Donald

More talks are planned for Thursday between Iran and the United States, which is mobilising its largest military force since the invasion of Iraq more than two decades ago.

Amid mixed messages from US President Donald Trump, Tehran says it wants talks, but is ready for war, too.

So, where do both sides stand?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Jamal Abdi – President of the National Iranian American Council

Hassan Ahmadian – Associate professor at the University of Tehran

Richard Weitz – Senior fellow at the NATO Defense College

United States Secret Service ⁠agents and local police shot and killed a man who drove into the secure perimeter of President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

Washington, DC – President Donald Trump has long been fixated on how voting in the United States is administered, claiming without evidence that his 2020 presidential election loss was the result of malfeasance.

Fast forward more than five years, and Trump is set to be in office for one of the most consequential midterm races in recent times.

It is unclear how the US president might involve himself in the midterms, which will determine whether his Republican Party maintains control over both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The results will decide whether Trump can continue to enact his agenda with relative ease or if he will face congressional pushback at every turn.

The Republican leader’s approach so far appears to be twofold, according to Michael Traugott, a political scientist and professor emeritus at the University of Michigan.

On one hand, Trump has embarked on a messaging campaign to cast doubt on any results that seem unfavourable.

“Part of what the Trump administration is doing is trying to create the impression of fraud and mismanagement in local elections so that they can argue eventually that some outcomes are not legitimate or real or should be discounted,” Traugott told Al Jazeera.

On the other hand, Trump also appears to be conducting a stress test of pre-existing election law, to see how much the federal government can intervene.

“There are actions that he could take or try to take, which would likely be stopped in the courts,” Traugott said.

“The behaviour in the Trump administration is to appeal, appeal, appeal, until it gets to the Supreme Court,” he added. “I imagine that would be their strategy.”

Calls to ‘nationalise’ election administration

Trump has been explicit about his desire to assert more federal control over the election, saying in early February that “Republicans ought to nationalise the voting”.

He pointed to what he described as “horrible corruption on elections” in some parts of the US.

The US Constitution assigns states the power to determine the “times, places and manner” of elections for federal office.

Congress, meanwhile, has the ability to “make or alter” rules related to voting through legislation or, in extreme cases, constitutional amendments.

“It’s important to remember that, in the United States, we don’t really have national elections. We have a series of state and local elections that are held more or less on the same day,” Traugott explained.

The president, meanwhile, has no constitutional role in how elections are administered, beyond signing any legislation Congress passes.

Still, it is possible for a president to leverage executive branch agencies that interact with state election administration. Trump too has explicitly blurred the lines between federal and state power.

In the Oval Office on February 3, he told reporters, “A state is an agent for the federal government in elections. I don’t know why the federal government doesn’t do them anyway.”

His statements were swiftly condemned by voting rights groups.

The League of Women Voters, a voting rights group founded in 1920, called Trump’s remarks a “calculated effort to dismantle the integrity of the electoral system as we know it”.

“Time and again, the President’s claims of widespread fraud have been disproven by nonpartisan election officials, the courts, and the Department of Justice,” it added.

Despite Trump’s claims, voter fraud is exceedingly rare in the US, and any isolated instances typically have little effect on election outcomes.

Even the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind the Trump-aligned Project 2025, has documented an inconsequential rate of voter fraud in its catalogue of cases running back to 1982.

An analysis from the centre-left Brookings Institution found that fraudulent votes failed to amount to one ten-thousandth of a percentage point of the ballots cast in states where elections tend to be the closest.

For example, Arizona is a perennial battleground in presidential elections, but it has seen just 36 reported cases of voter fraud since 1982, out of more than 42 million ballots cast. That put the percentage of fraud at 0.0000845, according to the analysis.

Department of Justice pushes boundaries

Nevertheless, the Trump administration has heaped pressure on the Department of Justice to increase its probes into alleged voter fraud.

The attorney general has demanded that 47 states and Washington, DC, a federal district, hand over their complete voter registration lists, according to a tally from the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan policy group.

Eleven states have complied or agreed to comply. The Trump administration has launched lawsuits against the 20 others that refused.

The Department of Justice has also stepped up its cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security to identify non-citizen voters.

Some critics have even accused the Justice Department of deploying coercive tactics to fulfil its demands for state voter information.

On January 24, for instance, US Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote a letter to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz suggesting three “common sense solutions” to “restore the rule of law” in the state.

One of those proposals was to allow the Justice Department to “access voter rolls”.

Bondi’s remarks came after a federal immigration crackdown in Minnesota had turned deadly, resulting in two on-camera shootings of US citizens.

While her letter did not directly offer a quid pro quo – access to the rolls in exchange for ending the crackdown – critics said the message it sent was clear. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, for instance, called the letter tantamount to “blackmail”.

But four days later, on January 28, the Justice Department went even further, seizing voting records and ballots in a raid on an election facility in Fulton County, Georgia.

The state has been a sore point for Trump: Georgia voted for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in more than two decades during the 2020 race.

At the time, Trump infamously pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to “find more votes” following his loss. He has spread rumours about fraud in Georgia’s election system ever since.

Local officials condemned the January raid as a “flagrant constitutional violation”, saying in a lawsuit that an affidavit submitted by the FBI to obtain a search warrant relied on hypotheticals.

In other words, it failed to establish probable cause that any crime had occurred, Fulton County officials argued.

That affidavit also revealed the investigation was the direct result of a referral from Kurt Olsen, who was appointed to a White House role as Trump’s head of election security in October.

Before entering the White House, Olsen led unsuccessful legal challenges to the 2020 election results, in what Trump dubbed the “Stop the Steal” campaign.

Fulton County officials noted “multiple courts have sanctioned Olsen for his unsubstantiated, speculative claims about elections”.

What is Tulsi Gabbard’s role?

The apparent role of Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, in the election investigations has also raised questions.

Gabbard was present at the Fulton County raid, with Trump later telling reporters that she was “working very hard on trying to keep the election safe”.

Who authorised her presence, however, was the subject of contradictory statements from the Trump administration.

Gabbard said she had been sent on behalf of Trump, even though the president attempted to distance himself from the raid. The Justice Department later said Bondi had requested Gabbard’s presence. Gabbard finally said both Trump and Bondi had asked her to attend.

Whatever the case, Traugott, the political scientist, said that her presence at the scene was highly unusual.

“The director of national intelligence has been associated with observation and information gathering from foreign countries, not from domestic entities,” Traugott explained. “So historically, this is without precedent”.

In a statement, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said he was concerned that Gabbard had exceeded the powers of her office. He said the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he is vice chairman, had not been briefed on any “foreign intelligence nexus” related to the Fulton County raid.

Either Gabbard was flouting her responsibility to keep the committee informed, Warner said, or she is “injecting the nonpartisan intelligence community she is supposed to be leading into a domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy”.

Gabbard, who is expected to testify before the Senate committee in March, responded in early February that she had been acting under her “broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate, and analyse intelligence related to election security”.

She maintained her office would “not irresponsibly share incomplete intelligence assessments concerning foreign or other malign interference in US elections”.

Voter ID law

But it’s not just executive agencies like the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence pushing Trump’s agenda for the midterm races.

Experts say Trump has been angling to use the Republican majorities in Congress to pass restrictive voter laws ahead of November’s election.

Trump has supported a bill, dubbed the SAVE Act, which would require citizens to provide more documentation – such as a passport or a birth certificate – when registering to vote, as well as photo identification when casting a ballot.

Rights groups have long argued that such requirements would disenfranchise some voters who lack access to such materials. As of 2023, the US State Department reported that only 48 percent of US citizens had a valid passport.

The bill would also require states to provide voter lists to the Department of Homeland Security to identify and remove non-citizens, raising concerns about voter privacy.

The legislation, which has been passed by the House, is likely to face an uphill battle in the Senate. It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote.

Even without the legislation, though, Trump has threatened to sign an executive order requiring local election organisers to require voter identification before distributing ballots.

Trump already signed a similar order last March seeking to impose new rules on elections, including voter ID requirements, reviews of electronic voting machines and restrictions on how long votes can be counted.

Nearly all of the provisions have since been blocked by federal judges. The most recent ruling by US District Judge John Chun related to restrictions like tying federal election funding to “proof of citizenship” requirements.

