deal

NEW YORK — The Trump administration on Thursday launched TrumpRx, a website it says will help patients buy prescription drugs directly at a discounted rate at a time when healthcare and the cost of living are growing concerns for Americans.

“You’re going to save a fortune,” President Trump said at the site’s unveiling. “And this is also so good for overall healthcare.”

The government-hosted website is not a platform for buying medications. Instead, it’s set up as a facilitator, pointing Americans to drugmakers’ direct-to-consumer websites, where they can make purchases. It also provides coupons to use at pharmacies. The site launches with over 40 medications, including weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy.

The site is part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to show it’s tackling the challenges of high costs. Affordability has emerged as a political vulnerability for Trump and his Republican allies going into November’s midterm elections, as Americans remain worried about the cost of housing, groceries, utilities and other staples of middle-class identity.

Trump stressed that the lower prices were made possible by his pressuring of pharmaceutical companies on prices, saying he demanded that they charge the same costs in the U.S. as in other nations. He said prescription drug costs will increase in foreign countries as a result.

“We’re tired of subsidizing the world,” Trump said at the evening event on the White House campus that lasted roughly 20 minutes.

The administration is touting substantial discounts, though it’s unclear just how much impact the changes will have for family budgets. The site includes the disclaimer that prices “may be even lower” for people with insurance, as it lists the “out-of-pocket price.” Also, some consumers might be able to use available generics that cost less than brand-name medications.

Still, Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, hyped the website as being transformative. He said the lower prices for Ozempic and Wegovy would cause the country to collectively lose 100 million pounds this year. He suggested that lower prices for the fertility drug Gonal-F would trigger pregnancies nationwide.

“We’re going to have a lot of Trump babies with these costs,” Oz said.

The president first teased TrumpRx in September while announcing the first of his more than 15 deals with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices to match the lowest price offered in other developed nations. He said in December the website would provide “massive discounts to all consumers” — though it’s unclear whether the prices available on drugmakers’ websites will routinely be any lower than what many consumers could get through their insurance coverage.

The website’s Thursday release came after it faced multiple delays, for reasons the administration hasn’t publicly shared. Last fall, Oz told Trump the site would share prices for consumers before the end of the year. An expected launch in late January was also pushed back.

The president has spent the past several months seeking to spotlight his efforts to lower drug prices for Americans. He’s done that through deals with major pharmaceutical companies, including some of the biggest drugmakers like Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Merck, which have agreed to lower prices of their Medicaid drugs to so-called “most favored nations” pricing. As part of the deals, many of the companies’ new drugs are also to be launched at discounted rates for consumer markets through TrumpRx.

Many of the details of Trump’s deals with manufacturers remain unclear, and drug prices for patients in the U.S. can depend on many factors, including the competition a treatment faces and insurance coverage. Most people have coverage through work, the individual insurance market or government programs like Medicaid and Medicare, which shield them from much of the cost.

Trump’s administration also has negotiated lower prices for several prescription drugs for Medicare enrollees, through a direct negotiation program created by a 2022 law.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

A key nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia has expired today, creating the potential for significant changes in U.S. force posture. This could include loading more warheads into Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), restoring nuclear weapons capability to dozens of B-52 bombers, sending Ohio class ballistic missile submarines on patrol with extra Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), or fielding all-new capabilities. There are reports that American and Russian officials are negotiating a voluntary commitment to leave the two countries’ nuclear arsenals as they are, but this would be a temporary measure that could still leave open the door to a new arms race if a more permanent agreement cannot be reached.

U.S. and Russian Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev signed the New START Treaty in 2010, and it entered into force the following year. The terms of the deal included a provision for a one-time five-year extension, which U.S. and Russian Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin agreed to in 2021. Russia formally suspended its participation in the treaty in 2023, citing U.S. actions in relation to the war in Ukraine, but said it would voluntarily continue to abide by the imposed limits. The agreement now sunsets for good today. Years of U.S.-Russian negotiations have so far failed to produce a follow-on treaty.

New START limited each country to 700 deployed strategic missiles and bombers (700), 1,550 total strategic nuclear warheads, and 800 relevant deployed and non-deployed launchers. For purposes of the treaty, strategic missiles were defined as ICBMs and SLBMs. Each reentry vehicle inside a single ICBM or SLBM, as well as each nuclear-capable heavy bomber, counted as a single warhead. Bombers, along with silos and mobile transporter-erector launchers for IBCMs and SLBM launch tubes on submarines, were all treated as individual launchers.

Axios has reported that U.S. and Russian negotiators in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates have been working to finalize a non-legally-binding voluntary commitment to stick to the New START limits at least for another six months. Delegations from the United States and Russia were already in the Middle Eastern country for talks regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Those meetings have separately produced an agreement to re-establish a high-level U.S.-Russian military-to-military dialogue for the first time since 2021.

The Kremlin had released a statement yesterday that, in part, reiterated a call Putin first made last September for both parties “to commit to voluntary self-limitations to keep the quantitative ceilings on the relevant weapons specified in the Treaty for at least one year after the termination of the agreement.” It’s not clear how this would be verified without the inspection provisions that were central to New START.

“Rather than extend ‘NEW START’ (A badly negotiated deal by the United States that, aside from everything else, is being grossly violated), we should have our Nuclear Experts work on a new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future,” President Trump wrote today on his Truth Social platform. However, he did not explicitly rule out the possibility of a temporary voluntary arrangement in the interim.

“Not to my knowledge,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a routine press conference today when asked about whether a temporary agreement to continue abiding by the New START limits had been reached.

Regardless, in the absence of a formally binding agreement, the U.S. government does now technically have a free hand to make major changes to the state of America’s nuclear force posture for the first time in decades. There has been talk for years already about potential near-term steps the U.S. military might take if a more permanent deal did not emerge to follow New START’s sunset.

“A one-year extension would not prejudice any of the vital steps that the United States is taking to respond to the China nuclear build-up,” Rose Gottemoeller, a long-time American diplomat who served as the lead negotiator for New START, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee just this week. “The period will buy extra time for preparation without the added challenge of a Russian Federation, newly released from New START limitations, embarking on a rapid upload campaign. This would not be in the U.S. interest.”

Loading more warheads into LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBMs could be one option. Each of those ICBMs is currently tipped with a single warhead in line with the New START limits. However, the missiles were originally designed for a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) configuration with three warheads. Even with New START in force, Minuteman IIIs have still sometimes been fired as part of routine testing with multiple unarmed reentry vehicles, demonstrating that this remains an available capability.

Minuteman III Test Launch 4 Aug 2020 Vandenberg AFB, CA

“I do believe that we need to take serious consideration in seeing what uploading and re-MIRVing the ICBM looks like, and what does it take to potentially do that,” now-retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Anthony Cotton, then head of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee back in 2024.

There are questions about how long it might take to ‘upload’ more warheads onto any portion of the 400 Minuteman IIIs currently sitting in silos spread across five states, and what that would cost. At least a portion of the deployed LGM-30Gs would also need to be refitted with MIRV-capable payload buses.

The number of warheads inside deployed Trident IIs, which also have a MIRV configuration, could also change in the future. These SLBMs can carry up to 14 individual warheads, depending on their exact type, but are understood to have often not had maximum loads to keep in line with New START’s provisions.

Under the terms of the treaty, the U.S. Navy also sealed off four of the 24 tubes on each of its 10 Ohio class ballistic missile submarines. In the past, Russian officials had complained about the extent (or lack thereof) of those modifications, which also involved the removal of certain internal components, and raised concerns about being able to regularly verify that the changes had not been reversed. Still, it is unclear exactly how much effort might be required to reactivate those tubes in the future.

There is also the matter of restoring nuclear capability to dozens of B-52 bombers that were modified to only be capable of employing conventional weapons as part of New START. Russia also previously raised concerns about the reversibility of those changes, which that country said involved “removing the nuclear code enabling switch and interconnection box, mounting a code enabling switch inhibitor plate, removing applicable cable connectors, [and] capping applicable wire bundles.” Nuclear-capable B-52s are readily identifiable today by antennas mounted on either side of the rear fuselage.

There has been some public disagreement in recent years about the cost and complexity of re-nuclearizing the B-52s, something TWZ has explored in the past. In the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2025 Fiscal Year, Congress did give the U.S. Air Force authority to pursue this course of action after New START came to a close. However, the provision in the NDAA, which was signed into law in December 2024, did not explicitly compel the service to do so.

