Donald Trump

Trump tells a rally in Ohio that he believes there will be a “big surprise” in the upcoming elections.

US President Donald Trump has continued rallying for Republican candidates while visiting Ohio, proposing a defiant outlook on his party’s chances in the November 3 midterm elections.

Trump told a rally in Vandalia, Ohio, that he believes there will be a “big surprise” in the upcoming elections, claiming his Democratic opponents do not know what is happening.

Polls have suggested that Democrats could gain ground in the midterms, but the US president said Republicans would do better than critics expect.

“Just get out and vote,” Trump said as he rallied for US Senator Jon Husted, gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and other Republicans.

“If you do that, we’re going to win, and we’re going to win big,” he said.

Ohio’s Senate race

Multiple incumbent Republican senators across the country face tough political headwinds, with Trump’s popularity falling in recent months as higher petrol prices and those for other staples persist amid the US-Israel war ⁠⁠on Iran.

Husted, a Republican in a competitive Ohio race against Democrat Sherrod Brown, hopes the president can motivate supporters who might otherwise skip midterm elections.

Trump garnered more than 55 percent of the Ohio vote in the 2024 presidential election, but economic concerns since then have sunk his approval ratings.

Ohio petrol prices increased 35 percent over the past year to $4.16 per gallon (3.8 litres) on average, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which compiles data ⁠⁠on automobile travel. Trump’s trade policy with Canada has also led to retaliatory Canadian tariffs that affect about $3bn worth of Ohio exports, based ⁠⁠on 2025 figures, Canadian broadcaster CBC reported.

Talking to reporters shortly before addressing Saturday’s rally, Husted said the US has to win the Iran war “on our terms” and, in the interim, he is “showing people that I’m fighting for lower prices”.

Hot political issue

Trump extensively promoted his administration’s action on data centres, mainly those built for AI, during the rally, saying he was seeking to ensure they “benefit local communities” and praising Husted for an unsuccessful attempt to push forward legislation on the issue.

“Look, there’s so much money to be made for Ohio. You can’t just turn them off. They’ll go to China,” he said, repeating his defence of data centres.

Data centres have become a hot political issue, drawing bipartisan opposition in races across the country, with voters concerned about their impact on electricity prices, farmland and water supplies.

The issue became especially acute in Ohio, where Husted has been repeatedly attacked for his role in attracting data centres to the Midwestern state as lieutenant governor.

The Republican-controlled Senate tried to advance legislation this past week sponsored by Husted that would ask utility regulators to effectively charge large power users more, as consumers struggle with high energy costs. But it was blocked by nearly all Democrats.

“Senator Jon Husted gave billions in tax breaks to Big Tech to make sure they would build their data centres in Ohio,” Brown wrote on X on Friday, ahead of Trump’s visit. “Now, he’s making Ohioans foot the bill.”

William Serafino is a political scientist with a master’s degree in history. His research and analysis have focused on geopolitics. In this interview, he discusses Venezuela’s current relationship with the United States, including a major oil deal and what Donald Trump and Delcy Rodríguez seek to gain from it.

In New York, Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez thanked Trump for his support and described their bilateral meeting as “historic.” Nearly nine months after the January 3 US bombing and kidnapping of President Maduro, how would you describe the current relationship between Caracas and Washington? Which elements are short-term Trump gimmicks, and which ones will structurally define the relationship in the future?

It is difficult to find a precise definition. Many speak of a protectorate-like condition; some even go so far as to describe it as a relationship of colonial or neocolonial subjugation. Others, however, define it as a process of political, economic, and energy normalization in which the Venezuelan acting government makes tactical concessions, but without formally compromising national sovereignty. I believe the devil is in the details, not in one-size-fits-all approaches. At the level of inter-state relations, what I observe is a strategic attachment of Venezuela to the US sphere of influence and an energy realignment that operates with significant geopolitical restrictions in what concerns relations with Russia, China, and Iran.

At the governmental level, an asymmetrical alliance (favorable to Trump) has been forged in the wake of the military defeat on January 3, from which Caracas and Washington derive immediate and existential gains: Trump cherishes the sole geopolitical achievement of his second term, and Rodríguez gains relief and fresh revenue to govern after more than a decade of suffocating sanctions, within a framework defined by US interests. This reality can hardly be classified as a protectorate, in which a foreign power takes control of diplomacy, defense, and other strategic elements of the subordinate state. Could one speak of a sui generis, or “soft,” protectorate? Perhaps, but that would be an acknowledgment that the concept is not entirely effective in explaining the situation. 

The same is true of the thesis of a “retreat with full sovereignty,” which is difficult to sustain when the US is clearly shaping the portrayal of the new national political dynamic and controlling the country’s oil revenues. That is why I have ventured –at the risk of being wrong –to speak of “joint governance” or “co-government,” in which Washington and Caracas divide areas of responsibility and share the political costs of each move so that the alliance endures and each party can, albeit unequally, reap its corresponding share of the benefits.