“In granting this relief,” Chun wrote in his decision, “the Court seeks to restore the proper balance of power among the Executive Branch, the states, and Congress envisioned by the Framers.”

US President Donald Trump has announced a 15 percent across-the-board tariff on all imports.

The move comes just a day after he set tariffs at 10 percent, enraged by a Supreme Court ruling that struck down much of his tariff regime.

Governments across the world, including those that already struck tariff deals with the United States, will be analysing the new policy.

What will the implications be for them? And how is the global economy reacting to Trump’s latest decision?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Deborah Elms – head of trade policy, Hinrich Foundation

Rebecca Christie – senior fellow, Bruegel think tank

Garima Kapoor – deputy head of research, Elara Securities

US President Donald Trump writes on Truth Social that a ‘great hospital boat’ is going to Greenland as he mocks its healthcare system.

Greenland said “no thanks” to US President Donald Trump’s plan to send a hospital ship to the Arctic island after he repeatedly threatened to seize the Danish autonomous territory for “national security” reasons.

Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said in a post on Facebook on Sunday that Trump’s proposal to send the US medical vessel had been “noted”.

“But we have a public healthcare system where treatment is free for citizens. It is a deliberate choice,” Nielsen said, reiterating Greenland remained open to dialogue and cooperation.

“But talk to us instead of just making more or less random outbursts on social media,” he added.

The historically strong bilateral ties after World War II between NATO allies Denmark and the United States have come under severe strain in recent months as Trump ratcheted up talk of a possible US takeover of the mineral-rich and strategically located Arctic island.

Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen told Danish broadcaster DR that the population of Greenland “receives the healthcare it needs”.

“They receive it either in Greenland or, if they require specialised treatment, they receive it in Denmark,” he said. “It’s not as if there’s a need for a special healthcare initiative in Greenland.”

On Saturday, Trump said in a post on his Truth Social account – with an AI-generated image of the US Navy vessel the USNS Mercy – that it was on its way to Greenland to treat those being medically neglected.

“We are going to send a great hospital boat to Greenland to take care of the many people who are sick, and not being taken care of there. It’s on the way!!!” Trump wrote.

Trump has repeatedly expressed his interest in the US taking control of Greenland, citing it as a way to secure US national security. However, Greenland and Europe rejected the US desire to take the Arctic island and have upheld Greenlandic sovereignty.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said she was “happy to live in a country where access to healthcare is free and equal for all”.

Greenland is a place “where insurance or wealth does not determine whether one receives dignified treatment,” she added in an apparent criticism of the US healthcare system, which is not universal.

Threats to take Greenland ebbed after Trump struck a “framework” deal with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in January to ensure greater US influence.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

The incident in Florida took place on Sunday when US President Donald Trump was in Washington, DC.

The United States Secret Service ⁠says its agents have shot and killed a man who attempted to break into a secure perimeter at President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

The man, in his 20s, appeared to be armed with a shotgun and fuel can, according to the Secret Service’s communications chief Anthony Guglielmi. He was shot at about 1:30am Sunday morning (06:30 GMT).

Trump was in Washington, DC, not Mar-a-Lago, when the incident took place. No other individuals under Secret Service protection were present, said the agency.

Guglielmi said Secret Service agents and a deputy from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office confronted the armed individual, whose identity has not yet been disclosed, after he approached Mar-a-Lago’s north gate. The individual was pronounced dead after being shot by law enforcement officials.

“The incident, including the individual’s background, actions, potential motive and the use of force, is under investigation by the FBI, the US Secret Service and the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office,” said Guglielmi.

This is a breaking news story…

President Donald Trump has said he will raise global tariffs on imported goods to 15 percent after the United States Supreme Court struck down his previous trade measures.

The president announced his decision on Saturday, revising an earlier decision to impose a new 10 percent worldwide tariff after the Supreme Court ruling, which triggered immediate concern and responses from governments and markets.

The US top court’s ruling and Trump’s new tariffs have left countries grappling with the legal and economic fallout, raising questions about ongoing agreements, tariff reductions, and the legality of past duties.

Governments are now evaluating how the new levy will affect key industries, investment plans, and trade negotiations, while analysts warn that uncertainty could persist until legal and trade frameworks are clarified.

South Korea

In South Korea, one of the US’s closest allies, the presidential office, Blue House, has released a statement, saying the government will review the trade deal and make decisions in the national interest, casting a question mark over the agreement signed in November last year, which lowered tariffs from 25 to 15 percent in exchange for $350bn in cash and investments from South Korea in the US.

“For major South Korean companies in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors, the Supreme Court ruling has been positive: Even if Trump introduces the new 10 percent tariffs under Section 122, they would still pay a lower rate,” said Jack Barton, an Al Jazeera correspondent in Seoul.

“However, exporters of automobiles, more than half of which go to the US, remain subject to the 25 percent tariff, and steel exports are still hit with 50 percent duties under Section 232, which was not affected by the ruling.”

The South Korean government is expected to move cautiously. Exports account for 85 percent of South Korea’s gross domestic product, with the US as the second-largest market.

“Officials have indicated that rapid changes could jeopardise major agreements, including a recent multibillion-dollar shipbuilding deal with the US and other investments,” said Barton.

“While no definitive policy statement has been made yet, the Blue House has said that the trade deal will be under careful review and changes are likely.”

India

India has faced some of the highest US tariffs under Trump’s previous use of emergency trade powers. The president first imposed a 25 percent levy on Indian imports and later added another 25 percent on the country’s purchases of Russian oil, bringing the total to 50 percent.

Earlier this month, the US and India reached a framework trade deal. Trump said Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to stop buying Russian oil and that US tariffs would be lowered to 18 percent for India’s top exports to the US, including clothing, pharmaceuticals, precious stones, and textiles. Meanwhile, India said it will eliminate or reduce tariffs on all US industrial goods and a range of agricultural products.

According to political economist MK Venu, founding editor of Indian publication, The Wire, “Critics have argued New Delhi should have waited for the US Supreme Court decision before finalising the interim trade deal and even trade analysts previously connected with the government have maintained it would have been wiser to wait for the court verdict.”

Venu added that Trump was eager to finalise the trade deal, which includes a commitment to buy $500bn worth of new imports in defence, energy, and artificial intelligence (AI) from the US over the next five years.

While India, he said, welcomed the reduction of tariffs to 18 percent and the removal of penal duties on Russian imports, uncertainty remains over negotiations, as the Supreme Court ruling affects the legal basis of past tariffs.

“The Indian trade delegation is likely to wait for the final outcome of the Supreme Court verdict before proceeding with further negotiations, and countries around the world are expected to follow the court’s ruling rather than rush into trade agreements under legislation deemed unconstitutional,” he said.

China

China has reacted in a muted way to the Supreme Court ruling, with much of the country still on the Lunar New Year break.

Al Jazeera’s Rob McBride, reporting from Beijing, said, “The Chinese embassy in Washington has issued a blanket statement, noting that trade wars benefit nobody, and that the decision is likely to be broadly welcomed in China, which has long been a primary target of Trump’s tariff policies.”

Since last April, he said, China has faced multiple layers of tariffs, including 10 percent on chemicals used in fentanyl production exported to the US and 100 percent on electric vehicles.

Analysts have estimated that the overall tariff level, about 36 percent, could now fall to about 21 percent, providing some relief to an economy already under strain from the COVID-19 pandemic, a prolonged property market crisis, and declining exports.

Shipments from China to the US have reportedly fallen by roughly a fifth over the past year.

“Beijing has sought to offset losses in the US market by strengthening trade ties with Southeast Asian nations and pursuing agreements with the European Union,” McBride said.

“The Supreme Court ruling may also create a more favourable atmosphere ahead of a planned state visit by Trump in early April, when he is expected to meet President Xi Jinping, potentially opening space for a reset in relations between the world’s two largest economies.”

Canada

Canada has welcomed the US Supreme Court’s decision but has pointed out that there are still some challenges ahead.

Regional leaders across the country, including those of British Columbia and Ontario, have signalled that the ruling is a positive step, according to Al Jazeera’s Ian Wood, reporting from Toronto.