There could be additional downstream impacts on the U.S. nuclear arsenal if a more formalized follow-on to New START does not emerge. This might include a MIRVed configuration for future LGM-35A Sentinel ICBMs, expanded orders for nuclear-capable B-21 Raider stealth bombers, and changes to the expected loadout of the forthcoming Colombia class nuclear ballistic missile submarines.

The U.S. Air Force is already looking to ramp up B-21 production, with the possibility that this could lead to an increased overall fleet size in the future. American officials have been supportive of buying additional Raiders beyond the currently stated acquisition target of 100 aircraft. The possibility of purchasing 145 or more of the bombers has been raised in the past. The Air & Space Forces Association’s internal Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies think tank is set to release a new white paper next Monday that calls for a future fleet of at least 200 B-21s (as well as 300 F-47 sixth-generation fighters).

Future U.S. developments could also extend to categories of nuclear weapons not currently in the American arsenal. The Air Force has at least explored the idea of a nuclear-armed hypersonic boost-glide vehicle. Retired U.S. Navy Adm. Charles Richard, who served as head of STRATCOM from 2019 to 2022, issued a new call for the U.S. military to develop a weapon of this kind at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week. This is a capability already in service in Russia, at least to a degree. China has also been pursuing nuclear-capable weapons of this type, if they have not fielded them operationally already. The Russian and Chinese armed forces have also been working on other novel nuclear weapon capabilities, including space-based systems, which could influence future U.S. planning going forward.

It is worth noting here that any efforts to increase the total size of America’s stockpile, rather than field new capabilities that replace existing ones, would require significant investments on various levels. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the current slate of U.S. nuclear modernization efforts would cost nearly a trillion dollars, in total, between 2025 and 2034. The U.S. military is also now pushing ahead with the Golden Dome missile defense initiative, which is also expected to run into the hundreds of billions of dollars and will otherwise impact the strategic landscape.

China, which is in the midst of a massive buildup of its nuclear arsenal, has been a central factor in discussions to date about a follow-on strategic arms control agreement to New START. U.S. officials have pushed to include the Chinese in any future agreement, something authorities in Beijing have repeatedly balked at. China’s current nuclear arsenal is still much smaller than those of either the United States or Russia. The U.S. government has assessed that China’s total stockpile could go from approximately 600 nuclear warheads today to 1,000 by 2030, and then to 1,500 by 2035. As noted, the U.S. and Russian governments were each allowed 1,550 strategic warheads under New START. Both countries have even more nuclear weapons that were never covered by New START, to begin with, and more are in development now.

“The President’s been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it’s impossible to do something that doesn’t include China because of their vast and rapidly growing stockpile,” Secretary of State and acting National Security Advisor Marco Rubio said during a press conference yesterday in response to a question about New START.

SECRETARY RUBIO: The President has been clear that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it’s impossible to do something that doesn’t include China — because of their vast & rapidly growing stockpile. pic.twitter.com/FiYVUsBAVb

— Dylan Johnson (@ASDylanJohnson) February 5, 2026

New START’s expiration has fueled already growing concerns about the prospect of a new global nuclear arms race, which would not necessarily be limited to the United States, Russia, and China. The treaty’s sunset follows the steady collapse in recent years of a series of other arms control agreements between the United States and Russia, as well as other treaties intended to promote general transparency in military affairs. The U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF, in 2019 over complaints about Russian violations has already had a notable impact on the development and fielding of new nuclear and conventionally-armed missiles in both countries.

The end of New START presents a “grave moment for international peace and security,” United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said in a statement yesterday.

Whether or not a temporary voluntary moratorium on the expansion of stockpiles on both sides leads to a new agreement, and one that might include China, is still an open question. Altogether, it remains to be seen now whether the New START limits continue to hold in the United States or Russia in the absence of a binding agreement.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

BUENOS AIRES — Argentina and the United States said they reached an expansive trade deal Thursday, boosting President Javier Milei as he moves to open up the South American nation’s notoriously protectionist economy and reflecting the close alliance between the radical libertarian and President Trump.

Argentina’s foreign minister, Pablo Quirno, posted a selfie on social media showing him and several diplomats beaming after emerging from a meeting in Washington where he said they’d signed the pact.

“Congratulations to our team and thanks to the U.S. Trade Representative’s team for building this great agreement together,” Quirno wrote. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative also confirmed the deal.

The countries announced a framework for the agreement in November, saying Argentina would ease restrictions on a range of American imports, including cattle, dairy products, medicines, chemicals, machinery, medical devices and vehicles. Those were key concessions for Argentina, where local industries long protected by steep tariffs have expressed concern about their ability to compete with American manufacturers.

The U.S., for its part, would remove reciprocal tariffs on imports of “certain unavailable natural resources” and ingredients for pharmaceutical goods from Argentina, according to the framework.

At the time, the White House reached similar frameworks with Ecuador, Guatemala and El Salvador — part of what it described as an effort to improve the ability of American firms to sell industrial and agricultural products in Latin American countries and bring down food prices for U.S. consumers.

Officials did not immediately offer details about the final version of the U.S.-Argentina deal signed Thursday.

The agreement marks the latest development in the close alliance between Trump and Milei, who has reshaped Argentine foreign policy to align with the U.S., earned Trump’s praise for stabilizing his nation’s crisis-prone economy and traveled to the U.S. more than a dozen times in the last two years. Milei is scheduled to appear at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate next week to speak at a gala.

Trump supported Milei’s fiscal program last year with a $20-billion credit line that succeeded in calming markets and boosting Milei’s prospects in a crucial midterm election in October. The U.S. Treasury also directly purchased U.S. dollar-denominated Argentine bonds that ratings agencies were classifying as “junk” at the time and snapped up the volatile local currency that Argentines were dumping in droves.

The extraordinary intervention drew backlash from across the U.S. political spectrum.

Trump’s MAGA base questioned the need to bail out a far-flung country that’s not only of little importance to the U.S. but also directly competes with its exports of corn, wheat, meat and oil.

Democratic lawmakers expressed outrage that Trump was staking taxpayer money on a political gift to an ideological soulmate.

That criticism has continued, with U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, on Thursday appealing to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to end the $20-billion lifeline.

In a letter, she wrote that even though the Treasury promised its credit line for Argentina “was for an acute, short-term, and urgent purpose, it appears … to have left open the possibility of continued use.”

Debre writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.

Despite calling it earlier an ‘act of great stupidity’, Trump signals support of Starmer’s Chagos deal.

United States President Donald Trump appears to have endorsed the deal struck by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to hand over the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, weeks after calling it a “great stupidity”.

Trump had last month described the United Kingdom’s decision to cede sovereignty of the Indian Ocean archipelago, which includes a joint US-UK military base on the island of Diego Garcia, as an “act of great stupidity”.

The US president said he held productive talks with Starmer on Thursday and that the UK leader had made the “best deal he could make”.

But he also warned in a post on Truth Social that the US would retain the right to “militarily secure and reinforce” the US presence on the island of Diego Garcia if it were threatened.

The British government said in a statement that “the leaders agreed their governments would continue working closely to guarantee the future operation of the base and speak again soon”, the AFP news agency reported.

Under a deal agreed last May, the governments of the UK and Mauritius jointly announced that full sovereignty of the Chagos, a remote group of more than 60 islands, would again belong to Mauritius in exchange for guarantees that the US military base could continue operating there for the next 99 years.

Last year’s announcement stirred a range of emotions among the Chagossians, who were forced from their island home in the 1960s and 1970s and resettled in Mauritius, the Seychelles and the UK. For decades, they have campaigned to return to their ancestral lands freely, without any restrictions.

The Chagos Islands have been under British control since 1814. In the 1960s and 1970s, Britain forcibly evicted nearly 2,000 locals to make way for the US military base, which played a pivotal role in US military operations in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2008, the US also acknowledged that the base had been used for covert rendition flights of “terrorism” suspects.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republican Leader John Thune warned Thursday that Congress is not close to an agreement to fund the Department of Homeland Security, signaling that another short-term extension may be the only way to avoid a shutdown as Democrats demand “nonnegotiable” ICE reforms ahead of the Feb. 13 deadline.

