up for court proceedings, which has aided the increase in removal orders.

USCIS refers thousands of cases to immigration courts each year, federal data shows. During the first half of this fiscal year, the agency transferred 31,454 cases to immigration courts — a number that was already on track to be higher than the 2025 yearly total of 40,932. The highest yearly total was 61,729 cases in 2019, during Trump’s first presidency.

USCIS said the current policy, which requires an asylum officer to first interview an applicant before deciding whether to send the case to an immigration judge, “essentially allows an alien to get a second chance at asylum.”

Todd Schulte, president of the immigrant advocacy organization FWD.us, noted that the rule change comes just after the Trump administration terminated temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and others, many of whom entered the U.S. legally and applied for asylum the “affirmative” way. On X, Schulte called the move “a terrible harbinger.”

The ‘Farmgate’ scandal nearly cost President Cyril Ramaphosa the leadership of his African National Congress in 2022.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has won a court challenge temporarily halting a parliamentary impeachment process over misconduct allegations linked to the “Farmgate” scandal.

The Western Cape High Court granted Ramaphosa an “interim interdict” that temporarily prevents the impeachment committee from proceeding with public hearings while the president challenges the legality of a 2022 report that found he “may have committed” serious violations and misconduct.

“Pending the determination by this court of the applicant’s review … respondents are interdicted from proceeding with a public impeachment hearing,” Judge Andre le Grange announced on Friday.

“Farmgate”, a scandal involving half a million dollars stashed in a sofa at Ramaphosa’s ranch, nearly cost the president the leadership of his African National Congress (ANC) in late 2022. Meanwhile, allegations of corruption within the party contributed to the ANC losing its majority in an election in May 2024, the most closely contested vote in South Africa‘s democracy.

Ramaphosa has always denied any wrongdoing and ruled out resigning over the incident since the allegedly undeclared stash of foreign currency came to light after it was reported stolen in 2020.

The president said the $580,000 that was hidden at his luxury Phala Phala farmhouse in the northern Limpopo province was proceeds from the sale of buffaloes. But the episode has been a major embarrassment, raising questions about why he had so much money stuffed in furniture.

Friday’s ruling is a boost for Ramaphosa as he also awaits the outcome of a separate court case challenging an independent panel’s findings that he may have a case to answer over the scandal.

Ramaphosa’s spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said the president respects the ruling.

“[He] reaffirms his respect of judicial independence and separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution,” Magwenya said in a statement. “The president will continue to cooperate with and abide by processes of accountability.”

Political analysts expect Ramaphosa to remain in power, even if the impeachment process does get off the ground and ultimately leads to a vote on whether he should be removed from office.

Ramaphosa still enjoys the backing of his ANC party, the country’s biggest, which leads a coalition government. The ANC holds about 40 percent of seats in the National Assembly. It is not clear how all the ANC’s coalition partners would vote in the impeachment process.

Withdrawal is latest instance of government’s efforts to crack down on critical media facing setbacks in court.

Attorneys for the United States government have withdrawn subpoenas seeking to compel three New York Times reporters to testify about their sources for a story about an Air Force One jet gifted to US President Donald Trump by Qatar.

Judge Arun Subramanian slammed the government’s lawyers for what he deemed sloppy legal work in an exchange in court on Thursday.

“Subpoenas are not the first thing you do; they are the last thing you do,” an irritated Subramanian said.

“When you see something like this, if this were a civil proceeding, what I would normally do is ask the parties to show causes why sanctions should not be issued,” he added.

The Trump administration had sought to keep the proceedings secret as it pressured the reporters to reveal their sources for a story, a request that raised alarms for US press freedoms as the president and his allies continue to aggressively target critical media and political opponents.

Such efforts, however, have largely been rejected in court. The US government recently withdrew similar subpoenas that sought to compel testimony from reporters with the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.

Lawyers for the New York Times challenged the legitimacy of the grand jury subpoenas along with subpoenas for the phone records of several journalists and their relatives. The paper’s managing editor and general counsel sat in the gallery during proceedings on Thursday.

The government has said that it is pursuing those who have leaked material to reporters for a story about Trump taking an older model Air Force One jet back from a summit in Turkiye, rather than the one gifted from Qatar.