However, Minister for Canada-US trade Dominic LeBlanc has said that significant work remains, as Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminium, softwood lumber, and automobiles have remained in place.

Meanwhile, Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford has added that while optimism has grown, tension has persisted over what Donald Trump will do next, Wood said.

Mexico

Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, said her government would be carefully reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision to assess its scope and the extent to which Mexico might be affected.

“The reality is that despite all we’ve heard over the last year about tariffs or the threat of tariffs, Mexico has actually ended up in quite a privileged, even competitive position, especially when compared to other countries,” said Al Jazeera’s Julia Gliano, reporting from Mexico City.

“We have to remember Mexico is the US’s largest trading partner, and the two countries, along with Canada, share a vast trading agreement that shields most products from the so-called reciprocal tariffs that President Trump announced.

“There were also punitive tariffs related to fentanyl and illegal immigration along the US border, which Mexico had managed to suspend while negotiations continued on those matters. Now the tariffs that Mexico has been subjected to on steel, aluminium, and car parts are not affected by today’s decision.”

So, the government here in Mexico, she said, is now standing by to see what the Trump administration comes up with next as it reels from today’s decision by the Supreme Court.

France

French President Emmanuel Macron hailed “the existence of checks and balances in democracies” after the Supreme Court’s decision, telling reporters at an event in the capital that his country wanted to continue exporting “under the fairest rules possible and not be subject to unilateral decisions”.

The country’s finance minister, Nicolas Forissier, told UK newspaper The Financial Times that the EU has the tools to hit back at the US over its tariff policy, suggesting a more combative approach.

Germany

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he expected the tariff burden on his country’s economy to be lower after the US Supreme Court ruling, raising the prospect of German companies recouping billions in refunds.

Flagging an upcoming visit to Washington, Merz told Germany’s ARD broadcaster that he would present a “coordinated European position” on the matter, pointing out that tariff policy is determined by the European Union rather than individual member states.

Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil said Europe was strengthening its independence and sovereignty, building new trade relationships worldwide and concluding free trade agreements.

Limits of Trump’s tariff powers

A senior legal scholar told Al Jazeera that the US Supreme Court ruling marks a key moment in the legal battle over Trump’s tariffs, focusing on constitutional limits rather than economics.

Frank Bowman, professor emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law, told Al Jazeera that the court has for the first time confronted what he called Trump’s broader challenge to the rule of law.

“This is a ruling that is important in several respects. The first, more broadly, is that this is the first time in the last year that the Supreme Court has stepped in and attempted to do something about Donald Trump’s generalised attack on the rule of law in the United States.

“And make no mistake, although tariffs certainly are about economics, what Trump has done over the last year is essentially to defy the law. And the Supreme Court happily decided that they had had enough and that they would say no. So, they’re not ruling on economic policy. They made a decision that the president simply exceeded his constitutional authority.”

United States President Donald Trump has doubled down on his new global tariffs, raising them from 10 to 15 percent, days after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping levies on imports.

The move on Saturday came as businesses and governments around the world sought repayment for the estimated $133bn that Washington has already collected.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump announced the raise “effective immediately” and said the move was based on a review of the “ridiculous, poorly written and extraordinarily anti-American decision” issued by the Supreme Court on Friday.

By a six-to-three vote, the court had ruled that it was unconstitutional for Trump to unilaterally set and change tariffs, because the power to tax lies with the US Congress.

The court’s decision struck down tariffs that Trump had imposed on nearly every country using an emergency powers law, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Trump railed against the majority justices as “fools and lapdogs” in a news conference after the ruling, calling them an “embarrassment to their families”. He quickly signed an executive order – resting on a different statute, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 – to impose the blanket 10 percent tariff, starting on Tuesday.

The 15 percent hike announced on Saturday is the highest rate allowed under that law.

However, those tariffs are limited to 150 days unless they are extended by Congress. No president has previously invoked Section 122, and its use could lead to further legal challenges.

It was not immediately clear whether an updated executive order was forthcoming.

The White House said the Section 122 tariffs include exemptions for certain products, including critical minerals, metals and energy products, according to the Reuters news agency.

Lawsuits

Trump wrote on Saturday that his administration will continue to work on issuing other permissible tariffs.

“During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again,” he said.

The president has already said his administration intends to rely on two other statutes that permit import taxes on specific products or countries based on investigations into national ‌security or unfair trade practices.

Tariffs have been central to Trump’s economic agenda, which he has used as a tool to address a range of goals – from reviving domestic manufacturing to pressuring other nations to crack down on drug trafficking, and pushing warring countries toward peace.

He has also wielded tariffs, or the threat of them, as leverage to extract trade concessions from foreign governments.

Federal data shows the US Treasury had collected more than $133bn from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law as of December.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, more than a thousand lawsuits have been filed by importers in the US to seek refunds, and more cases are on the way.

While legally sound, the path forward for such claims is not straightforward, especially for smaller firms, said John Diamond, director of the Center for Tax and Budget Policy at Rice University.

“It’s pretty clear that they will win in court, but it’ll take some time,” Diamond said. “Once we get the court orders in effect, I don’t think those refunds will be all that messy for larger firms. Smaller firms are going to have a much more difficult time getting through the process.”

But foreign governments are managing “the real mess”, Diamond said.

“What do you do if you’re Taiwan, or Great Britain, and you have this existing trade deal, but now it’s kind of been turned upside down?”

The US-Taiwan trade deal lowers the general tariff on Taiwanese goods from 20 percent to 15 percent, the same level as Asian trade partners South Korea and Japan, in exchange for Taipei agreeing to buy about $85bn of US energy, aircraft and equipment.

The US-United Kingdom deal imposes a 10 percent tariff on imports of most UK goods, and reduces higher tariffs on imports of UK cars, steel and aluminium.

‘Pickpocketing the American people’

After ⁠the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump’s trade representative, Jamieson Greer, told Fox News on Friday that those countries must honour their agreements ⁠even if they call for higher rates than the Section 122 tariffs.

Exports to the US from countries such as Malaysia and Cambodia would continue to be taxed at their negotiated rates of 19 percent, even though the universal rate is lower, Greer said.

Indonesia’s chief negotiator for US tariffs, Airlangga Hartarto, said the trade deal between the countries that set US tariffs at 19 percent, which was signed on Friday, remains in force despite the court decision.

The ‌ruling could spell good news for countries like Brazil, which has not negotiated a deal with Washington to lower its 40 percent tariff rate but could now see its tariff rate drop to 15 percent, at least temporarily.

Governments around the world have reacted to the Supreme Court decision – as well as Trump’s subsequent tariff announcement – with a mix of cautious optimism, trepidation and frustration.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he would coordinate a joint European stance before talks with Trump in early March, while Hong Kong’s secretary for financial services and the Treasury, Christopher Hiu, described the situation surrounding Trump’s new tariff moves as a “fiasco”.

With the November midterm elections in the US looming, Trump’s approval rating on his handling of the economy has steadily declined during his year in office.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday showed 34 percent of ‌respondents ‌saying they approved of Trump’s handling of the economy, while 57 percent said they did not approve.

Democrats, who need to flip only three Republican-held seats in the US House of Representatives in November to win a majority, have blamed Trump’s tariffs for exacerbating the rising cost of living.

They were quick to condemn Trump’s new tariff threat on Saturday.

Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee accused Trump of “pickpocketing the American people” with his newly announced higher tariff.

“A little over 24 hours after his tariffs were ruled illegal, he’s doing anything he can to make sure he can still jack up your costs,” they wrote on social media.

California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, a Trump nemesis, added that “he [Trump] does not care about you”.

The three-day trip, at Beijing’s invitation, comes more than eight years after Trump’s first visit to China during his first stint as president.

Donald Trump will travel to China from March 31 to April 2, the White House has said, in what will be the first official visit to Beijing by a United States president since Trump’s last trip there in 2017.

The dates, confirmed by a White House official on Friday, come as Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have respectively described “excellent” and “good communication” between the two countries in recent months.

“That’s going to be a wild one,” Trump said on Thursday of the planned trip.

“We have to put on the biggest display you’ve ever had in the history of China,” Trump said.