The Republicans are increasingly looking to punt the full funding package a second time if negotiations collapse. Speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, Thune said that such a move would not include any reforms lawmakers had previously negotiated, including body cameras for immigration agents.

“As of right now, we aren’t anywhere close to having any sort of an agreement that would enable us to fund the Department of Homeland Security,” he said. “If [Democrats] are coming to the table demanding a blank check or refusing to consider any measures but their own, they’re likely to end up with nothing.”

He spoke hours after House and Senate Democrats announced they were aligned behind a list of 10 demands they say must be passed before approving the Homeland Security funding package through September.

Democrats are pressing for statutory limits on immigration raids, new judicial warrant requirements, body-worn cameras, identification rules for agents and enhanced oversight of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection — reforms they say are necessary to rein in what House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) called an agency “out of control.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Democrats are planning to propose the legislation as soon as possible.

“We want our Republican colleagues to finally get serious about this, because this is turning America inside out in a way we haven’t seen in a very long time,” Schumer said.

The coordinated demands signal unity among House and Senate Democrats after a rocky week on Capitol Hill. In a slim vote, 21 House Democrats joined Republicans on Tuesday to end a partial government shutdown by temporarily extending Homeland Security funding through Feb. 13.

The two-week stopgap, called a “continuing resolution,” was meant to leave time for the two parties to debate how to rein in ICE after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis.

But that truce has quickly unraveled. Republican leaders have little appetite for the full slate of reforms. Some have indicated openness to narrower changes, such as expanding body camera programs and training, but reject mask bans and the removal of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has already ruled out warrant requirements, which would limit immigration agents from entering private property without a court order. In remarks to reporters Wednesday, he also hinted at some interest in attaching voter ID and anti-sanctuary city policies to negotiations.

“It will be part of the discussion over the next couple of weeks, and we’ll see how that shakes out. But I suspect that some of the changes — the procedural modifications with ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement — will be codified,” he said.

Johnson was confident the two sides could make a deal without further delays, adding that negotiations are largely between “the White House, Schumer and Senate Democrats.”

President Trump has privately supported the short-term extension to cool tensions while publicly defending immigration agents and expressing skepticism toward Democrats’ reform push, according to House leadership.

White House border policy advisor Tom Homan also announced a drawdown of 700 federal agents from Minneapolis this week as what officials framed as a goodwill gesture amid negotiations.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Thursday that the administration is willing to consider some of the demands Democrats have made, but said some of their requests are not “grounded in any common sense and they are nonstarters for this administration.”

Leavitt did not specify which reforms the administration was willing to consider. She did, however, say the president is committed to keeping the government open and supporting “immigration enforcement efforts in this country.”

The White House did not respond when asked if the president would support a short-term spending measure should negotiations stall.

Republicans continue to warn that a failure to reach a deal would jeopardize disaster response funding, airport security operations, maritime patrols, and increased security assistance for major national events, including the upcoming World Cup in Los Angeles.

“If we don’t do it by the middle of next week, we should consider a continuing resolution for the rest of the year and just put this all behind us,” said Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), chair of the House Freedom Caucus.

Democrats, however, remain adamant that verbal assurances are no longer enough.

“These are just some of the commonsense proposals that the American people clearly would like to see in terms of the dramatic changes that are needed at the Department of Homeland Security before there is a full-year appropriations bill,” Jeffries said.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos in Washington contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — The Trump administration on Thursday will launch TrumpRx, a website it says will help patients buy prescription drugs directly from manufacturers at a discounted rate at a time when health care and the cost of living are growing concerns for Americans.

The government-hosted website is not expected to be a platform for buying medication but instead set up as a facilitator, pointing Americans to drugmakers’ direct-to-consumer websites where they can make purchases.

The site’s unveiling, set for Thursday evening, was announced by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who in a post on X called it “a state of the art website for Americans consumers to purchase low cost prescription drugs.”

She said President Trump will make the announcement alongside Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz and Joe Gebbia, director of Trump’s National Design Studio.

The president first teased TrumpRx in September while announcing the first of his more than 15 deals with pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices to match the lowest price offered in other developed nations. He said in December the website would provide “massive discounts to all consumers” — though it’s unclear whether the prices available on drugmakers’ websites will routinely be any lower than what many consumers could get through their insurance coverage.

The website’s expected Thursday release comes after it faced multiple delays, for reasons the administration hasn’t publicly shared. Last fall, Oz told Trump the site would share prices for consumers before the end of the year. An expected launch in late January was also pushed back.

The president has spent the past several months seeking to spotlight his efforts to lower drug prices for Americans. He’s done that through deals with major pharmaceutical companies, including some of the biggest drugmakers like Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Merck, which have agreed to lower prices of their Medicaid drugs to so-called “most favored nations” pricing. As part of the deals, many of the companies’ new drugs will also be launched at discounted rates for consumer markets through TrumpRx.

Many of the details of Trump’s deals with manufacturers remain unclear, and drug prices for patients in the U.S. can depend on many factors, including the competition a treatment faces and insurance coverage. Most people have coverage through work, the individual insurance market or government programs like Medicaid and Medicare, which shield them from much of the cost.

Trump’s administration also has negotiated lower prices for several prescription drugs for Medicare enrollees, through a direct negotiation program created by a 2022 law.

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

After two decades and two stints as Walt Disney Co. boss, Bob Iger finally is hanging up the reins.

Disney this week tapped 54-year-old parks chief Josh D’Amaro to succeed Iger as chief executive. The handoff is set for March 18, at the company’s annual investor meeting, with Iger staying on as a senior advisor and board member until his December retirement.

The changing of the guard atop one of America’s iconic companies marks the end of an era.

History probably will remember Iger as a visionary leader who transformed Disney by reinvigorating its creative engines through a series of blockbuster acquisitions, broadening its international profile and boldly steering into treacherous streaming terrain by launching Disney+ and ESPN+ as audiences drifted from the company’s mainstay TV channels.

Iger, 74, has long been Hollywood’s most respected and inspiring studio chief, known around town simply as “Bob.”

Disney Chairman James Gorman said in an interview that Iger’s nearly 20 years in power is framed by two epochs: “Bob 1” and “Bob 2.”

After becoming CEO in 2005, Iger presided over a period of remarkable growth. Through acquisitions of Pixar Animation, Marvel Entertainment and the “Star Wars” studio, LucasFilm, the company gained blockbuster franchises and popular characters, including Captain Marvel, Baby Yoda and Sheriff Woody from “Toy Story,” to populate movie theaters and theme parks.

“Bob steadied the company and built it out,” Gorman said. “He created an absolute powerhouse.”

Simultaneously, Iger strived to preserve ABC, ESPN and the whimsical charm that spilled from founder Walt Disney’s imagination so many decades ago. Iger has treasured such animated gems as Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Winnie the Pooh, Polynesian princess Moana and more.

“The Iger era has been defined by enormous growth, an unyielding commitment to excellence in creativity and innovation, and exemplary stewardship of this iconic institution,” Gorman said in a statement on behalf of the board, adding: “We extend our deepest gratitude to Bob Iger for his extraordinary leadership and dedication to The Walt Disney Co.”

Former CEO Michael Eisner told The Times that Iger has “succeeded masterfully” at every turn.

“From ABC Sports to ABC Television Network and then at Disney, when we inherited him in the ABC/Capital Cities acquisition, Bob created success upon success,” Eisner said. “It’s why he was picked as the Disney CEO, a role that has been his greatest success … What a record!”

Iger‘s first reign ended when he stepped down as CEO in February 2020, then retired from the company 22 months later.

But that leadership handoff proved disastrous, becoming Iger’s biggest blunder — one he has since worked hard to correct.

Bob Iger passed the CEO torch to Bob Chapek in 2020.

(Business Wire)

Former parks chief Bob Chapek stepped into the big role, but he lacked stature, creative chops and support among key executives. He quickly confronted the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic, which shuttered Disney’s revenue machines — theme parks, movie theaters and sporting events that anchor ABC and ESPN.

Wall Street soon soured on multibillion-dollar streaming losses by Disney and traditional entertainment firms that were jumping into streaming to compete with Netflix. The company’s stock fell.

Chapek also stumbled into a political feud with Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who branded Disney as “woke.” The public tussle tarnished the Burbank company’s clean image and undermined its goal of entertaining the masses, no matter their political stripes.