Trump, despite his constant demeaning tone, needs the Rodríguez administration to be strong enough to lead the country in order to get what he wants; only under such conditions can he extract the oil. And she, too, needs Trump to remain in power so that the oil agreement and other commitments can move forward in the medium term. This is the only way to stay in power and hope to gain legitimacy through performance. I believe that, described in this way, we are talking neither of classic colonialism nor of uncompromised sovereignty, but of something more unique that requires developing other analytical categories.

In your articles, you have pointed out that the US-Venezuela oil deal must be analyzed beyond the announced figures. What do you consider to be the true political and geopolitical scope of this agreement, and what benefits do the various actors seek to extract from it?

I see it more as a political arrangement than a formal agreement. Its function is not legal or institutional, but political. The announcement gave Trump narrative ammunition to promise that gas prices will drop, a necessity driven by his debacle in Iran. By not having signed anything, he avoids going through Congress, sends a message to his core electorate that he is guaranteeing the country’s energy security, and reassures energy corporations to go ahead and invest in Venezuela because the relationship with Caracas is solid and unshakable. Rodríguez, on the other hand, benefits from the fact that the agreement shuts the door on María Corina Machado in Washington’s power circles and thereby helps reestablish her domestic legitimacy, promising a secure path to economic and social recovery underpinned by US investment.

I would go as far as saying that the agreement is Rodríguez’s trump card in a potential presidential campaign, where she will be able to present herself as the only political actor capable of boosting the economy, as opposed to potential rivals who lack influence in the White House and do not have a reliable plan to pull the country out of the spiral of inflation and economic frustration in which it finds itself after years of sanctions. 

Both sides stand to gain politically, and the agreement appears to be designed to avoid institutional resistance: neither is forced to face the hassle of legislative approval nor the criticism from political opponents. Since there are no specific clauses, they can more easily divert attention and focus their message on the eventual economic benefits. This level of coordination is a sign of partnership, not of one-sided imposition. If that were the case, Trump could force Rodríguez to sign a bilateral treaty in the National Assembly, and that is not what we are seeing.

You have paid special attention to the role of the Pentagon and the involvement of its Office of Strategic Capital in the structure of the agreement. Why is it so significant that the US defense establishment is a formal actor in a Venezuelan oil deal?

It seems to me that the Pentagon’s involvement serves as a coercive cover—an insurance policy backed by force—to ensure, in the medium and long term, US commercial and financial advantages in the exploitation of the oil fields included in the agreement. Let us imagine that the current government, or another one in the future, wants to modify the arrangement and secure better terms. At that point, it would not be dealing with a conventional transnational corporation, but with one controlled by the Department of War. It doesn’t take much thought to realize that negotiating under such conditions would scare anyone off: the language of business would be replaced by the language of weapons, and after January 3, no one would want to venture into this murky territory.

Furthermore, I believe that the Pentagon’s involvement sends a message to companies to invest and feel secure in the knowledge that the Department of War guarantees their investments and capital commitments in the Venezuelan energy sector. For the US, Venezuela’s oil reserves are not being treated as an economic asset, but rather as a matter of “national security.” As we well know, when that term is used, any coercive tool is fair game against a country’s sovereignty.

You have argued that the relationship between Caracas and Washington is taking on the characteristics of a negotiation marked by a profound power asymmetry. And many official spokespeople or analysts ask, “But what alternative do we have?” whenever criticism is raised about the path the government has chosen. What real ability does Venezuela have today to negotiate different terms or reject certain demands from the United States?

Right now, those capabilities are very limited, because, as I said, it’s not just a matter of US impositions, but also of calculating how to obtain tangible benefits from an asymmetrical relationship. But politics also takes place outside institutional spaces, and I believe there is much to be done there. What I’m about to say won’t, I don’t think, resolve the dilemma you’ve raised, but it could be a path toward regaining political vitality and initiative: strengthening social consensus on national sovereignty, refusing to concede the battle for historical memory regarding a century-long history of US plunder, and fostering a broad discussion on the vision for the nation’s future. These steps could help break the inertia somewhat and prepare the country for more favorable political conditions in the near future. In contrast, suggesting specific policies or positions to the current government would be irresponsible, because I’m not the one who has to deal with a Trump and his violent ego.

My message is directed at all of us who do not hold such high-stakes positions and can contribute, from our own small spheres of influence or through our individual activism, to rebuilding a patriotic consciousness that must adapt to a new reality. How many open forums are being promoted to discuss the educational model, the economic model, and the model of income distribution? Which bodies are evaluating the trajectory of the bilateral relationship with the US in order to better address it? Are these discussions conceptually limited? Perhaps these debates will not change the current situation of Trump’s disproportionate influence, but they would give us autonomy in our vision and in shaping the future. If Venezuela does not have its own vision on major national issues, there is a risk that they will end up being imposed from Washington. That would be committing the perfect crime, and I believe we must avoid it: with national unity, transcending political divisions.