The Secret Service reportedly advised that the new jet, which the government has spent $400m to retrofit and upgrade, lacks important security features such as antimissile capabilities.

“Reporters are not the targets; those leaking classified information are,” the Department of Justice said of the subpoena requests.

Obtaining information from government sources is a cornerstone of journalism, and national security reporting in particular and is considered essential to press freedom. Efforts by the US government under both Democratic and Republican administrations to compel reporters to disclose their sources have been viewed as an effort to weaken those protections.

The order prevents thousands from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine from losing work authorisation while lawsuit proceeds.

A United States federal judge has temporarily blocked the administration of US President Donald Trump from revoking work permits for tens of thousands of asylum seekers and immigrants with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), preventing a policy that was set to take effect as early as Wednesday.

On Tuesday, US District Judge Nathaniel Gorton sided with immigrant rights groups and labour unions challenging a series of new US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies that implement immigration restrictions passed by Congress last year.

In the five-page order, he wrote, “The consequences faced by plaintiffs are potentially severe.” The order will stay in place while he considers whether to issue a longer-term injunction, with a decision expected by August 5.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this month by a coalition of organisations represented by the legal group Democracy Forward, challenged a number of recent USCIS policy changes. Those include a new policy allowing the agency to reject pending asylum applications and revoke work permits if applicants don’t pay a newly created annual asylum fee, as well as its decision to scrap a decades-old rule requiring initial asylum work permit applications to be processed within 30 days. The lawsuit argued USCIS made the changes without public input, as required by law.

It also challenged the retroactive application of the new rules to people from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine, who are still protected by TPS, which allows people from countries affected by war, natural disasters or other major crises to live and work legally in the US until it is considered safe for them to return home.

“This decision protects thousands of asylum seekers and TPS holders from immediate and irreparable harm while this case moves forward,” said Democracy Forward president, Skye Perryman, in a statement. “Without this relief, families who have followed the law and relied on longstanding humanitarian protections faced the sudden loss of their employment authorisation and ability to support themselves through no fault of their own.”

The ruling means thousands of TPS holders from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine will be able to keep working while the legal challenge moves forward.

While the judge didn’t block the collection of the asylum fee on Tuesday, he did temporarily block the consequences of not paying it, including having an individual’s application rejected or work permit terminated.

The controversial provisions were introduced as part of Trump’s signature tax and spending law, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in July 2025.

The Trump administration has made ending TPS protections a central part of its immigration agenda, moving to take the status away from people from more than a dozen countries. Last month, the US Supreme Court allowed the administration to end protections for thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants.

USCIS did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Reuters news agency.

Influencer brothers Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate have been arrested in Miami, in the US state of Florida, after prosecutors in the United Kingdom brought further rape and sex trafficking charges against them.

The brothers were taken into custody on Saturday on a sealed warrant, the United States Marshals Service said, placing the US at the centre of an international legal saga that has stretched from Romania to the UK.

Raised in the UK, the Tate brothers hold dual US and UK citizenship. The UK government says it will seek their extradition to face 38 new charges of rape, sex trafficking and assault.

Here is what we know about the Tate brothers, their arrest and the possibility of extradition:

Who are the Tate Brothers?

Andrew, 39, and Tristan, 38, are former professional kickboxers. They are known for their social media empire promoting wealth, male dominance and misogyny.

Andrew is one of the most prominent proponents of the so-called “manosphere” network of communities, many of them online, that focus on traditional masculinity, antifeminism and self-improvement. He promotes his divisive views, often incorporating alpha-male and aggressively misogynistic themes, to millions on social media, including 10.8 million followers on X.

Andrew has been banned from platforms like YouTube, TikTok and Instagram for violating hate speech guidelines. He also runs an online academy where he says he teaches young men how to get rich and attract women.

The brothers are also avid supporters of US President Donald Trump.

What are the new charges against the Tates?

British prosecutors say the 59 new charges – 42 against Andrew and 17 against Tristan – relate to alleged offences that took place between 2010 and 2017.

They said Andrew was charged with seven further counts of rape, three counts of arranging or facilitating trafficking for sexual exploitation, three counts of assault, and 19 charges for offences relating to indecent images of a child and extreme pornography.