The board beckoned Iger back in November 2022 to quell a revolt by senior Disney executives and allay concerns among investors.

“When I came back three years ago, I had a tremendous amount that needed fixing,” Iger acknowledged during a Monday earnings call with analysts. “But anyone who runs a company also knows that it can’t just be about fixing. It has to be preparing a company for its future.”

Succession immediately became the board’s top priority with Iger then in his early 70s. But Disney’s executive bench had thinned through a series of high-level departures and the company’s expenditures had gotten out of control.

Iger restructured the company, which led to thousands of layoffs, and gave division executives financial oversight to, in Iger’s words, give them “skin in the game.”

His successor, D’Amaro, last spring recalled bringing a 250-page binder to Iger for review upon the chief’s 2022 return to the Team Disney building in Burbank. The book was stuffed with detailed updates for each component of D’Amaro’s enormous parks and experiences division.

The following day, Iger showed up at D’Amaro’s office, binder in hand.

“He pulled out one page,” D’Amaro recounted during an investor conference last year, adding that Iger said: “we have plenty of room to grow this business. We’ve got land in all of our locations around the world,” D’Amaro said. “We’ve got the stories [and] we’ve got the fans.”

That laid the seeds for Disney’s current $60-billion, 10-year investment program to expand theme parks and resorts, cruise lines and open a new venture in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. D’Amaro was put in charge of the effort, which is designed to cement Disney’s leading position in leisure entertainment. That mandate has become increasingly important to Disney amid the contraction of linear television and cable programming revenue.

Iger’s second stint as CEO wasn’t nearly as fun as the first.

He was dragged into a bitter proxy fight with two billionaire investors, who challenged his strategy, succession plans and Disney’s 2019 purchase of much of Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox. The move was controversial, with critics lamenting the $71-billion purchase price. Disney reduced its outlay by selling regional sports networks and other assets, but the deal left the company with significant debt just before COVID-19 hit.

The Fox deal gave Disney rights to hundreds of properties, including “Avatar,” “Deadpool” and “The Simpsons.”

Iger vanquished the proxy challenge, and this week, he again defended the Fox purchase, which gave Disney control of streaming service Hulu, National Geographic channels and FX.

“The deal we did for Fox, in many ways, was ahead of its time,” Iger said on the earnings call, noting the lofty bidding war currently underway for Warner Bros. Discovery.

“We knew that we would need more volume in terms of [intellectual property], and we did that deal,” Iger said, pointing to Disney’s deployment of its franchises beyond the big screen into its money-making theme parks. “When you look at the footprint of the business today, it’s never been more broad or more diverse.”

TD Cowen media analyst Doug Creutz still thinks the Fox deal was a dud, saying in a report: “There were plenty of value-destroying media deals before DIS-FOX, so we disagree with their assertion” despite the multiples being offered for Warner.

From left; James Gorman, chairman of the Walt Disney Co. board of directors; Disney Experiences Chairman Josh D’Amaro; Dana Walden, co-chair of Disney Entertainment; and Bob Iger, chief executive of the Walt Disney Co.

(Walt Disney Co.)

Iger is credited with astutely managing Disney’s image and corporate culture.

He was instrumental in resolving Hollywood’s bitter year of labor strife by negotiating truces with the Writers Guild of America and performers’ union, SAG-AFTRA, in 2023.

He has also sought to distance the company from divisive politics, albeit with limited success.

Disney agreed to pay President Trump $16 million to settle a dispute over inaccurate statements that ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos made a month after Trump was reelected. But free speech advocates howled, accusing Disney of bending to Trump.

In September, Iger led the company out of political quicksand amid an uprising of conservatives, including the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, a Trump appointee, who were riled by comments by ABC late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel in the wake of activist Charlie Kirk’s killing.

Iger maintains Disney made the decision to return Kimmel to his late-night perch independent of the political pressure from both sides.

Enormous challenges remain for D’Amaro, the incoming CEO.

He and his team, including Chief Creative Officer Dana Walden, must ensure Disney’s movies and TV shows deliver on the company’s commitment to quality, and that its streaming services — Disney+, Hulu and ESPN — rise above the competition.

In recent years, Disney’svaunted animation studios, including Pixar, have struggled to consistently release hits, though it has found success with sequels. Disney Animation’s “Zootopia 2” is now the highest-grossing U.S. animated film of all time, with worldwide box office revenue of more than $1.7 billion, and the 2024 Pixar film “Inside Out 2” hauled in nearly $1.7 billion globally.

The company also must maintain its pricey sports contracts, including with the NFL, to drive ESPN’s success. This week, Disney and the NFL finalized their deal for the league to take a 10% stake in ESPN.

And, as broadcast TV audiences continue to gray, Disney must evaluate the importance of the ABC network, where Iger got his start more than 50 years ago working behind-the-scenes for $150 a week.

Investors also are looking for D’Amaro to lift Disney’s wobbly stock, which has fallen 9% so far this year.

“The stock price doesn’t fairly reflect what [Iger] has done, but … it will,” Gorman said. “And he should get credit for it.”

In a statement Tuesday, D’Amaro expressed gratitude to Disney’s board “for entrusting me with leading a company that means so much to me and millions around the world.”

“I also want to express my gratitude to Bob Iger for his generous mentorship, his friendship, and the profound impact of his leadership,” D’Amaro said.

Times staff writer Samantha Masunaga contributed to this report.

Published on
04/02/2026 – 10:19 GMT+1

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will fly to Australia later this month in a bid to seal a long-delayed trade agreement, sources familiar with the matter told Euronews.

Concluding the deal would mark another trade win for the Commission, following recent deals with Latin America’s Mercosur bloc and India, as geopolitical tensions intensify with the US and China.

One source said von der Leyen could head to Canberra shortly after the Munich Security Conference concludes on 15 February.

Whether the trip goes ahead will depend on progress in negotiations led by EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who is due to meet Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell in Brussels next week.

“As always, progress in the sensitive phase of negotiations will depend on substance,” Commission deputy chief spokesperson Olof Gill told Euronews.

Talks on an EU-Australia free-trade agreement collapsed in 2023 after Canberra accused Brussels of failing to offer sufficient market access for beef, sheep, dairy and sugar.

Agriculture remains a perennial flashpoint in EU trade negotiations. The Mercosur agreement has already met furious opposition from European farmers, who fear unfair competition from increased imports coming from Latin America.

Australia, however, is viewed in Brussels as a strategic and like-minded partner as the EU seeks to diversify its trade relationships, expand access to global markets and reduce exposure to a closing US market and China’s increasingly aggressive trade policy.

Netflix Inc. Co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos pledged to maintain a 45-day theatrical window for Warner Bros. films during a Senate subcommittee hearing Tuesday.

Sarandos also tried to dampen concerns about potential job losses and U.S. production declines related to the companies’ proposed multibillion-dollar deal.

During a two-hour hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Sarandos told lawmakers the proposed merger would not run afoul of antitrust concerns and would, instead, “strengthen the American entertainment industry.”

About 80% of HBO Max subscribers also have Netflix subscriptions, which he said showed the two services were “complementary.” Netflix also plans to increase its film and television production spending to $26 billion this year, with a majority of that happening in the U.S., he said.

“We are doubling down, even as much of the industry has pulled back,” Sarandos said, according to a written transcript of his opening remarks. “With this deal, we’re going to increase, not reduce, production investments going forward, supported by a stronger combined business and balance sheet.”

Sarandos was joined at the hearing by Warner Bros. Discovery Chief Revenue and Strategy Officer Bruce Campbell.

When asked by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) whether senators should expect a “round of layoffs” or consumer price increases as a result of the deal, Campbell said no. He pointed to Netflix’s lack of comparable film and TV studios, or the distribution infrastructure that Warner Bros. has.

“We believe, based on our discussions with them in the negotiation process, that they’re not only going to keep those operations intact, in fact, they’re going to invest in those operations and invest in continued production, including on our lots in Burbank and elsewhere,” Campbell said.

Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison was also invited to appear as a witness, but declined because he did not believe it would be useful or helpful since the company’s bid for Warner had been rejected, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said during the hearing. Ellison did, however, meet with him and other senators privately to answer questions, Booker said.

Sarandos also tried to assuage concerns about the deal’s potential effect on theatrical distribution.