In your articles and social media posts, you have criticized political elites who, historically, have lacked “imagination” beyond offering lucrative deals to the US. How did Chávez manage to break that mold? How could Venezuela return to a more sovereign path?

To be fair, Chávez broke the mold but the political and geopolitical conditions were ripe for it. The weakness of the national elites, discredited by a society weary of inequality and injustice, coincided with the US being drunk on power at the end of the Cold War. In its plans to establish itself as a unipolar superpower, Latin America did not figure as the central battleground. The inattention of an empire more concerned with reshaping West Asia, forcing China into the “rules-based order,” and eliminating the last strongholds of the socialist bloc (Tito’s Yugoslavia) in turn allowed Chávez to implement his agenda without facing a full-scale war, although he did face numerous coup attempts. 

The present conditions are different. There is a hemispheric imperial retreat underpinned by a militarized reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, which drastically raises the cost of sovereignty-oriented proposals. Still, I believe that what is most commendable about Chávez, and which can be of use in this new context, is his ability to clearly identify favorable conditions and act upon them.

I believe that anyone who considers themselves a political figure must build upon these principles to take on the new challenges of the present, developing and defending a dignified vision of the nation’s future. I believe that, rather than waiting for another Chávez to emerge, we should instead study his thought in depth and draw on the best of it to renew political practices, always interpreting the situation for what it is: changing, volatile, and full of opportunities. Chávez is a great political school, but it has been reduced to a crude tool for private interests of all kinds.

United States President Donald Trump has increased the pressure on US Senate Republicans to make Daylight Saving Time permanent, singling out one of the body’s members for stalling legislation to end the twice-a-year changing of clocks.

In a social media post on Saturday, Trump blasted US Senator Tom Cotton for “holding up” the Sunshine Protection Act, which Trump has personally opted to call the “No More Changing of Clocks Act”.

“For some reason, Tom is stopping the Bill and, in the Senate, it’s very easy to do, it only takes one!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account about the Arkansas Republican. “It should pass overwhelmingly, in a Bipartisan fashion”.

“Nobody wants to spend their precious time running all over the place, turning Clocks back twice a year and, having sunshine in the afternoon is better than early in the morning!” he added.

Trump went even further, publishing what he claimed was Cotton’s phone number as he implored Arkansas residents to pressure him. The move echoed a moment during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, when then-candidate Trump gave out US Senator Lindsey Graham’s number after the former rival criticised him.

Al Jazeera called the number listed in Trump’s post, but an automated message stated the voicemail box was full. Cotton’s spokesperson and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

The president has routinely pushed Senate Republicans to pass legislation mandating year-round daylight saving, which would end Americans’ decades-long practice of changing their clocks twice a year to increase daylight hours. On Friday, Trump urged the US Senate to approve the bill, which passed the US House in July by a 308-117 vote.

Cotton has previously opposed the bill, arguing in a US Senate floor speech last year that farmers, construction workers, commuters and children heading to school would begin their days in the dark during the winter.

Trump disputed that argument in a separate post on Saturday, saying the bill “would be a very nice and easy WIN for the Republican Party”.

“If Tom Cotton were putting Arkansas first, he would give them an extra hour of daylight and, more importantly, they wouldn’t have to run all over their houses, farms, workplaces, and everywhere else, twice a year, having to change their Clocks, and often forgetting to do so”, Trump wrote.

Trump, an avid golfer, also highlighted what he considered to be another selling point of the bill: the North American Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) tour.

“The PGA TOUR, as an example, needs more Daylight in the afternoon in order to finish their Tournaments”, he wrote in a post, which included a letter from PGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp supporting the bill. “Likewise, regular Golfers, Tennis Players, Hunters and, perhaps more importantly, Farmers who want more Daylight to play or work.”

The US president, who spent part of Saturday at his golf club in Sterling, Virginia, indicated in a subsequent post that he had received personal feedback on the proposal: “I don’t know about anyone else, but a table full of very distinguished people just told me that they HATE, immediately after a mandatory time change, going home at night – and it’s DARK. It’s depressing!”

In 1974, the US Congress briefly adopted year-round daylight saving time in response to the country’s energy crisis. But Congress repealed the law less than a year later over safety concerns as children commuted to school before sunrise.

US senators left Washington this week and have no set plans to return until after the November 3 midterm elections.

Some members, such as Senator John Kennedy, weren’t optimistic that Senate Republican Leader John Thune would bring the bill up for a vote before polling day.