Tristan was charged with one count of sexual assault, two counts of rape and three counts of arranging or facilitating sex trafficking.

“We have decided to prosecute Andrew and Tristan Tate for further offences including rape, arranging or facilitating trafficking for sexual exploitation and offences relating to indecent images of a child,” the UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said in a statement.

Since the arrest warrant was sealed, US Marshals did not disclose the charges on which the Tate brothers were arrested.

Their lawyer, Joseph McBride, said the brothers “are innocent”.

“We are confident that once a competent judge sees the facts, and once the Department of Justice confronts this egregious abuse of its own authority, Andrew and Tristan Tate will walk free,” McBride said in a statement.

What are the other charges against the brothers?

Andrew and Tristan already face multiple charges in the UK and Romania, where they moved to in 2016.

Four women have accused Andrew of physical and sexual abuse.

The claimants, who have been granted anonymity, allege the elder Tate subjected them to physical or sexual violence between 2013 and 2015. Two say they were in an intimate relationship with him, while two worked for his online webcam business.

In June, a UK High Court judge threw out a legal bid by the Tates to be told the names of their accusers.

In Romania, the siblings were arrested in late 2022 along with two Romanian women. The four were accused of participating in criminal schemes to lure women for sexual exploitation. They denied the allegations and the Romanian case has not gone forward because of legal and procedural problems. The case has not been closed.

Andrew has repeatedly claimed that prosecutors in Romania have no evidence against him and that there is a political conspiracy to silence him.

The Tate brothers are also accused of tax evasion and money laundering in the UK.

The UK CPS said it is seeking their extradition.

“The CPS has requested the extradition of the Tates from the US,” it said, adding that the latest charges stem from receipt of new evidence from Bedfordshire police that brings the total number of alleged victims in the Tates’ case to seven.

The British police previously sought the Tates’ extradition to the UK once their legal proceedings in Romania concluded.

But in February 2025, they were allowed to leave Romania after authorities lifted travel restrictions, and they flew to Florida on a private jet.

Romania’s foreign minister said at the time that a US official in the Trump administration had expressed interest in the brothers’ legal case in Romania.

Trump said he knew “nothing about” the case when asked if his administration pressured the Romanian government to release the Tates.

In all, 32 defendants convicted and 25 acquitted or cleared by statute ‌of limitations over 2018 Morandi bridge disaster.

A court has sentenced the former CEO of Italy’s main highway operator ⁠to 12 years in prison over the collapse of the Morandi road bridge in the port city of Genoa.

Judges delivered their verdict on Thursday in Genoa in the first trial over the collapse of the bridge, which killed 43 people when it fell apart on August 14, 2018. It is considered one of the country’s worst infrastructure disasters.

Atlantia CEO Giovanni Castellucci ⁠was found guilty of vehicular homicide and negligence related to the Morandi bridge’s collapse.

The bridge was operated by Atlantia’s motorway unit, Autostrade per l’Italia, which has come under severe scrutiny in this affair.

Castellucci is already in prison, serving a six-year sentence over another fatal incident in 2013 on a viaduct in southern Italy, and was not in court to hear the verdict.

Also convicted on Thursday were Autostrade’s former head of maintenance, Michele Donferri Mitelli, who was sentenced to 11 years in prison and the former CEO of the SPEA engineering company, Antonino Galata, who received five years and six months.

In all, 32 people were convicted and handed sentences ranging from one year and 11 months to 12 years. Others were either found not guilty, or lesser charges had expired under the statute of limitations.

Relatives of the victims, meanwhile, packed the court to hear the outcome of a case that has become a symbol of Italy’s decaying infrastructure and slow justice system. The verdict came after four years of trial hearings for 57 defendants, including company executives, engineers and transport ministry officials, on charges of manslaughter, endangering transport safety and falsifying official documents.

The 1,182-metre (1,293-yard) bridge, which had been dubbed Italy’s “Brooklyn Bridge”, was designed by the architect Riccardo Morandi and inaugurated in 1967.

By the turn of the century, experts continued to warn that the structure was deteriorating, yet critical repairs were never carried out.

Prosecutor Walter Cotugno dubbed the bridge “a ticking time bomb” at the verdict.