“I know I’ve earned some skepticism over there over the years on this because I was talking a lot about Netflix’s business model, which was different from that,” he said. “We didn’t own a theatrical distributor before. We do now, and a great one.”

When asked if the 45-day window would be “self-enforced,” Sarandos agreed, saying that was an industry standard. He did, however, note the general caveat that “routinely, movies that underperform, the window moves a little bit” but is still referred to as a 45-day window.

And in a sign of the growing role politics has played in the perception of the deal, Sarandos tried to sidestep questions from Republican senators about perceived “woke” content on the streaming platform, as well as inquiries from Booker about President Trump’s involvement in the merger. Trump previously said he “would be involved” in his administration’s decision to approve any deal.

The hearing comes just two months after Netflix prevailed in a hotly contested bidding war for Warner Bros. The $72-billion deal would dramatically reshape the Hollywood landscape and give the streamer control over Warner Bros.’ storied Burbank film and TV studios, its lot, HBO and HBO Max.

Netflix also agreed to take on more than $10 billion in Warner Bros. debt, pushing the enterprise value of the transaction to $82.7 billion.

But Paramount has continued to pursue the company, fighting to acquire all of Warner Bros. Discovery, including its cable networks.

The company, led by Ellison, has made a direct appeal to Warner shareholders to tender their shares in support of a Paramount deal. A deadline for that offer was recently extended to Feb. 20.

Paramount has also filed proxy materials to ask Warner shareholders to reject the Netflix deal at an upcoming shareholders meeting.

It’s called Pakistan’s forgotten war. And it’s been running for decades in Balochistan, the country’s largest province by land area.

More than 100 people have been killed in another wave of violence this week.

The Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) has claimed responsibility for the attacks, described as the deadliest so far.

The BLA has escalated its attacks in recent years, saying it is fighting for an independent Balochistan.

In Islamabad, the government blames what it says are its enemies for the violence.

So, what will it take to end the cycle of violence in Balochistan?

Presenter: Maleen Saeed

Guests

Raashid Wali Janjua – director of research at Islamabad Policy Research Institute

Sanaullah Baloch – Balochistan National Party leader

Ayesha Siddiqa – senior research fellow at Defence Studies Department at King’s College London

WASHINGTON — President Trump moved quickly this week to negotiate with Democrats to avert a lengthy government shutdown over Department of Homeland Security funding, a sharp departure from last year’s record standoff, when he refused to budge for weeks.

Some Republicans are frustrated with the deal, raising the possibility of a prolonged shutdown fight when the House returns Monday to vote on the funding package. But Trump’s sway over the GOP remains considerable, and he has made his position clear at a moment of mounting political strain.

“The only thing that can slow our country down is another long and damaging government shutdown,” Trump wrote on social media late Thursday.

The urgency marked a clear shift from Trump’s posture during the 43-day shutdown late last year, when he publicly antagonized Democratic leaders and his team mocked them on social media. This time, with anger rising over shootings in Minneapolis and the GOP’s midterm messaging on tax cuts drowned out by controversy, Trump acted quickly to make a deal with Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

“Trump and the Republicans know that this is an issue where they’re on the wrong side of the American people and it really matters,” Schumer told reporters Friday after Senate passage of the government funding deal.

Crisis after Minneapolis killings

Senators returned to work this week dealing with the fallout from the fatal shooting of ICU nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis by federal immigration officers, as well as the killing of Renee Good in the city weeks earlier.

Republicans were far from unified in their response. A few called for the firing of top administration officials such as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller, the White House chief of staff for policy. Most GOP senators tried to strike a balance, calling for a thorough investigation into Pretti’s killing while backing the hard-line immigration approach that is central to Trump’s presidency.

But many agreed that the shootings threatened public support for Trump’s immigration agenda.

“I’ve never seen a political party take its best issue and turn it into its worst issue in the period of time that it has happened in the last few weeks,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said. “Some things have to change.”

Democrats quickly coalesced around their key demands.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said there “was unanimity” around core principles of enforcing a code of conduct for immigration officers and agents, ending “roving patrols” for immigration enforcement actions and coordinating with local law enforcement on immigration arrests.

It helped that Trump himself was looking for ways to de-escalate in Minneapolis.

“The world has seen the videos of those horrible abuses by DHS and rogue operations catching up innocent people, and there’s a revulsion about it,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said.

“The White House is asking for a ladder off the ledge,” he added.

The painful politics of shutdown

Republicans are also trying to promote their accomplishments in office as they ready for the November midterms and the difficult task of retaining control of both chambers of Congress.

But the prospect of a prolonged shutdown shifted attention away from their $4.5-trillion tax and spending cuts law, the centerpiece of their agenda. Republicans had hoped the beginning of this year’s tax season on Monday would provide a political boost as voters begin to see larger tax refunds.

Republicans are also mindful of the political damage from last year’s shutdown, when they took a slightly larger portion of the blame from Americans than Democrats, according to polling from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

“The shutdown was a big factor, negative for the Republicans,” Trump told Republican senators at the White House in November.

On a practical level, this funding standoff threatened to destroy months of bipartisan work, including long hours over the holiday break, to craft the 12 spending bills that fund the government and many priorities back home.

“We saw what happened in the last government shutdown in regards to how it hurt real, hardworking Americans,” said Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “I don’t want that to happen again.”

A two-week funding battle begins

The agreement reached this week, if passed by the House, would avoid a prolonged shutdown and fund nearly every federal department through the end of the budget year in September. But it would not resolve one of the most difficult issues for Congress and the White House: Homeland Security funding.

Instead of a full-year deal, funding for the department was extended for just two weeks, giving lawmakers little time to bridge the deep divides over immigration enforcement.

Democrats are pressing for changes they say are necessary to prevent future abuses, including requiring immigration agents to wear body cameras, carry clear identification, end roving patrols in cities and coordinate more closely with local law enforcement when making arrests. Many Democrats also want tighter rules around warrants and accountability mechanisms for officers in the field.

Those demands have met stiff resistance from Republicans. Some are opposed to negotiating with Democrats at all.

“Republicans control the White House, Senate and House. Why are we giving an inch to Democrats?” Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) wrote on social media.

Republican senators said they would take the fight to Democrats by introducing their own bills, including restrictions on “sanctuary cities,” to show their support for Trump’s policies. That term is generally applied to state and local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

“We’ve let the issue get away. We’re not leading. We’re trying to avoid losing rather than winning,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who held up the spending bills until Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) agreed to give him a vote on his sanctuary cities bill at a later date.

Thune acknowledged the difficulty of the next two weeks, saying that there are “some pretty significant views and feelings.”

“We’ll stay hopeful,” Thune told reporters about the upcoming fight. “But there are some pretty significant differences of opinion.”

Cappelletti and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writers Lisa Mascaro and Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A budget impasse in Congress is poised to halt large swaths of federal operations early Saturday as lawmakers in Capitol Hill turn to the next flashpoint in negotiations to reopen the government: whether to impose new limits on federal immigration authorities carrying out President Trump’s deportation campaign.

Over the next two weeks, Democrats and Republicans will weigh competing demands on how the Department of Homeland Security should carry out arrests, detention and deportations after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents this month in Minnesota.

Seeking to rein in the federal agency, Senate Democrats late on Thursday were able to strike a deal with the White House that would temporarily fund the Department of Homeland Security but fund the Pentagon, the State Department, as well as the health, education, labor and transportation agencies through Sept. 30.

The agreement is intended to give lawmakers more time to address Democratic demands to curb ICE tactics while averting a partial government shutdown.

The Senate finalized the deal Friday evening on a 71-29 vote, hours before a midnight deadline to avert a government shutdown. Passage of the deal was delayed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who objected to parts of the package.

The House expected to take up the legislation as early as Monday. The partial government shutdown will occur until the measure clears the House and Trump signs it into law.

The president supports the deal, which came after Senate Democrats said they would not vote to fund Homeland Security unless reforms for the agency were approved. Among the demands: banning federal agents from wearing masks, requiring use of body cameras and requiring use of judicial warrants prior to searching homes and making arrests.

Democrats have also demanded that local and state law enforcement officials be given the ability to conduct independent investigations in cases where federal agents are accused of wrongdoing.

The deal, however, does not include any of those reforms; it includes only the promise of more time to negotiate with no guarantee that the new restrictions will be agreed to.