“It’s dead as disco,” the Louisiana Republican told Reuters this week of Trump’s push to make daylight saving time permanent. “My sense is it would have trouble passing … I don’t think the leader is going to bring it up.”

History was made this week on Capitol Hill when a female senator womansplained sports to a male senator, and surprisingly, the gender-shaming reversal did not cause the universe to collapse on itself.

During a Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, MAGA’s manhood cloak was breached when Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) revealed that Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri) had mixed up the names of basketball teams in an unsuccessful attempt to perjure former Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Smith was testifying before the committee because he had led the investigations into Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and retain classified documents. Several Republican lawmakers have said that Smith overstepped his duties and launched a “witch hunt” against Trump and his allies.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) speaks during a 2020 event in Las Vegas.

(Ethan Miller / Getty Images)

Schmitt was trying to suggest Tuesday that Smith improperly colluded with Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis on their separate criminal cases against Trump by placing the former special counsel on Willis’ home turf of Atlanta in 2024.

But a watershed Watergate moment this was not. If Schmitt’s effort to ensnare Smith was set to a musical score, it would have been far more “Curb Your Enthusiasm” than “Mission Impossible.”

His gotcha moment became a schooling by Klobuchar on basketball, turning the tables on the age-old art of mansplaining. For those who need a quick definition, it’s when a man explains something to a woman in a patronizing way, with sports usually at the top of that talk-down-to-her list. He assumes she knows less than he does, even if she’s versed on the subject.

Klobuchar is an avowed sports fan and the daughter of respected Minneapolis sportswriter Jim Klobuchar and a former prosecutor known for her sharp questioning. The combination proved unfortunate for Schmitt during the hearing when he tried to catch Smith in a lie.

The Republican senator asked Smith, “Did you go to an NBA game between the Golden State Warriors and the Atlanta Hawks on Feb. 3, 2024?”

Smith, whose normally commanding presence has launched countless memes, appeared genuinely perplexed. “What city would that be in?” he asked.

“Atlanta,” replied Schmitt.

Smith denied he was there.

“So your testimony today is that you did not go to a Hawks game on Feb. 3, 2024. Is that correct?” Schmitt said.

“I have no recollection of that,” a bewildered Smith said.

As evidence, Schmitt introduced text messages from Smith’s security detail about seating arrangements for a game, displayed on a poster board that was taken down so quickly that Smith and various senators said they didn’t have time to read it.

“I think you’ve already perjured yourself,” said Schmitt, a former Missouri attorney general who then used the rest of his time to condemn Smith for subpoenaing the communications of Republican lawmakers while investigating Trump.

“You have weaponized the Department of Justice against political enemies to an extent that has never happened in the history of this country,” Schmitt proclaimed. “You will go down as a total dirtbag.”

Klobuchar, who was up next to question Smith, asked if the poster board could be produced again.

“I’m a former prosecutor too, and I have never seen anyone just say, ‘What do you think of this?’ and put it down,” she said.

Schmitt’s evidentiary board was produced again, and this time for more than a few seconds. There was no mention of Atlanta in the text messages.

One could almost hear the sound of Schmitt’s perjury trap crumbling under Klobuchar’s heel.

“Could it then be that it was the University of Iowa, [which] is the ‘Hawkeyes,’ could that be it?” she asked Smith. “That might be the confusion over the names of the team.”

Then she addressed Schmitt: “Perhaps you should have looked at it more carefully. I think people should have their facts straight before they accuse people of being a ‘dirtbag,’ and not get the teams wrong.”

Leave it to a man to confuse the Atlanta Hawks, an NBA team, with the Iowa Hawkeyes of women’s college basketball. Perhaps his emotions got in the way.

Smith said he attended the game in Maryland to see the Hawkeyes’ supremely talented star, Caitlin Clark. Regardless of his whereabouts, Republicans contend that Smith was on a political witch hunt after then-Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland appointed him to oversee the twin investigations into Trump. Smith’s team scrutinized the retention of national defense information and classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, as well as the president and his allies’ efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and impede the peaceful transfer of power.

When Trump won the presidency a second time, Smith moved to dismiss both cases because Department of Justice policy prohibits the criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

Now, it’s game time for Judiciary Committee members who’d like to put Smith on the ropes. There’s just one new rule: Don’t talk sports around the ladies. They deliver a knockout punch.

Washington, DC – Democrats have the momentum; Republicans are surging in defence and cash.

That narrative has emerged ahead of the United States midterm elections in November, as races across the country enter their final stretch.

With control of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate at stake, Democrats begin October with a surprisingly rosy outlook as more congressional seats are seen as in play.

Republicans, meanwhile, appear to be in damage control, pouring millions of dollars into races once seen as secure victories while injecting more funding into a handful of marquee showdowns.