The announcement of Trump’s China visit came shortly before the US Supreme Court on Friday struck down the tariffs that Trump had imposed on countries around the world, in a tactic the US president has openly used to influence other countries to support his policies.

Tariffs will likely be on the agenda in Beijing, as will China’s response to the US’s trade threats, including no longer buying soybeans, previously the top US export to China.

Beijing has already hosted a number of other Western leaders in recent months, including Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who touted new trade deals and a lifting of Canada’s ban on buying Chinese-made electric cars during his visit.

China’s increasing global exports of electric vehicles come as Beijing has invested heavily in new technologies and renewable energy in recent years, potentially further setting it apart from the US, where Trump is doubling down on fossil fuels.

Washington also continues to provide weapons sales and other support to Taiwan, which Beijing has promised to unify with mainland China.

This will be Trump’s first trip to China since the COVID-19 pandemic, which the then-US president labelled as the “Chinese virus”. Trump then downplayed the virus’s potential consequences in the US, where more than one million people died during the pandemic.

Since reopening its borders in January 2023, following strict self-imposed isolation during the pandemic, China has seemingly increased its efforts to engage with the outside world in recent months.

In addition to hosting Western politicians, China has also opened its doors to popular US live streamers such as Hasan Piker and Darren Watkins Jr, also known as Speed, while also attracting US citizens to its social media apps.

US president’s announcement comes amid a surge of interest following comments on aliens by ex-President Barack Obama.

United States President Donald Trump said he is directing federal agencies, including the defence department, to begin “identifying and releasing” government records related to unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and alien life forms.

Trump did not specify whether classified documents would be released to the public, but added that the files should include “any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters”.

“Based on the tremendous interest shown, I will be directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant Departments and Agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs),” Trump said late on Thursday in a post on his Truth Social platform.

The move appears to stem from a surge in public attention following recent comments by former US President Barack Obama, who suggested in a podcast interview that aliens are “real”, but that he had not personally seen one, and none were being kept in secret government facilities.

On Sunday, Obama released a statement on Instagram, clarifying what he meant by his comments, which have since gone viral.

“Since it’s gotten attention let me clarify. Statistically, the universe is so vast that the odds are good there’s life out there,” he said.

“But the distances between solar systems are so great that the chances we’ve been visited by aliens is low, and I saw no evidence during my presidency that extraterrestrials have made contact with us. Really!”

Earlier on Thursday, Trump had criticised Obama for his remarks regarding aliens, telling reporters that Obama “was not supposed to be doing that” and implying that the former president’s comments bordered on classified information.

“He made a big mistake,” Trump said of Obama.

No evidence has yet been produced of intelligent life beyond Earth, and the Pentagon in 2024 released a report stating that it had no proof that UFOs were alien technology, most being spy planes, satellites and weather balloons.

Nevertheless, messages of support poured in swiftly on social media and from Capitol Hill following Trump’s announcement to release all documents.

“Thank you POTUS!” wrote Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, who chairs a congressional task force on unidentified aerial phenomena.

“As the Chairwoman of the Task Force that investigates these subjects, we are incredibly grateful for you doing this! I look forward to going through all the footage, photos, and reports with the public!” she wrote.

Democratic Senator John Fetterman also voiced support during an appearance on Fox News, calling Trump’s decision “fantastic” and saying that “America and the world deserve this”.

The United Nations announced that the United States has paid approximately $160m towards its nearly $4bn in outstanding dues.

The payment goes towards the UN’s regular operating budget, according to spokesman Stephane Dujarric.

But the shortfall comes as the administration of US President Donald Trump has openly questioned its commitment to the UN and has slashed money earmarked for the international body.

Still, on Thursday, Trump appeared to endorse funding the UN during the inaugural meeting of his Board of Peace in Washington, DC.

“We’re going to help them money-wise, and we’re going to make sure the United Nations is viable,” Trump said. “And I think it’s going to eventually live up to its potential. That will be a big day.”

The UN has indicated that the US owes about $2.196bn to its regular budget, including $767m for the current year. Another $1.8bn is owed for the UN’s peacekeeping operations.

A financial crisis

For years, the UN has faced a financial crisis, with a growing shortfall of contributions. Each of the organisation’s 193 member states is required to contribute, based on its economic ability.

Poorer countries could be asked to contribute as little as 0.001 percent of the UN’s regular budget. Wealthier countries could reach the maximum contribution amount of 22 percent.

But unpaid dues have already forced the UN to slash its spending and reduce its services.

In a stark warning last month, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cautioned that the international body faces an “imminent financial collapse” unless its financial rules are overhauled or all 193 member nations pay their dues.

Guterres revealed that the UN’s regular operating budget could be depleted as early as July, a scenario that would severely jeopardise its global operations.

The US is the largest donor to the UN, as the world’s largest economy. But it currently owes billions in unpaid dues.

UN officials have stated that the US accounts for approximately 95 percent of the arrears to the organisation’s regular budget.

‘Empty words’

Since returning to the White House for a second term in January 2025, Trump has elevated concerns that US dues might go unpaid.

The Republican leader has repeatedly criticised the UN as ineffective, even articulating that sentiment at September’s UN General Assembly.

“What is the purpose of the United Nations?” Trump asked the assembly. “All they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up. It’s empty words.”

Throughout his second term so far, he has cut foreign aid spending and withdrawn from international commitments. In January, for instance, his government pulled out of 31 UN programmes, including its democracy fund and a body that works on maternal and child health.

But on Thursday, at his Board of Peace meeting, Trump appeared to take a warmer stance towards the UN, saying he planned to work “very closely” with the organisation.

“Someday, I won’t be here. The United Nations will be,” he said, seeming to endorse its longevity.

Trump also acknowledged the organisation’s financial distress: “They need help, and they need help money-wise.” He did not mention the US arrears.

While the Board of Peace establishment was meant to oversee the Gaza ceasefire, many see it as an attempt by Trump to rival the UN Security Council’s role in preventing and ending conflicts around the world.

Critics have described the board, which Trump chairs, as a “parallel system” that risks undermining the UN’s authority and operations.

Trump himself appeared to position his Board of Peace as an oversight body for the UN in Thursday’s remarks.

The Board of Peace, he said, “is going to almost be looking over the United Nations and making sure it runs properly”.

US president says at inaugural Board of Peace summit that Washington and Tehran should make a ‘meaningful deal’.

Donald Trump has renewed his threats against Iran, suggesting that Tehran has about 10 days to reach a deal with Washington or face further military strikes.

Speaking at the inaugural Board of Peace meeting in Washington, DC, on Thursday, the United States president reiterated his argument that the joint Israeli-US strikes against Iran in June of last year paved the way to the “ceasefire” in Gaza.

Trump argued that without the US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the “threat” of Iran would have prevented countries in the region from agreeing to “peace in the Middle East”.

“So now we may have to take it a step further, or we may not,” Trump said. “Maybe we’re going to make a deal. You’re going to be finding out over the next probably 10 days.”

Trump’s comments come days after the US and Iran held a second round of indirect talks.

On Wednesday, Iran’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi said the two sides made “good progress in the negotiations” in Geneva and “were able to reach broad agreement on a set of guiding principles” for an agreement.

But the US has continued to amass military assets in the Gulf region, including two aircraft carriers and dozens of fighter jets.

Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear weapon, has said it would agree to curbing its uranium enrichment and placing it under rigorous international inspection.

But the Trump administration has said that it would oppose any Iranian enrichment. Washington has also sought to place limits on Tehran’s missile arsenal, but Iranian officials have ruled out any concessions over the issue, which they say is a non-negotiable defence principle.

On Thursday, Trump said his diplomatic aides Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have had “very good meetings” with Iran’s representatives.

“We have to make a meaningful deal. Otherwise, bad things happen,” he said.

Last week, Trump said the US and Iran should come to an agreement “over the next month”, warning Tehran with “very traumatic” consequences.

But Iranian officials have expressed defiance against the US president’s threats.

“The Americans constantly say that they’ve sent a warship toward Iran. Of course, a warship is a dangerous piece of military hardware,” Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei wrote on X on Thursday.

“However, more dangerous than that warship is the weapon that can send that warship to the bottom of the sea.”