Both of California’s Democratic senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, voted against the Senate deal. They both opposed giving more funding to Homeland Security without reforms in a vote Thursday.

Schiff voted no because he said he promised to not “give another dime for ICE until we saw real reforms — and not just promised reforms but statutory requirements.”

“I want to see those reforms before I am prepared to support any more funding for these agencies,” Schiff said in a video message posted on X, and added that he did not see the White House acting in “good faith. “I want it in writing and statute.”

After voting against the measure, Padilla said in a statement: “I’ve been clear from the beginning: No more money for ICE and CBP without real oversight and accountability.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Friday morning that Democrats will find out whether two weeks is enough time to reach a compromise.

“We will evaluate whether that is sufficient time,” Jeffries said. “But there is urgency to dealing with this issue because ICE as we have seen is out of control.”

Meanwhile, the absence of reforms in the Senate deal has already drawn concerns from some progressives, who argue the deal falls short of what is needed to rein in federal immigration enforcement.

“First of all, I’m actually disappointed that Senate leadership is not right now demanding more,” Rep. Robert Garcia, a top-ranking House Democrat from Long Beach, told reporters Friday. “This idea that we’re somehow going to continue to fund this agency and somehow just extend the pain, I think is absolutely wrong.”

Garcia said it was “outrageous” that the Senate deal would extend funding for Homeland Security for two weeks without any new requirements.

“This idea that we’re somehow not demanding immediately the removal of masks and body cameras and all the other reforms while eliminating this agency that’s causing harm, I think, is outrageous,” Garcia said.

Democratic Rep. Judy Chu of Pasadena said in a statement that she had not yet decided whether to support the Senate deal once it reaches the House floor.

But, Chu added: “I cannot support legislation that increases funding to this agency while delivering no accountability measures.”

Rep. Kevin Calvert (R-Corona) said in a statement that it is “critical” for lawmakers to pass the bipartisan spending package, in part because it included funding for the U.S. military.

“As Chairman of the [House] Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, I’m especially concerned about the negative impacts of a shutdown at a time when we have a buildup of American military assets in the Middle East,” Calvert said.

Calvert added that Homeland Security operations will continue even in the shutdown because lawmakers provided an influx of funding for the agency in last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” But he said he worried that any lapse in funding would affect other operations by the agency, including disaster funding and security assistance for major events, such as the upcoming World Cup.

“We need to get these priorities funded,” he said.

Other Republican lawmakers have already signaled the possible hurdles Democrats will face as they try to rein in ICE.

Graham held up consideration of the Senate deal, in part because he wanted the Senate to vote to criminalize local and state officials in sanctuary cities — a term that has no strict definition but that generally describes local jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

“You can convince me that ICE can be better, but I don’t think I will ever convince you to abandon sanctuary cities because you’re wedded to it on the Democratic side,” Graham said.

Graham also delayed passage of the deal because it included a repeal of a law that would have allowed senators — including himself — to sue the government if federal investigators gained access to their phones without notifying them. The law required senators to be notified if that were to happen and sue for up to $50,000 in damages per incident.

“We’ll fix the $500,000 — count me in — but you took the notification out,” Graham said. “I am demanding a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

Other Senate Republicans also expressed concern with Democrats’ demands, even as Trump seemed to try appease them.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said the demand for federal agents to remove their masks during operations was a “clear and obvious attempt to intimidate and put our federal agents in harm’s way.”

“When enforcement becomes dangerous for enforcers, enforcement does not survive,” Schmitt said in a Senate floor speech. “What emerges is not reform, it is amnesty by default.”

Despite the GOP opposition, most Senate Republicans were poised to join Democrats on Friday and vote for the deal. But there is no certainty that they will join the minority party when negotiations resume in the coming weeks.

Recent history suggests that bipartisan support at the outset does not guarantee a lasting deal, particularly when unresolved policy disputes remain. The last government shutdown tied to a debate over healthcare exposed how quickly negotiations can collapse when no agreement is reached.

In November, a small group of Democrats voted with Republicans to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history with the promise of negotiating an extension to healthcare tax credits that were set to expire in the new year.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), a former House speaker, reminded the public on Friday that Democrats were unable to get Republican support for extending the tax credits, resulting in increasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans.

“House Democrats passed a bipartisan fix, yet Senate Republicans continue to block this critical relief for millions of Americans,” Pelosi wrote in a post on X.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

Jan. 29 (Asia Today) — U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Tuesday that Washington does not recognize any trade agreement with South Korea unless it is ratified by the South Korean National Assembly, reaffirming that higher tariffs would remain in place until legislative approval is secured.

In an interview with CNBC, Bessent said the absence of parliamentary ratification meant no valid agreement existed between the two countries.

“Because the South Korean National Assembly has not passed the trade agreement, there is no trade agreement with South Korea until they approve it,” Bessent said, repeatedly emphasizing the need for lawmakers to ratify the deal.

Asked whether South Korea would face 25% tariffs until ratification, Bessent replied, “I think that helps move the situation forward,” a comment widely interpreted as signaling tariff pressure aimed at accelerating legislative action.

His remarks clarified the backdrop to Donald Trump’s announcement Sunday that the United States planned to raise reciprocal tariffs on South Korean exports, including automobiles, timber and pharmaceuticals, from 15% to 25%.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said the South Korean legislature had failed to enact what he described as a “historic trade agreement.” No executive order or formal notice has yet been issued to implement the tariff increase.

Trump later suggested negotiations could still resolve the issue, saying Monday that Washington would “work with South Korea to find a solution.”

Pressure from the Trump administration has extended beyond tariffs. The Wall Street Journal reported that Washington has raised concerns over South Korea’s regulatory treatment of U.S. technology companies. According to the report, J.D. Vance told South Korean Prime Minister Kim Min-seok during a White House meeting last week that the administration wanted meaningful de-escalation in how U.S. tech firms are regulated.

South Korea has fully mobilized its trade channels to assess Washington’s intentions. Trade Minister Kim Jeong-kwan is scheduled to travel to Washington later Tuesday after completing meetings in Canada, where he is expected to meet U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Trade Negotiations Commissioner Yeo Han-koo also plans consultations with the U.S. trade representative.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260129010013312

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats reached a deal with the White House late Thursday to prevent a partial government shutdown by moving to temporarily fund the Department of Homeland Security for two weeks, providing more time to negotiate new restrictions for federal immigration agents carrying out President Trump’s deportation campaign.

The deal follows widespread outrage over the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens — Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti — by federal agents in Minneapolis amid an aggressive immigration crackdown led by the Trump administration.

Under the agreement, funding for the Department of Homeland Security will be extended for two weeks, while the Pentagon, the State Department, as well as the health, education, labor and transportation departments, will be funded through Sept. 30, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office confirmed to The Times.

While the Senate could approve the deal as early as Thursday night, it is unclear when the House will vote for the package. To avert a government shutdown, both chambers need to approve the deal by midnight EST Friday.

After the agreement was reached, President Trump wrote on Truth Social that he was “working hard with Congress to ensure that we are able to fully fund the Government without delay.”

“Republicans and Democrats in Congress have come together to get the vast majority of the Government funded until September, while at the same time providing an extension to the Department of Homeland Security (including the very important Coast Guard, which we are expanding and rebuilding like never before),” Trump said.

He added: “Hopefully, both Republicans and Democrats will give a very much needed Bipartisan ‘YES’ Vote.”

The move to temporarily fund DHS is meant to give lawmakers more time to negotiate Democratic demands that include a requirement that federal immigration agents use body cameras, stop using masks during operations and a push to tighten rules around arrests and searches without judicial warrants.

The breakthrough comes after Senate Democrats — and seven Senate Republicans — blocked passage of a spending package that included additional funding for DHS through Sept. 30 but not enough guardrails to muster the 60 votes needed to pass the chamber.

“Republicans in Congress cannot allow this violent status quo to continue,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said after the vote. “We’re ready to fund 96% of the federal government today, but the DHS bill still needs a lot of work.”

Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) condemned Democrats for jeopardizing funding for other agencies as they pushed for their demands.

“It would be disastrous to shut down FEMA in the middle of a major winter storm. It’s affecting half the country, and it appears that another storm is along the way,” he said. “A shutdown would mean no paychecks for our troops once again, no money for TSA agents or air traffic controllers.”