The party’s standard bearer, President Donald Trump, who has embraced the notion of the election being a referendum on his leadership, enters the final month with staggeringly low approval ratings.

The most recent Associated Press-NORC polling, released on Thursday, showed Trump with 31 percent approval, the lowest during either of his two terms. Only 26 percent of respondents approved Trump’s handling of the economy, dipping two points below his predecessor, former President Joe Biden’s lowest rating on the topic.

Surveys continue to show voters rank the economy as their top issue, with topics like gas prices, made higher by the US-Israel war with Iran, dominating their concerns. Immigration and corruption have also regularly ranked high.

“The broad stroke is that Americans are disappointed, bordering on angry that President Trump hasn’t delivered on the core promises he made when he won re-election,” according to Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC.

House looking solid for Dems

Political trackers have long projected Democrats will take control of the US House of Representatives in the November 3 vote.

Winning a majority in the 435-member chamber from Republicans would give the party renewed legislative power to assert leverage over Trump, while launching investigations into his administration’s dealings. Top Democrats have already signalled that probes into Trump’s family business dealings would be top priorities.

Two election non-partisan prediction authorities, the Cook Political Report and the University of Virginia’s Sabato’s Crystal Ball, have recently assessed that the likelihood of Democrats taking the House has only increased.

The Cook Political Report recently shifted 15 House races in the direction of Democrats, moving some considered “toss-ups” to “leans Democrat” and some previously considered “lean Republican” to “toss-ups”.

One such shift was for a Texas border district represented by Republican Monica De La Cruz. Her district was emblematic of a wider Latino shift towards Trump in 2024. Once seen as holding the advantage over her challenger, Democrat Bobby Pulido, Cook now rates her race as a “toss-up”.

All told, the political analysis clearinghouse now predicts Democrats are on track to win 5 to 15 House seats.

Senate in play

With 30 days left to go, “there’s much more drama in the Senate than the House races”, according to Kyle Kondik, the managing editor at Sabato’s Crystal Ball.

Once considered a pipe dream for Democrats, who need a net gain of at least four seats to win a slim majority, the 100-member chamber has moved within a more comfortable striking distance.

Unlike in the House, where every seat is up for re-election, only 35 Senate seats are up for grabs in this cycle, creating a far narrower pathway to control.

“The trajectory of the polling since Labor Day (September 7) has generally been that a bad Republican environment is just getting worse,” Kondik said, adding that “the Senate just seems to get more and more competitive as the cycle has gone on”.

To be sure, the quality of polling can vary across the country, with Kondik cautioning that gauging the political temperature of the Midwest has been particularly challenging for pollsters.

Still, in North Carolina, former Democratic Governor Roy Cooper is expected to trounce former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Whatley in the race for a Senate seat currently held by Republicans. Top conservative donors have already begun to divert funds from the contest.

Surveys have consistently shown Democrats leading in three other races for seats currently held by Republicans: Democrat James Talarico against Republican Ken Paxton in Texas; Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown against Republican incumbent Senator John Husted in Ohio; and Democratic Mary Peltola against Republican Dan Sullivan in Alaska.

Races for Republican held seats in Iowa, between Republican Ashley Hinson and Democrat Josh Turek, and in Maine, between Republican incumbent Susan Collins and Democratic challenger Troy Jackson, remain separated by less than one point, according to Real Clear Politics polling averages.

Democrats, meanwhile, have consistently led in polling in Senate races in Georgia, New Hampshire and Michigan for seats the party currently holds.

Big money in the race

For Republicans, salvation could be in the spending, with this year’s race continuing a US phenomenon of small fortunes poured into politics.

All told, at least $4bn had been spent on gubernatorial and congressional midterm advertising buys as of September 17, putting the race on track to become “perhaps the most expensive midterm on record”, according to Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

Republicans entered September with a considerable funding edge. The Republican National Committee had $125.6m on hand, with the Democratic National Committee trailing far behind with $16.9m and $17.6m in debt.

When accounting for the three major committees associated with both groups, the Republican Party had $233.4m in cash, according to a CNBC analysis, while the Democratic Party had $130.4m.

Trip Yang, a Democrat strategist based in New York City, told Al Jazeera such spending can be deployed to help boost a candidate’s name recognition or to tear down a competitor.

According to AdImpact, Republicans and their allies were set to spend $888m on advertising from mid-September to election day, with Democrats and their supporters set to spend $666m.

The firm found pro-Republican ad spending would be particularly pronounced in the key Senate races in Ohio, Texas and Michigan, outpacing Democratic spending by at least $24m in each state.

Trump’s unpopularity, Yang said, means “Republicans spending millions or hundreds of millions of dollars improving their candidates’ images by itself may not be enough”.

“If you’re a little bit handicapped because your president is so toxic, you try to spend your hundreds of millions of dollars attacking the Democrats to make it more of a food fight,” he said.