Tensions between the Washington and Tehran have been escalating since late 2025, when Trump – while hosting Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in December – vowed to strike Iran again if attempts to rebuild its nuclear or missile programmes.

Days later, antigovernment protests broke out in Iran. Trump encouraged the demonstrators to take over state institutions, promising them that “help is on the way”.

Trump appeared to step back from the brink of attacking Iran last month, saying that the country agreed to halt the execution of dissidents under US pressure.

The two countries later renewed negotiations with the first round of talks since the June war taking place in Oman on February 6.

But threats and hostile rhetoric between Washington and Tehran have persisted despite the ongoing diplomacy.

In 2018, during his first term Trump nixed the multilateral nuclear deal that saw Iran scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for lifting international sanctions against its economy.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump is set to hold his first “Board of Peace” summit in Washington, DC, an event where the US leader likely hopes to prove the recently launched panel can overcome scepticism – even from those who signed on in support – in the face of months of Israeli ceasefire violations in Gaza.

The summit on Thursday comes nearly three months to the day since the UN Security Council approved a US-backed “ceasefire” plan amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza, which included a two-year mandate for the Board of Peace to oversee the devastated Palestinian enclave’s reconstruction and the launch of a so-called International Stabilization Force.

Disquiet has surrounded the board since the November security council vote, with many traditional Western allies wary of the US administration’s apparent wider ambitions, which some have viewed as an attempt to rival the United Nations in a Trump-dominated format.

Others, including countries that have already signed on as members, have raised concerns about the board’s fitness to effect meaningful change in Gaza. Several regional Middle East powers have joined the board, with Israel becoming a late, and to some, disconcerting addition in early February.

As of Thursday’s meeting, the board still has no Palestinian representation, which many observers see as a major obstacle to finding a lasting path forward.

“What exactly does Trump want to get out of this meeting?” Yousef Munayyer, the head of the Israel-Palestine programme at the Arab Center Washington DC, questioned.

“I think he wants to be able to say that people are participating, that people believe in his project and in his vision and in his ability to move things forward,” he told Al Jazeera.

“But I don’t think that you’re going to see any major commitments until there are clearer resolutions to the key political questions that so far remain outstanding.”

‘Only game in town’

To be sure, the Board of Peace currently remains the “only game in town” for parties interested in bettering the lives of Palestinians in Gaza, Munayyer explained, while simultaneously remaining “extremely and intimately tied to the persona of Donald Trump”.

That raises serious doubts over the board’s longevity in what is likely to be a decades-long response to the crisis.

“Regional players that have a serious concern over the future of the region and concern over the genocide have no choice but to really hope that their participation in this Board of Peace allows them to have some leverage and some direction over the future of Gaza in the next several years,” Munayyer said.

He assessed the greatest opportunity for member states who “understand the challenges and understand the context” would be to focus on “what realistically can be achieved in the time period … to focus on the immediate needs and address them aggressively”. That includes health infrastructure, freedom of movement, making sure that people have shelter, pushing for an end to ceasefire violations, to name a few, he said.

At least 72,063 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023, with 603 killed since the October 11, 2025, “ceasefire” went into effect. Nearly the entire population of 2.1 million has been displaced, with more than 80 percent of buildings destroyed.

For his part, Trump, who has previously envisioned turning Gaza into a “Middle East Riviera”, struck a positive tone ahead of the meeting. In a post on his Truth Social account on Sunday, Trump touted the “unlimited potential” of the board, which he said would prove to be the “most consequential International Body in History”.

Trump also said that $5bn in funding pledges would be announced “toward the Gaza Humanitarian and Reconstruction efforts” and that member states “have committed thousands of personnel to the International Stabilization Force and Local Police to maintain Security and Peace for Gazans”.

He did not provide further details.

Meanwhile, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is a member of the panel’s so-called “Gaza executive board”, unveiled the clearest vision yet of Washington’s “master plan” for Gaza in January.

The plan, assembled without any input from Palestinians in Gaza, outlined gleaming residential towers, data centres, seaside resorts, parks, and sports facilities, predicated on the erasure of the enclave’s urban fabric.

At the time, Kushner did not say how the reconstruction plan would be funded. He said it would begin following full disarmament by Hamas and the withdrawal of the Israeli military, both issues that remain unresolved.

Pressure on Israel?

As the US administration stargazes over sweeping construction plans, it is likely to face a starker reality when it meets with a collection of the 25 countries that have signed on as members, as well as several others that are sending observers to the meeting, according to Annelle Sheline, a research fellow in the Middle East programme at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Any progress to show the board’s “proof of concept” would all-but-surely require asserting unilateral pressure on Israel, she noted.

“Trump is hoping to have countries back up his claim about the $5bn, to get actual commitments on paper,” Sheline told Al Jazeera.

“This is probably going to be challenging, because – especially the Gulf countries – have been very clear that they’re not interested in financing another reconstruction that’s just going to be destroyed again in a few years.”

Israel’s decision to join the board, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had initially opposed, has piqued concerns about further influence over US policy. An act of good faith by the US to advance a more lasting peace could be the inclusion of a Palestinian official on the board, Sheline added.

She proposed widely popular Palestinian political prisoner Marwan Barghouti, who is continuing to serve consecutive life sentences in Israel, as a possible candidate. His release, she said, could be an example of an area where Washington could use its leverage to immediate effect.

In the shorter term, “[interested member states] are largely waiting for the security situation to resolve. Israel violates the ceasefire daily and moves the yellow line”, Sheline said, referring to the demarcation in Gaza behind which Israel’s military was required to withdraw as part of the first phase of the “ceasefire” agreement.

Indonesia’s government has said it is preparing to commit 1,000 troops to a stabilisation force, which could eventually grow to 8,000. But any deployment would likely remain delayed without better ceasefire guarantees, she said.

“It’s still an active warzone,” Sheline added. “So it’s very understandable that even Indonesia, which has hypothetically said it would contribute troops to the stabilisation force, is likely going to say we’re not actually going to do that until the situation is stable.”

An opportunity?

Ensuring an actual ceasefire is enforced – including creating accountability mechanisms for violations – remained “by far the most critical” task for the board’s inaugural meeting, according to Laurie Nathan, the director of the mediation programme at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

Trump’s Board of Peace is “not going to be able to play a meaningful reconstruction role in the absence of stability in Gaza, and stability requires adherence to the ceasefire”, he told Al Jazeera.

The next key step – and a major development that could come from Thursday’s meeting – would be a commitment of troops, although Nathan noted any deployment would still likely be deadlocked until a voluntary Hamas disarmament agreement is reached.

On the face of the situation, Trump would appear increasingly incentivised to use Washington’s considerable leverage over Israel to foster a stability in Gaza that the president has closely aligned with his own self-image.

After all, Trump and his allies have regularly portrayed the US president as the “peacemaker-in-chief”, repeatedly touting his success in conflict resolution, even if facts on the ground undermine the claims. Trump has been vocal in his belief that he should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Still, “Trump’s motivation is multifold,” Nathan explained.

“Does he care about peace? I think he does. Does he want to be a peace broker? Yes. Does he genuinely want the Nobel Peace Prize? Yes.”

“On the other hand, he is performative … it’s never quite clear how much of it is serious for him,” he added. “The further problem is that personal interests are always involved when Trump is doing these things.”

Wider ambitions?

Both Washington’s Western allies and experts in conflict resolution have scrutinised what appears to be the yawning scope of the Board of Peace, far beyond the Gaza purview approved by the UN Security Council last year.

A widely reported founding “charter” sent to invited countries did not directly reference Gaza as it took digs at pre-existing approaches to peace-building that “foster perpetual dependency and institutionalise crisis rather than leading people beyond it”. Instead, it envisioned a “more nimble and effective international peace-building body”.

Critics have further questioned Trump’s singular and indefinite role as “chairman” and sole veto-holder, which largely undermines the principles of multilateralism intended to be enshrined in organisations such as the UN. They have argued that the structure fosters a transactional approach both in dealings with the US government and Trump as an individual.

Richard Gowan, the programme director of global issues and institutions at International Crisis Group, said those concerns are unlikely to subside any time soon. Still, he did not see that precluding European countries from supporting the board’s effort if it is able to make meaningful progress.