The standoff comes after federal ICE agents shot and killed Pretti, an American citizen and nurse who attempted to help a fallen woman during an ICE operation in Minneapolis. Pretti’s death was the second fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by federal agents in the city in less than two weeks, following the killing of Good earlier this month.

Published on
29/01/2026 – 12:38 GMT+1

Oil prices rose on Thursday after US President Donald Trump warned Iran that “time is running out” and said a “massive armada” was heading towards the region if Tehran failed to agree to a nuclear non-proliferation deal.

In a Truth Social post, Trump said a fleet larger than the one sent to Venezuela was ready to “rapidly fulfil its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary” if Iran refused to negotiate a deal guaranteeing “no nuclear weapons”.

Global benchmark Brent rose by about 2.02%, trading at around $68.73 per barrel, while US crude (WTI) hovered around 2.15% higher, at $64.57 per barrel.

Trump previously threatened to attack Iran if it killed protesters during the ongoing protest movement across the country. Estimates of those killed range from around 6,000 to as many as 30,000, according to various reports.

Oil delivery disruptions

If the US were to escalate militarily, it could disrupt oil flows to countries that still trade with Iran.

Iran’s economy is already under heavy pressure from US secondary financial sanctions on its banking and energy sectors, compounded by the reimposition of JCPOA snapback sanctions.

These measures have severely limited Iran’s access to the Western financial system and constrained its ability to trade openly.

As a result, Iranian exports rely heavily on so-called “dark fleets,” ship-to-ship transfers and intermediary routes designed to obscure cargo origins along major maritime corridors.

Yet despite years of sanctions, Iran has retained access to oil markets, underlining the difficulty of fully enforcing restrictions on a high-value global commodity.

“Iran has a number of markets for its oil, despite the Western sanctions regime,” said Dmitry Grozubinski, a senior advisor on international trade policy at Aurora Macro Strategies.

China at centre of enforcement risk

China remains the largest buyer, with reports suggesting Iranian crude is often rebranded as Malaysian or Gulf-origin oil before entering the country.

“Independent refineries are purchasing it using dark fleet vessels, with transactions conducted through small private banks and in renminbi,” Grozubinski said.

Other destinations for Iranian oil and derivatives include Iraq, the UAE and Turkey, further complicating enforcement.

“It’s extremely difficult to maintain comprehensive sanctions on oil,” Grozubinski said, “especially when it requires policing transactions between Iran and states that don’t fully share Western priorities.”

China currently imports an estimated 1.2 to 1.4 million barrels of Iranian oil per day — around 80 to 90% of Iran’s crude exports.

US escalation could provoke Beijing

That dependence makes Beijing the central variable in any escalation. Analysts say China would be the most likely major economy to resist compliance and retaliate.

“Beijing has already signalled it would respond if Trump follows through,” said Dan Alamariu, chief geopolitical strategist at Alpine Macro, warning of renewed US–China trade friction.

One risk raised by analysts is the potential for China to again restrict exports of rare earths — a tool it has previously used during periods of trade tension — although such a move is considered unlikely in the short term.

“It’s not the base case,” Alamariu said, “but it’s not impossible.”

After a competitive bidding process, indie studio A24 has acquired the U.S. rights to Olivia Wilde’s comedy “The Invite” in a major deal out of the Sundance Film Festival.

The film, which stars Wilde, Seth Rogen, Penélope Cruz and Edward Norton, was purchased for around $10 million, according to a person familiar with the deal who requested anonymity due to the sensitive matter. One factor for Wilde was a preference for a traditional theatrical release.

“The Invite” focuses on a dinner party among neighbors and was billed as a must-see after it premiered over the weekend at Sundance. So far, the film has notched a 91% rating on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

The market at Sundance has traditionally been viewed as a bellwether for the indie film business. In the last few years, deals have been slower to emerge from the festival, particularly as streamers stopped offering massive sums for films to stock their platforms and as studios cut back on spending.

The deal for “The Invite” is one of a handful that have already been announced. On Tuesday, Neon said it acquired the worldwide rights to horror film “Leviticus,” which premiered at Sundance. Neon also bought the worldwide rights over the weekend for another horror flick, “4 X 4: The Event” from filmmaker Alex Ullom. That deal was the first to be made in Park City, though the film was not shown at Sundance and will begin production later this year. The value for both of Neon’s deals was not disclosed.

Many in Hollywood fear Warner Bros. Discovery’s sale will trigger steep job losses — at a time when the industry already has been ravaged by dramatic downsizing and the flight of productions from Los Angeles.

David Ellison‘s Paramount Skydance is seeking to allay some of those concerns by detailing its plans to save $6 billion, including job cuts, should Paramount succeed in its bid to buy the larger Warner Bros. Discovery.

Leaders of the combined company would search for savings by focusing on “duplicative operations across all aspects of the business — specifically back office, finance, corporate, legal, technology, infrastructure and real estate,” Paramount said in documents filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

Paramount is locked in an uphill battle to buy the storied studio behind Batman, Harry Potter, Scooby-Doo and “The Big Bang Theory.” The firm’s proposed $108.4-billion deal would include swallowing HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and other Warner cable channels.

Warner’s board prefers Netflix’s proposed $82.7-billion deal, and has repeatedly rebuffed the Ellison family’s proposals. That prompted Paramount to turn hostile last month and make its case directly to Warner investors on its website and in regulatory filings.

Shareholders may ultimately decide the winner.

Paramount previously disclosed that it would target $6 billion in synergies. And it has stressed the proposed merger would make Hollywood stronger — not weaker. The firm, however, recently acknowledged that it would shave about 10% from program spending should it succeed in combining Paramount and Warner Bros.

Paramount said the cuts would come from areas other than film and television studio operations.

A film enthusiast and longtime producer, David Ellison has long expressed a desire to grow the combined Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. slate to more than 30 movies a year. His goal is to keep Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. stand-alone studios.

This year, Warner Bros. plans to release 17 films. Paramount has said it wants to nearly double its output to 15 movies, which would bring the two-studio total to 32.

“We are very focused on maintaining the creative engines of the combined company,” Paramount said in its marketing materials for investors, which were submitted to the SEC on Monday.

“Our priority is to build a vibrant, healthy business and industry — one that supports Hollywood and creative, benefits consumers, encourages competition, and strengthens the overall job market,” Paramount said.

If the deal goes through, Paramount said that it would become Hollywood’s biggest spender — shelling out about $30 billion a year on programming.

In comparison, Walt Disney Co. has said it plans to spend $24 billion in the current fiscal year.

Paramount also added a dig at Warner management, saying: “We expect to make smarter decisions about licensing across linear networks and streaming.”

Some analysts have wondered whether Paramount would sell one of its most valuable assets — the historic Melrose Avenue movie lot — to raise money to pay down debt that a Warner acquisition would bring.

Paramount is the only major studio to be physically located in Hollywood and its studio lot is one of the company’s crown jewels. That’s where “Sunset Boulevard,” several “Star Trek” movies and parts of “Chinatown” were filmed.

A Paramount spokesperson declined to comment.

Sources close to the company said Paramount would scrutinize the numerous real estate leases in an effort to bring together far-flung teams into a more centralized space.

For example, CBS has much of its administrative offices on Gower in Hollywood, blocks away from the Paramount lot. And HBO maintains its operations in Culver City — miles from Warner’s Burbank lot.

Paramount pushed its deadline to Feb. 20 for Warner investors to tender their shares at $30 a piece.

The tender offer was set to expire last week, but Paramount extended the window after failing to solicit sufficient interest among Warner shareholders.

Some analysts believe Paramount may have to raise its bid to closer to $34 a share to turn heads. Paramount last raised its bid Dec. 4 — hours before the auction closed and Netflix was declared the winner.

Paramount also has filed proxy materials to ask Warner shareholders to reject the Netflix deal at an upcoming stockholder meeting.

Earlier this month, Netflix amended its bid, converting its $27.75-a-share offer to all-cash to defuse some of Paramount’s arguments that it had a stronger bid.

Should Paramount win Warner Bros., it would need to line up $94.65 billion in debt and equity.

Billionaire Larry Ellison has pledged to backstop $40.4 billion for the equity required. Paramount’s proposed financing relies on $24 billion from royal families in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

The deal would saddle Paramount with more than $60 billion of debt — which Warner board members have argued may be untenable.