A New York Times analysis estimated by the end of August at least $1bn in so-called “dark money” had been poured into the midterms. The term refers to spending where the donor’s identity is shielded, typically through nonprofit and shell-company donations to Super PACs.

Industry groups, including those supporting Crypto, AI and online betting firms, are expected to be top spenders in key races, although their support tends to cut across partisan lines.

Trump, meanwhile, has pledged to spend between $400m and $500m from his MAGA Inc Super PAC, though it has so far spent about $15m to support Paxton’s Senate bid in Texas.

Pro-Paxton ad reservations far outpaced Talarico in September, according to AdImpact data analysed by NPR, with $94m spent compared with $30m to support the Democrat.

The Trump factor

Trump has pledged to spend the final days before the election in non-stop campaign mode, after urging supporters during his Republican Midterm Convention in Dallas, Texas, to “vote like I’m on the ballot”.

His plan to criss-cross the country for rallies underscores a “base turnout” strategy meant to energise voters already loyal to the party, according to conservative analyst Olsen.

“But the Republican problem is a persuasion problem with people in the middle,” Olsen said. “[Trump’s campaigning] might help with some turnout … but their real problem is persuasion, and it’s not something that’s going to help with that in the slightest.”

Polls have spelt trouble for Republicans when it comes to swaying independents, with a PBS News, NPR and Marist poll from September 23 showing unaffiliated voters breaking for Democrats at 57 percent compared with 32 moving towards Republicans.

The scenario has created a dilemma for some top Republican candidates over whether to break from the president on his most controversial actions, according to Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist University Institute for Public Opinion.

Senate candidates Ashley Hinson in Iowa, Jon Husted in Ohio and Mike Rogers in Michigan all recently put daylight between themselves and Trump on the war with Iran.

One Republican House candidate, Representative Maria Elvira Salazar, has criticised Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies as she seeks to rally Latino voters in South Florida.

Trump, in turn, reposted a social media message calling Salazar a “backstabber”.

“You need to have, you know, something else going for you other than endorsement of Trump,” said Miringoff. “Some Republicans are starting to have self-preservation kick in because they’re concerned.”

What can change?

Achieving a wide-scale shift in public opinion remains a tall order for Republicans in the final stretch of the race.

Many of the defining issues are unlikely to change before November, with Trump signalling a possible escalation with Iran following the vote as he has downplayed the prospect of short-term affordability relief.

At the same time, the US president has also not ruled out actions that rights groups say could upend voter turnout. Most recently, he refused to commit to not invoking the Insurrection Act or declaring a state of emergency surrounding the vote during an interview with Time magazine.

Miringoff said he believed that the “potential for more than just a marginal shift is there”, as he assessed some Democratic candidates have struggled to present clear visions beyond opposition to Trump.

“The result isn’t formed in concrete,” he said, “to the degree that there’s going to be a lot of money still spent.”

Analyst Olsen saw less remaining wiggle room for the party.

“Republicans have the time and the resources to change the outcome with respect to a few close Senate races,” Olsen said. “But to change direction, they would need something that would be apocal.”

Security threats prompt US and Australia to suspend diplomatic operations in Brazil before pivotal election day.

The United States has suspended consular services in Brazil, prompting Australia to close its embassy in the Brazilian capital, two days before Brazil’s presidential election on Sunday.

In a statement released on Thursday, the US embassy said it would suspend consular services starting on Friday and advised American citizens seeking assistance not to visit its embassy, consulates or other diplomatic facilities.

The statement cited security concerns but gave no further detail on the nature of the threat or any link to the election.

The US State Department said it was working closely with Brazilian counterparts to address the security concerns, adding that embassies and consulates routinely issue alerts about local threats and developments.

Australia’s ambassador to Brazil, Sophie Davies, said on social media that the Australian embassy would also close on Friday, citing the US alert, and advised Australians to avoid US diplomatic facilities.

Brazil’s federal police said they carried out preventive search and seizure warrants in Sao Paulo and the Federal District, the administrative region surrounding the capital, Brasilia, as part of an investigation into suspected plans that could threaten US diplomatic facilities.

Police said the operation followed cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies, but that investigators had found no evidence corroborating the initially reported threat, nor identified any suspects linked to criminal organisations.

An investigation was continuing after the seizure of communications equipment, according to the police.

The closures came two days before the Brazilian presidential election, which pits incumbent Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who is seeking re-election, against Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, son of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Jair Bolsonaro is serving a 27-year sentence for attempting a coup.

If neither candidate wins more than 50 percent of the vote on Sunday, a runoff will be held on October 25.

Edinho Silva, president of Lula’s Workers’ Party, called the closures “unprecedented”, saying: “It makes no sense at all. It’s one of Trump’s ways of trying to influence Brazilian public opinion.”