The collapse of the then-51-year-old bridge triggered years of investigations into the maintenance of its decrepit infrastructure. A 50-metre (160-foot) high section of the bridge collapsed with as many as 35 vehicles on it, which fell onto warehouses and a riverbed below.

“I ⁠wish to apologise to the victims’ families, to the people of Genoa, and to all Italians for the suffering caused by the tragic Morandi disaster, fully aware that our gesture can never erase their pain,” Autostrade CEO Arrigo Giana wrote in an apology statement on Wednesday.

Prosecutors argue that years of ‌inadequate maintenance, ignored warning signs and delayed safety work contributed to the collapse, alleging that vital work was postponed, while profits continued to be generated and distributed.

The defence’s main argument was that the bridge had a hidden construction defect, namely corrosion of its cables, that caused its collapse, not a lack of maintenance.

BLUE singer Lee Ryan could face jail for racially abusing a black flight attendant in a drunken plane attack.

The Blue star, 43, sunk half a bottle of port and tucked into cheese in the BA lounge before boarding the flight at Glasgow.

Ryan previously avoided jail for racially aggravated common assault by beating, which carries a maximum seven-year jail term.

The singer was also convicted of behaving in an abusive way towards the cabin crew member and admitted being drunk on an aircraft.

He was handed a 12 month sentence suspended for 18 months at a sentencing hearing in September 2023.

But the singer’s punishment was rescinded pending a bid to overturn his conviction at Isleworth Crown Court.

A judge rejected that original appeal so Ryan instead took the case to the High Court.

Ryan could now face a jail term for his crimes after Lord Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Johnson rejected his claim and sent his case back to the crown court, which impose more serious punishments.

The court heard previously how Ryan left cabin crew worker Leah Gordon in tears after calling her a racial slur during the drunken plane attack.

The court was told he called her “beautiful” before grabbing her wrists and commenting on her “complexion”.

Ms Gordon said: “It felt like he was saying I was beautiful for a black person because of the way he was describing my colour.”

He was also “slurring his words and staggering around” as he asked: “Do you know who I am?”

Ryan claimed in his evidence he had no recollection of the flight other than an “annoying” a passenger next to him.

He said his actions were “playful” and denied being racist.

The singer added: “I’m sorry.

“My band member is black, I’m not racist, I’ve had black girlfriends, mixed-race girlfriends.

“It was banter, just drunk banter I suppose, there was no malice or intention to upset anyone.”

Ryan was arrested at London City Airport by armed cops following the attack on July 31 last year and spent the night in the cells.

He later told police he would give Ms Gordon Blue tickets for their next tour as an apology.

At an appeal at Isleworth Crown Court in November 2024, Ryan denied he had grabbed hold of the victim’s wrists.

He complained adverse inferences were drawn against him because his account about whether he took the woman’s wrists in his hands had changed between police interview and court.

Giving judgment, the judges said: “It was a case where the defendant had given one account at interview – an admission that he had grabbed Ms Gordon’s wrists, albeit without menace – but then gave an inconsistent account at trial – a denial that he had grabbed her wrists.

“His explanation for the inconsistency was rejected by the court.

“The central task for the crown court was to assess the reliability and credibility of the competing accounts given by Ms Gordon and Mr Ryan.

“In doing so, it was entitled to rely on the inconsistency between Mr Ryan’s account in interview, which coincided with Ms Gordon’s allegation that he had grabbed her wrists, and the account he gave in evidence.

“The essential reasoning of the court was that it believed Ms Gordon, who had been sober at the time and who was a consistent and compelling witness, and they disbelieved Mr Ryan, who had been drunk at the time and had been inconsistent. That was sufficient for the court to dismiss the appeal.

“It follows that the court was right to regard the application to state a case as frivolous. There is no error in its decision to decline to state a case.

“The claim is dismissed. Mr Ryan will therefore now be sentenced by the crown court.”

Ryan was arrested at London City Airport by armed cops following the attack on July 31 last year and spent the night in the cells.

He later told police he would give Ms Gordon Blue tickets for their next tour as an apology.

Ryan formed boy band Blue in 2000 with Antony Costa, Duncan James and Simon Webbe. 

They have since sold 14million records and had three Number 1 albums.

Their biggest hits include songs All Rise, Too Close, One Love and U Make Me Wanna.