“The extraordinary amount of debt financing as well as other terms of the PSKY offer heighten the risk of failure to close,” Warner board members said in a filing earlier this month.

Paramount would also have to absorb Warner’s debt load, which currently tops $30 billion.

Netflix is seeking to buy the Warner Bros. television and movie studios, HBO and HBO Max. It is not interested in Warner’s cable channels, including CNN. Warner wants to spin off its basic cable channels to facilitate the Netflix deal.

Analysts say both deals could face regulatory hurdles.

Rwanda began the inter-state arbitration proceedings under the asylum partnership agreement in November.

Rwanda has taken legal action against the United Kingdom’s refusal to disburse payments under a now-scrapped, controversial agreement for Kigali to receive deported asylum seekers, according to a Rwandan official and UK media reports.

Rwanda launched arbitral proceedings against the UK through the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration on Tuesday. It is seeking 50 million pounds ($68.8m) in compensation after the UK failed to formally terminate the controversial agreement about two years ago, The Telegraph newspaper reported.

“Rwanda regrets that it has been necessary to pursue these claims in arbitration, but faced with the United Kingdom’s intransigence on these issues, it has been left with no other choice,” Michael Butera, chief technical adviser to the minister of justice, told the AFP news agency.

Butera added that Kigali had sought diplomatic engagement before resorting to legal action.

The programme to remove to East Africa some people who had arrived in the UK via small boats was agreed upon in a treaty between London and Kilgali. It was intended as a deterrent for those wanting to come to the UK in the same manner.

However, just four volunteers ultimately arrived in Rwanda.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer scrapped the deal – brokered by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government in 2022 – when he took office in July 2024, declaring it “dead and buried”.

London had already paid Kigali 240 million pounds ($330.9m) before the agreement was abandoned, with a further 50 million pounds ($68.9m) due in April.

Starmer’s official spokesman told reporters on Tuesday, “We will robustly defend our position to protect British taxpayers.”

Last year, the UK suspended most financial aid to Rwanda for backing the M23 group’s offensive in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Kigali labelled the move “punitive”.

The agreement faced a string of legal challenges, culminating in a November 2023 ruling by the UK Supreme Court that it was illegal under international law.

Rwanda began the interstate arbitration proceedings under the asylum partnership agreement in November, according to the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s website, which lists the case status as pending.

Immigration has been an increasingly central political issue since the UK left the European Union in 2020, largely on a promise to “take back control” of the country’s borders.

Some 37,000 asylum seekers, including people fleeing Syria and Afghanistan, crossed the English Channel in 2024, and more than 40,000 in 2025 – the highest number since 2022, when nearly 46,000 people crossed. Dozens have died attempting the journey.

The UK government says it has removed 50,000 undocumented people living in the country.

In September, the UK and France implemented a “one-in-one-out” migrant deal aimed at returning asylum seekers to France while accepting those with UK family ties. However, the policy has faced criticism regarding its effectiveness. NGOs and charity groups have also described the scheme as a “cruel” move designed to restrict asylum rights.

The Dodgers’ $240-million signing of Kyle Tucker revived anguished cries that the team is ruining baseball. It also revived a strange chapter in team history, with frenzied online commentary that the signing of Tucker was made possible in large part because Major League Baseball long ago rewarded the Dodgers’ owners with preferential financial treatment that continues to this day.

Is that true?

Yes and no.

Uh, thanks. Go on.

Remember Frank McCourt, the Dodgers’ former owner?

In 2011, after then-commissioner Bud Selig rejected a proposed $3-billion local television deal between the Dodgers and Fox Sports, McCourt took the team into bankruptcy court before agreeing to sell. That meant Selig and the MLB owners would not pick the new Dodgers owner. McCourt would, in a process controlled by the court.

With the Dodgers’ local TV rights soon to expire, McCourt realized bidders for the team might offer more — and he might make more — if the bidders knew in advance how much the league would take from the sale of those rights.

In a settlement with McCourt — and to avoid the risk of the judge imposing a deal less favorable to the league — MLB agreed the fair-market value of a Dodgers TV deal would be based on the very Fox deal that Selig had rejected.

Why did that matter?

That value was $84 million for the first year and would increase thereafter, with the league taking its standard 34% cut and sharing that among all its teams.

However, with a bidding war looming between Fox Sports and Time Warner Cable, Selig knew the rights would be worth more than Fox had offered in its extension with McCourt, who needed immediate cash.

In bankruptcy court, an attorney for Guggenheim, the winning bidder and still the Dodgers’ owner, said the settlement represented a “substantial component of the value proposition of the transaction” — that is, a primary justification for the then-record $2.15-billion purchase price.

In 2013, one year after buying the team, Guggenheim sold those local TV rights. Were they indeed worth more?

You might as well ask if Shohei Ohtani is good. The rights that McCourt wanted to sell for $3 billion were bought by Time Warner Cable for a record $8.35 billion.

Because of the settlement, the league would take its cut based on a deal worth $3 billion rather than based on a deal worth $8.35 billion.

And the league was fine with this, because it wanted to help a marquee franchise return to glory?

LOL, no. In 2012, an MLB attorney had warned the court that the settlement could result in a league of “the Dodgers and the other 29 teams.” Under its terms, the Dodgers could keep tens of millions of dollars each year that otherwise would be shared with the league.

In the wake of the massive Time Warner deal, Selig’s office told other owners it planned to treat television revenue for the Dodgers like television revenue from any other team.

However, thanks to McCourt, the bankruptcy court was in charge, not the league. MLB did not have the power to redo the court-approved settlement, because Guggenheim could have asked the court to uphold the deal and order the league to abide by it.

After negotiations, MLB and Guggenheim made a modest adjustment, setting the “fair-market value” of the Time Warner deal at about $130 million for the first year rather than $84 million. That figure is used to determine the league’s cut, which for all local TV deals has since increased from 34% to 48%.

Just about every report on the Dodgers’ TV deal says the team is guaranteed $334 million each year. Is that accurate?

That $334 million is the annual average. The deal started at a lower value and increases every year.

By the time the deal ends in 2038, the Dodgers will be getting more than $500 million per year.

How is that possible? Aren’t local sports channels dying?

The parent company of the FanDuel Sports channels — including the one that carries the Angels — emerged from bankruptcy last year but now is fighting to remain in business. If your company spends millions upon millions on sports rights, and if your financial success depends on cable and satellite customers paying for a programming bundle that includes sports channels most viewers do not watch, you’re doomed.

The Angels’ local television revenue took a big hit last year and probably will do so again this year. The Milwaukee Brewers, the team that plays in the smallest market in the majors, reportedly got $35 million in its FanDuel deal last year.

The Dodgers own SportsNet LA through a related entity, American Media Productions (AMP), and the television revenue comes via a marketing and distribution agreement with Charter Communications, which inherited the deal when it acquired Time Warner Cable in 2016.

Charter’s revenue in 2024: $55 billion. The giant television, telephone and broadband company is not going out of business anytime soon, even as it is stuck with a money-losing Dodgers deal.

What did Dodgers chairman Mark Walter say upon the establishment of SportsNet LA?

“The creation of AMP will provide substantial financial resources over the coming years for the Dodgers to build on their storied legacy and bring a world championship home to Los Angeles.”

Nailed it. So why would Walter consider forsaking some of those substantial financial resources?

In 2028, when MLB national TV contracts expire, Commissioner Rob Manfred would like to offer traditional networks and streaming services the chance to bid not just on national broadcasts but on an all-baseball, all-the-time outlet where fans could watch any team, wherever they lived, and with no blackouts. With that, the league believes, it could strike gold — and then share the wealth among all 30 teams.

That would require teams to turn over their local broadcast rights to the league. The Dodgers’ local television revenues provide a massive competitive advantage. It’s hard to imagine Walter (and owners of other big-city teams with similar TV riches) surrendering those riches without the league offering him something significant in return.

Like what?

Perhaps a chance to exempt the Dodgers from sharing ticket revenue, or to secure the Japanese television rights now controlled by MLB. Maybe the league would buy SportsNet LA. Could be anything. But that is a 2028 issue. First up is collective bargaining, and the possibility of owners shutting down the sport next winter in pursuit of a salary cap.