Lula’s allies have pointed to US tariffs and an effort by Washington to send officials to Brazil to “discuss electoral integrity” as evidence of foreign interference.

Brazilian intelligence officials briefed French and German delegations in Brasilia this month on what they described as US and Russian interference in the race.

US President Donald Trump has publicly praised Flavio Bolsonaro, a close ally, without formally endorsing him, saying he is “watching that election very closely”.

Job growth in the United States slowed in September, falling short of economists’ expectations as the unemployment rate rose in the final jobs report before the consequential midterm elections.

The US economy added 29,000 jobs in September, according to the Labor Department’s report released on Friday, far below economists’ expectations. Dow Jones had forecast 84,000 jobs, while economists polled by Reuters said they expected 90,000 job additions.

The unemployment rate also rose by 0.1 percentage point, from 4.1 percent to 4.2 percent.

The healthcare sector led the gains, accounting for the majority of new jobs. The industry added 17,000 jobs, marking a slowdown from an average of 33,000 jobs per month over the past year. Construction added 11,000 jobs, while manufacturing added 9,000.

Financial activities, which include sectors such as commercial banking and insurance, shed 7,000 jobs.

Most other sectors were largely unchanged, including retail, oil and gas extraction, and leisure and hospitality.

“Today’s disappointing report shows the labour market is grinding to a halt, marked by slow hiring and declining real wages that leave workers with very little leverage,” Kyle Moore, chief economist at the think tank The Century Foundation, said in remarks provided to Al Jazeera.

Previous jobs reports were also revised downward. July was revised from an initial gain of 21,000 jobs to a loss of 10,000 jobs. August was revised down by 29,000 jobs, from 162,000 to 133,000.

Wages grew by 3 percent, marking the slowest annual wage increase in five years.

Friday’s jobs report caps a week of weakening economic data before the consequential midterm election on November 3.

According to an AP-NORC poll released on Thursday, 61 percent of Americans polled said the US economy is worse off now than when Trump took office in January 2025.

“When businesses are barely hiring and raises aren’t keeping up with rising prices, it’s a stalled economy – and working families are stuck in it,” Breyon Williams, chief economist for Groundwork Collaborative, an economic policy think tank, said in a statement.

Trump has been trying to change the narrative on the slumping economy. On Monday, he said in a Truth Social post that “The United States has the BEST Employment Numbers in HISTORY.”

Stalling growth

On Tuesday, the US Labor Department released the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS report, which showed little change, suggesting what economists call a low-hire, low-fire environment. That means those who have jobs are generally not leaving for new ones, while employers are maintaining the status quo rather than expanding.

On the other hand, ADP’s private payroll report, released on Wednesday, showed that 90,000 jobs were created across the private sector. The sheer number of layoffs fell, too, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. The report, released Thursday, showed that employers cut more than 43,000 jobs in September, marking an 18 percent decline in layoffs from August.

Friday’s jobs report comes before the Federal Reserve’s final policy decision before the midterm election. During its two-day policy meeting on October 27-28, the central bank will decide whether to raise, cut or maintain interest rates.

The odds increasingly suggest the Fed will hold rates steady in the 3.75-4.00 percent range, according to CME FedWatch, a tool that tracks the likelihood of monetary policy decisions. The FedWatch tool indicates there is currently a 77.3 percent chance that rates will hold steady, up from 35.8 percent this time last week.

US markets are trending upward on the heels of the report. The tech-heavy Nasdaq is up 1.5 percent, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 0.6 percent and the S&P 500 is up 1.1 percent in midday trading.

The price of gold, which is largely considered a safe investment during times of economic uncertainty, rose 1.1 percent to $4,223.49 amid the jobs report.

Paul McAuley took a trip to a US city known for its altitude, passion for the natural world, and mad passion for sports, finding a lot of difference with the UK and a lot of things to love

Off the plane. Bam. Clouds. Not the miserable grey blanket you roll your eyes at every time you leave home back in the UK, but the kind that looks like they’ve been lifted straight out of Toy Story.

They’re so close you feel like you could reach out and squeeze them – heck, even taste them if you’re that way inclined. It’s a pretty spectacular way to be welcomed to the Mile High City, and the first clue that Denver operates on a slightly different level. Both physically and metaphorically.

Perched 5,280ft above sea level, it’s home to as much altitude as it is attitude, a feeling that only gets stronger the more time you spend in the state capital. I flew from London Heathrow to Denver with British Airways to discover what the city and surrounding region had to offer, experiencing the best of Colorado on an ultimate city break with a Rocky Mountains twist.

Do you have a travel story to share? Email webtravel@reachplc.com

Nature

In many cities, nature is something you have to seek out. In Denver, it’s constantly sitting in the background, waiting for you to notice it. I ticked off a few parks – notably Civic Center and Confluence – on a breezy 12km run that felt fitting to finish at Target, and that sums up Denver in a nutshell.