“I think, in practical terms, you will see other countries trying to support what the board is doing in the Gaza case, while continuing to keep it at arm’s length over other issues,” he said.

Thursday’s meeting could indicate the Board of Peace’s dynamic and tone going forward.

“If Trump uses his authority under the charter to order everyone around, block any proposals he doesn’t like, and run this in a completely personalistic fashion,” Gowan said, “I think even countries that want to make nice with Trump will wonder what they’re getting into.”

“If Trump shows his mellower side. If he’s actually willing to listen, in particular to the Arab group and what they’re saying about what Gaza needs, if it looks like a genuine conversation in a genuine contact group,” he added, “that won’t erase all the questions about the board’s future, but it will at least suggest that it can be a serious sort of diplomatic framework.”

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt has said Iran would be “wise” to make a deal, as the United States surges further military assets to the Middle East.

Her statement came as part of a series of veiled threats from officials under US President Donald Trump, a day after US and Iranian representatives held a second round of indirect talks this month.

The two sides appeared to offer differing accounts of the talks. Iranian officials said both parties had agreed on “guiding principles”, but US Vice President JD Vance said Iran had yet to respond to all of Washington’s “red lines”.

During a news conference on Wednesday, Leavitt articulated the Trump administration’s position that Iran needs to accede to US demands.

“Iran would be very wise to make a deal with President Trump and with his administration,” she told reporters.

Trump, who has repeatedly threatened Iran with military action in response to its crackdown on protests last month, also referenced a possible escalation in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday.

The post warned Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the United Kingdom against a deal agreed to last year that would see London cede control of the Chagos Islands, strategically located in the centre of the Indian Ocean.

The deal nevertheless allows the UK and US to continue to lease and operate a joint airbase on the largest island, Diego Garcia.

“Should Iran decide not to make a Deal, it may be necessary for the United States to use Diego Garcia, and the Airfield located in Fairford, in order to eradicate a potential attack by a highly unstable and dangerous Regime,” Trump wrote.

“An attack that would potentially be made on the United Kingdom, as well as other friendly Countries.”

Meanwhile, speaking from the sidelines of an International Energy Agency (IAE) meeting in Paris, France, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright warned that Washington would deter Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons “one way or the other”.

“They’ve been very clear about what they would do with nuclear weapons. It’s entirely unacceptable,” Wright said.

Military buildup

The threats come as the US appears to be surging more military assets to the Middle East, raising the spectre of escalation.

As of Wednesday, the Pentagon had one aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, nine destroyers and three littoral combat ships in the region, with an anonymous US official telling the AFP news agency more were on the way.

That includes the world’s largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R Ford, which is en route from the Atlantic Ocean.

The US has also sent a large fleet of aircraft to the Middle East, according to open-source intelligence accounts on X and flight-tracking website Flightradar24.

That deployment appears to include F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jets, F-15 and F-16 warplanes, and the KC-135 aerial refuelling aircraft that are needed to sustain their operations, according to the trackers.

The US had previously surged aircraft and naval vessels to the region ahead of strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites in June of last year, which came at the end of a 12-day war between Israel and Iran.

Iran does ‘not want war’

For his part, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Wednesday that the country did “not want war” but would not give in to US demands.

“From the day I took office, I have believed that war must be set aside. But if they are going to try to impose their will on us, humiliate us and demand that we bow our heads at any cost, should we accept that?” he asked.

Pezeshkian spoke shortly after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched exercises on Monday in the Strait of Hormuz, in a show of military might.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has previously warned that any new US strikes would lead to wider regional escalation.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on Wednesday that its top diplomat Abbas Araghchi had spoken by phone with the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, Rafael Grossi.

Grossi “stressed the Islamic Republic of Iran’s focus on drafting an initial and coherent framework to advance future talks” on its nuclear programme, according to the statement.

Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which saw Iran curtail its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief, during his first term in 2018. In the years since, he has imposed a “maximum pressure” campaign that includes new sanctions.

Efforts to strike a new nuclear deal have repeatedly stalled since Trump’s first term.

Tehran has called for the latest round of talks to focus solely on its nuclear programme, which it maintains is used only for civilian purposes. It has also indicated it is willing to make concessions in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

Washington has pushed for wider demands that are considered non-starters for Iran, including limits on its ballistic missile programme, although its demands during the latest round of talks were not immediately clear.

New York has confirmed that the federal government released another $77m for new tunnels and bridges connecting the state to its neighbour New Jersey, amid a feud with United States President Donald Trump.

On Tuesday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul appeared at a construction site alongside union leaders to push for the release of the remaining funds, which were frozen in October amid a record-breaking government shutdown.

“It cannot continue like this,” Hochul, a Democrat, told workers at the site.

“The workers need to know that that job is going to be there: the one they signed up for, the one they trained for, the one they’re so proud of. It has to be there year after year, until this project is done.”

At stake is the fate of the Northeast Corridor project, a central part of the Gateway Program, an interstate initiative to expand and renovate the aging tunnels that the link metropolitan hubs between New York and New Jersey.

The federal government had pledged billions in support for the project, considered to be vital for transportation and safety reasons.

But on October 1, one day into a historically long government shutdown, the Trump administration announced it would suspend $18bn in funding for the project that had already been granted.

The move was designed to pressure Democrats — and Democrat-aligned jurisdictions — to comply with Republican demands to end the shutdown.

But Trump hinted at the time that some of the programming cuts could be permanent. The shutdown ended after 43 days in November, and still, the funding for the New York City tunnel project remained frozen.

Democrats decried the freeze an act of political revenge. “It should concern every American that the Trump Administration is willing to harm working families and our nation’s economy to punish Democrats,” Representative Jerry Nadler of New York said in response to the funding suspension.

But Trump has continued to withhold the funds. On February 3, the states of New York and New Jersey announced they were suing the Trump administration to release the funds.

“After four months of covering costs with limited operating funds, the states warn that construction will be forced to completely shut down as soon as February 6 unless federal funding resumes,” attorneys general Letitia James of New York and Jennifer Davenport of New Jersey said in a statement at the time.

Three days later, as the states hit that February 6 deadline, a US district judge ordered the funds to be released, citing the potential for irreparable harm to the project.

The ruling required more than $200m in reimbursement funds to be paid out to the states.

Over the last week, the federal government responded by releasing $30m, in addition to the $77m announced on Tuesday. But officials said it was still not enough.

At Tuesday’s news conference, union leader Gary LaBarbera emphasised that new construction was a necessity.

“Let me tell you: The existing tunnels, the trans-Hudson tunnels, are over a hundred years old. Their structural integrity has failed,” he said.

He added that the issue of maintaining safe transportation should be nonpartisan

“This isn’t a Republican tunnel or a Democratic tunnel, right? This should not be a political tug of war,” he said.

Governor Hochul, meanwhile, used part of her speech to address the president. “ Let’s stop the chaos. Let’s stop the insanity. Let them work, Mr President,” she said, in a gesture to the workers around her.

But this week, on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump doubled down on his opposition to the project.

“I am opposed to the future boondoggle known as ‘Gateway,’ in New York/New Jersey, because it will cost many BILLIONS OF DOLLARS more than projected or anticipated,” Trump wrote.

“It is a disaster! Gateway will likewise be financially catastrophic for the region, unless hard work and proper planning is done, NOW, to avoid insurmountable future cost overruns.”

He also denounced reports that he would un-freeze the funding in exchange for renaming New York’s Penn Station after him, as well as Washington’s Dulles airport.

“IT IS JUST MORE FAKE NEWS,” Trump wrote, adding that such a proposal was “brought up by certain politicians and construction union heads”, not him.

Still, his White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt appeared to confirm the reports last week during a news briefing.

“Why not?” she told a reporter. “It was something the president floated in his conversation with [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer.”

On Tuesday, reports emerged that the Trump Organization had filed trademark claims for any airports bearing the president’s name.

Republicans in Florida’s legislature have already sought to rename the international airport in Palm Beach for Trump, citing his nearby golf courses and residence at Mar-a-Lago.

Mahdawi, a Palestinian student activist, faced deportation proceedings amid a protest crackdown under the Trump administration.

An immigration judge in the United States has ruled against an attempt under President Donald Trump to deport Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University student arrested last year for his protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The decision, issued on February 13, became public as part of court filings on Tuesday from Mahdawi’s lawyers.

The filing was submitted to a federal appeals court in New York, which has been considering a challenge from the Trump administration against Mahdawi’s release from custody.

In a public statement released through the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Mahdawi thanked the immigration court for its decision, which he framed as a strike in favour of free-speech rights.

“I am grateful to the court for honoring the rule of law and holding the line against the government’s attempts to trample on due process,” Mahdawi said. “This decision is an important step towards upholding what fear tried to destroy: the right to speak for peace and justice.”

But the ACLU indicated that the immigration court’s decision was made “without prejudice”, a legal term that means the Trump administration could refile its case against Mahdawi.

Raised in a Palestinian refugee camp in the occupied West Bank, Mahdawi is a lawful permanent resident who has lived in Vermont for 10 years.

He enrolled at Columbia, a prestigious Ivy League university, to study philosophy. But he was also a visible member of the campus’s activist community, founding a Palestinian student society alongside fellow student Mahmoud Khalil.

Columbia became a hub for pro-Palestinian protests in 2024, and Trump campaigned for re-election, in part, on cracking down on the demonstrations.

Khalil became the first student protester to be detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in March of last year, less than three months into Trump’s second term.

Then, on April 14, Mahdawi was arrested at a meeting set up by the government, allegedly to process his citizenship application.

ICE detained him in “direct retaliation for his advocacy of Palestinian rights”, the ACLU said in a statement at the time.

The Trump administration attempted to transfer Mahdawi out of state to Louisiana, but a court order ultimately blocked it from doing so.

Mahdawi was ultimately released on April 30, after US Judge Geoffrey Crawford accused the Trump administration of doing “great harm” to someone who had committed no crime.

Human rights advocates have described the Trump administration’s attempts to deport foreign-born student activists as a campaign to chill free speech.

After his release last year, Mahdawi walked out of the court with both hands in the air, flashing peace signs as supporters greeted him with cheers.

As he spoke, he shared a message for Trump. “I am not afraid of you,” Mahdawi said to Trump.

He also addressed the people of Palestine and sought to dispel perceptions that the student protest movement was anything but peaceful.

“We are pro-peace and antiwar,” Mahdawi explained. “To my people in Palestine: I feel your pain, I see your suffering, and I see freedom, and it is very soon.”

Mahdawi’s arrest comes as part of a wider push by the Trump administration to target visa holders and permanent residents for their pro-Palestine advocacy.

Trump has also pressured top universities to crack down on pro-Palestine protests in the name of combating anti-Semitism. In some cases, the Trump administration has opened investigations into campuses where pro-Palestinian protests were prominent, accusing them of civil rights violations.

Last July, Columbia University entered into a $200m settlement with the Trump administration, with a further $21m given to end a probe into allegations of religious-based harassment.

The university, however, did not admit to wrongdoing.

President Donald Trump’s description earlier this month of the UK–Mauritius agreement on the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands as “an act of great stupidity”  briefly turned the world’s attention to the remote archipelago.

While most of the coverage and debate focused on the US military base on Diego Garcia island, little attention has been given to the sordid story of US and UK involvement in ongoing crimes against humanity against the islands’ Indigenous people – the Chagossians.

The Chagossians, whose island homeland is in the middle of the Indian Ocean, are largely descended from formerly enslaved East Africans. More than 60 years ago, US officials decided that the largest island, Diego Garcia, would be a suitable location for a remote military base.

The US saw the Chagossian population as a problem, as they wanted the island “clean” of inhabitants. Over the next decade, they secretly plotted with the UK – the colonial power governing Chagos – through a manufactured story based on racism and lies, to force the islanders from their home.

One US admiral, Elmo Zumwalt, said the islanders “absolutely must go”. To scare them into leaving, UK and US personnel gassed their dogs. From 1967 to 1973, the UK proceeded to force all the Chagossians – as many as 2,000 people – from all the islands, not only Diego Garcia. The US built and has now operated the Diego Garcia base for more than 50 years.

Today, the Chagossians live in exile, largely in the UK, Mauritius and the Seychelles. Many remain in poverty and have been prevented by the UK and US from returning to live in their homeland, even though generations have continued to campaign to do so. The islands, apart from the US military base, remain abandoned.

The story of US involvement in this forced displacement has been gradually uncovered, including through a congressional inquiry, the work of the academic David Vine, and the indefatigable struggle of generations of Chagossians to uncover the truth and return home. In 2023, Human Rights Watch found that the UK and US were responsible for crimes against humanity and had a duty to provide reparations – an opportunity to right their wrongs.

As a result, the US State Department for the first time acknowledged “regret” for what had happened to the Chagossians. Subsequently, the UK and Mauritius agreed in principle to a treaty to recognise Mauritian sovereignty over the islands, although the UK will maintain formal control of Diego Garcia island and the US military base will remain.

Forgotten in this settlement are the Chagossians. The treaty talks about historical wrongs, but the crimes are ongoing. The Chagossians are still prevented from returning home: Their islands – apart from the base – remain empty. Some Chagossians hope that the treaty will allow them to live on some of the islands, though this will depend on Mauritius fulfilling its obligations. The treaty itself provides no guarantee of their return and says nothing about the reparations owed to the Chagossians.

The US still appears opposed to Chagossians returning to Diego Garcia, even though the base occupies at most half the island. No Chagossian we’ve spoken to wants the base to close; instead, they would like the opportunity to work there. The US has kept a very low public profile in the negotiations – at least until President Trump’s comments – hiding behind the UK.

But the agreement’s terms make it clear that the US has been influencing the negotiations. The US “regret” for the treatment of the Chagossians has yet to translate into ensuring the Chagossians can return to Diego Garcia.

The treatment of the Chagossians is a crime in which the US has been implicated for more than 50 years, and to which Trump has inadvertently drawn attention. Having acknowledged regret, the US and UK governments should now ensure that their actions align with their obligations under international law, including working with Mauritius to enable the Chagossians to return to their homeland and providing appropriate reparations. Until that happens, the injustice remains unresolved.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Cubans suffer under a US fuel blockade as President Donald Trump calls the Caribbean country a ‘failed nation’.

The United States-imposed fuel crisis in Cuba is also turning into a waste and health crisis, as many collection trucks have been left with empty fuel tanks, causing refuse to pile up on the streets of the capital, Havana, and other cities and towns.

Only 44 of Havana’s 106 rubbish trucks have been able to keep operating due to the fuel shortages, slowing rubbish collection, as waste piles up on Havana’s street corners, the Reuters news agency reported on Monday, citing state-run news outlet Cubadebate.

Other towns are also seeing rubbish pile up, and residents have taken to social media to raise the alarm over the risk to public health, according to Reuters, citing Cuban media.

“It’s all over the city,” said Jose Ramon Cruz, a resident of Havana.

“It’s been ‌more than 10 days since a garbage truck came,” Cruz told Reuters.

The mounting rubbish crisis has added to the suffering on the tiny island-state, which US President Donald Trump described on Monday as a “failed nation”.

“Cuba is now a failed nation. They don’t even have jet fuels to get their aeroplanes to take off, they’re plugging up their runway,” Trump said.

“We’re talking to Cuba right now, and Marco Rubio is talking to Cuba right now, and they should absolutely make a deal. Because it’s really a humanitarian threat,” he said.

Cuba’s severe fuel crisis is a result of the US cutting off crucial oil supplies once imported from Venezuela. Washington’s move followed the bloody US military raid on Caracas and the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in early January.

US ‘violations of peace, security and international law’

Trump has been threatening Cuba and its leadership for months, and increased his choke-hold on the Cuban economy by recently passing an executive order that allows the US to impose crippling sanctions on any country that supplies oil to Cuba.

Asked if the US intended to remove the Cuban government, akin to Washington’s abduction of Maduro in Venezuela, Trump said: “I don’t think that will be necessary.”

Last month, Trump warned Cuban leaders to “make a deal, before it is too late”, without specifying the consequences of not meeting his demand.

Amid the crisis, Mexico sent two navy ships carrying 800 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Cuba last week, and on Monday, Spain said it would use the Spanish Agency for International Development and the United Nations to channel aid to Havana.

The announcement was made as Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs Jose Manuel Albares met with his Cuban counterpart, Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla, in Madrid on Monday, where the pair “addressed the current situation in Cuba following the tightening of the embargo”.

In a post on X, Rodriguez criticised “the violations of peace, security and international law and the increasing hostility of the United States against Cuba”.

The Cuban foreign minister’s stop in Madrid followed visits to China and Vietnam, where he has sought support amid the US’s de facto blockade.

Pritzker steps down as Hyatt executive chairman, effective immediately, due to his relationship with the late sex offender.

Billionaire Thomas J Pritzker has announced that he is retiring as executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels Corporation over his long association with sex offenders Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, which came to light in recently released US Justice Department files.

Pritzker, 75, who has served in the role of Hyatt Hotels’ executive chairman since 2004, also said on Monday that he will not seek re-election to the company’s board at its 2026 annual stockholder meeting.

In a letter to the Hyatt board and a related statement, Pritzker expressed deep regret over maintaining contact with Epstein, who took his own life in prison in 2019, and Maxwell, describing it as “terrible judgement”, with no excuse for not distancing himself sooner.

“Good stewardship also means protecting Hyatt, particularly in the context of my association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell which I deeply ‌regret,” he said in the statement.

“I exercised terrible judgement in maintaining contact with them, and there is no excuse for failing to distance myself sooner.”

Newly released documents by the Justice Department show that Pritzker had ongoing and regular contact with Epstein for years after the financier’s conviction on sex crime charges in 2008, according to The New York Times.

Pritzker is the latest powerful figure facing repercussions after the release of millions of pages of documents showing the depth of Epstein’s network of business, political and cultural elites in the US and around the world.

Goldman Sachs chief legal counsel Kathryn Ruemmler resigned last week over her ties to Epstein. Norwegian police said they had conducted searches of properties owned by former Prime Minister Thorbjorn Jagland as part of a corruption investigation into his connections with the late sex offender.

The head of DP Ports World, the world’s largest port operator, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, was also replaced over his close friendship with Epstein, while economist Larry Summers resigned from the OpenAI board late last year.

Former United Kingdom ambassador to Washington, Peter Mandelson, has been asked to submit himself for an interview and answer questions as part of a US congressional investigation into Epstein.

In a letter sent to Mandelson by Democratic Representatives Robert Garcia and Suhas Subramanyam, both members of the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee, the lawmakers said it was “clear” that the former ambassador “possessed extensive social and business ties” to Epstein and requested that he make himself available for a transcribed interview.

Mandelson took up the prestigious post as the UK’s ambassador to the US in February 2025. He was removed from the role in September 2025 after UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government said new information had come to light showing the much deeper nature of his longstanding ties with Epstein.

The Mandelson controversy has led to calls for Starmer to stand down as prime minister, with critics questioning his judgement in appointing him to the ambassador’s role.

Starmer’s chief of staff and cabinet secretary have also stood down due to the scandal .

The Republican Party currently controls the White House and both houses of Congress in the United States. But will that change in November?

Among Republican voters, US President Donald Trump is still wildly popular, despite criticism over uneven economic conditions and brutal anti-immigration tactics. And within the Democratic Party establishment, there is no sign of a desire to shift towards a more progressive, less centrist platform – even as left-leaning Democratic Socialists make gains.

Host Steve Clemons asks Republican strategist John Feehery and Amy Dacey, former chair of the Democratic National Committee, about Trumpism and the election prospects of both parties.

Limits to pardon powers

But there are limits to presidential clemency, and already, Trump has brushed against them.

In December, Trump announced that he would pardon Tina Peters, a former county clerk in Colorado who supported Trump’s false claims of voter fraud during the 2020 election.

Peters, however, was also convicted of state-level crimes, after she used her office to allow an unauthorised person to access her county’s election software.

A president may only pardon federal charges, not state ones. Peters continues to serve a nine-year prison sentence. Still, Trump has sought to pressure Colorado officials to release her.

“She did nothing wrong,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “If she is not released, I am going to take harsh measures!!!”

While Trump has argued that presidents have the “complete power to pardon”, legal experts have repeatedly affirmed that clemency is not without bounds.

Pardons, for example, cannot be used to avoid impeachment or to undercut the Constitution, nor can they be used to absolve future crimes.

Still, the question remains how to enforce those limits — and whether new bulwarks should be created to prevent abuse.

Love points to the state pardon systems as models to emulate. Delaware, for example, has a Board of Pardons that hears petitions in public meetings and makes recommendations to the governor. More than half of the petitions are granted.

Like other successful clemency systems, Love said it offers public accountability.

She measures that accountability by certain standards: “Can people see what’s going on? Do they know what the standards are, and is the decider a respected and responsible decision-maker?”

Trump’s sweeping actions, however, have prompted calls for presidential pardons to be limited or eliminated altogether.

Osler cautions against doing so: It would be a “permanent solution to a temporary problem”.

“If we constrain clemency, we’ll lose all the good things that come from it,” Osler said.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has addressed European leaders at the Munich Security Conference (MSC) in an address seen as more conciliatory than in previous years.

Rubio on Saturday said Washington and Europe “belong together”, adding: “We want Europe to be strong. We believe that Europe must survive.”

He also said the US under Trump wants to lead global “renewal and restoration … and that while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe”.

Rubio’s speech on Saturday was seen as more conciliatory than remarks made by US Vice President JD Vance last year, who used his appearance at the event to attack European policies on immigration and free speech, shocking European allies.

Despite the softer tone, Rubio still criticised Europe on migration. He warned of “civilisational erasure” caused by mass migration and said it is “destabilising” the West – a line that has been frequently repeated by US officials, including the president.

Other divisions remain between the once-ironclad allies. European leaders remain bruised by Trump’s desire to take control of Greenland, an autonomous territory of NATO-member Denmark.

European leaders have used the MSC as an opportunity to pledge to shoulder more of the burden of shared NATO defences. Leaders said this is essential for Europe to counter a hostile Russia, with NATO chief Mark Rutte saying “a strong Europe in a strong NATO means that the transatlantic bond will be stronger than ever.”

“This is the right time for a strong Europe,” said French President Emmanuel Macron, who stressed on Friday that the continent was “clear in the support of Ukraine” and “building its own architecture of security”.

“This Europe will be a good ally and partner for the United States of America,” the French leader said.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told the conference that Europe “must be ready to fight, to do whatever it takes to protect our people, our values and our way of life,” and added that the continent should focus on decreasing “some dependencies” and focus on creating a “more European NATO”.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz acknowledged a “rift” had opened up between Europe and the US, prompted by culture wars, but issued an appeal to Washington: “Let’s repair and revive transatlantic trust together.

“In the era of great power rivalry, even the United States will not be powerful enough to go it alone,” said the conservative leader, who has ramped up defence spending in the top European Union economy.

Russia’s full-scale war on Ukraine is set to enter its fifth gruelling year.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has been in Munich since Friday and meeting multiple allies, was expected to address the meeting on Saturday.

No Russian officials have been invited, but Foreign Minister Wang Yi of China has been invited and will deliver a key speech.

A US official said Rubio will meet with Zelenskyy at the conference. US officials have worked for months to try to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, with little success.

At the White House on Friday, Trump urged Zelenskyy to “get moving” to end the war. “Russia wants to make a deal… He has to move,” the US leader said.

Speaking at the MSC, however, Rubio said he did not know if Russia was serious about ending its war against Ukraine.

A German government source said Merz and Rubio met at the conference on Friday and discussed “Ukraine, the status of negotiations with Russia and further support for the country, particularly in terms of military aid”.

They also discussed Europe’s role in NATO, and “Rubio praised Germany’s steps to strengthen the alliance,” the source added.

Macron said a new framework was needed to deal with “an aggressive Russia” once the fighting in Ukraine ends.

At the conference, the US secretary of state also touched on issues outside Europe.

On China, he said the US owes it to the world to manage its relations with China, even when the national interests of the two superpowers do not align. Speaking about Iran, he said President Trump’s preference is to reach a deal with Tehran, but said that’s “very hard to do”.