You can spend the morning surrounded by nature and, an hour later, you’re wandering around one of America’s biggest shops buying something you absolutely don’t need. In my case, Kourtney Kardashian’s Lemme. I quickly noticed how active everyone is. And who can blame them? For most of the trip, the weather was amazing.

Shorts, socks and sandals were the uniform, right up until a lightning storm rolled in on Saturday night and delayed the women’s soccer match between Denver Summit FC and Seattle Reign FC. Even the altitude becomes part of the experience.

I knew Denver is the Mile High City before I arrived, but I found it out properly when I went up Mount Blue Sky for the morning. The higher I climbed, the more ridiculous the landscape became. Wildlife appears, the air feels cleaner and, once again, you’re back within touching distance of those clouds. I didn’t spot Frank the Tank – reportedly the biggest moose on record – but I did see marmots, famous to me for shouting “Allan” in the viral video.

The night before we visited, Lily Allen headlined the amphitheatre, performing West End Girl in its entirety. Yet you’d never have guessed. There wasn’t a whiff of the night before. No evidence of thousands of people drinking and dancing until late.

Instead, just hours after the concert, people were running, doing yoga, lifting weights and generally behaving as though exercising among enormous red rocks was the most normal thing in the world. Here, outdoors is a lifestyle, not an activity.

Nightlife

For all of Denver’s obsession with fresh air, mountain views and early-morning exercise, the city doesn’t shut down too early. Denver just has a different relationship with going out than in the UK. I was told people can start clubbing at 6pm and be home by 1am, meaning the morning is saved.

That sounds horrifying to anyone accustomed to a UK night out. But somehow, Denver makes it work. Even hotel bars are busy, with people actually going there simply for drinks. Imagine asking your mate to meet you in the Premier Inn bar before heading into town.

Culture

Parts of Denver feel like they’re in the middle of a rapid transformation. Old buildings sit alongside polished new restaurants, expensive smash burgers and bars with endless taps, while colourful street murals cover walls that feel like they’re constantly being reinvented.

Take the River North Art District for example. The vibrant neighbourhour prides itself on being “where art is made” and certainly lives up to its nickname – you’re spoilt for choice when it comes to Instagram backdrops. Here you will find Denver Central Market, where I ordered a chicken Caesar salad bagel from Call Your Mother before sitting outside to bask in the heat. Around us, people wandered past in Doc Martens and oversized T-shirts.

Denver has a strong sense of itself – “a blueberry sitting proudly in a bowl of raspberries” as one of our tour guides put it. It was my first time in America, and I’ll hold my hands up and admit my perception wasn’t the greatest. I’d spent far more time associating America with Donald Trump and the endless political noise around the country than thinking about the hundreds of miles of landscapes, cities and completely different ways of life that exist beyond it.

Denver was a reminder that America is a lot bigger, stranger and more varied than the version you can sometimes from a viral TikTok clip.

Sport

Denver doesn’t have the Liverpool and Everton divide. There is one NFL team in the city and you stick with them through the good and the bad and, in the case of the Broncos’ game against the Jacksonville Jaguars, a lot of penalties. The Broncos fanbase is something else, with a waiting list stretching around 20 years for season tickets. So when game day finally came around, the sense of occasion was hard to miss.

A white horse, fireworks, 28 cheerleaders, a remix of Take Me Home, Country Roads and a devilish attempt to get inside the opposition’s head all came into play before the first plays even graced the freshly painted grass.

It was clear the experience was as much about what happened off the field as on it, with 76,472 fans at the centre of everything. The noise was ridiculous. At one point, it was so loud the game had to stop for a jokingly named “fan assistant” timeout.

And this isn’t simply a football ground, either. Much of the stadium is owned by the Walton family behind Walmart, but its identity stretches far beyond the Broncos.

It has hosted everyone from Taylor Swift and The Weeknd to AC/DC, as well as monster trucks and countless other major events. Even if American football isn’t your thing, it’s the sort of place where you can understand why people want to experience it.

Growing up in the UK, drinking is hugely intertwined with sport. In Denver, drinking feels more like an addition to the experience. At Broncos games, designated drivers can enter a lottery, with one lucky fan winning a $150 gift card for agreeing to stay sober.

I couldn’t help wondering what Linda Bolejack bought with her winnings. It’s a tiny detail, but it says a lot about the cultural differences you notice when you stop and look.

So why go?

It’s not one single thing that makes Denver memorable. It’s the collision of all of them: the mountains rising behind skyscrapers, the NFL stadium surrounded by fans, the bars filling up earlier than you’d expect, and the sense that adventure is never particularly far away.

For a few days, it becomes surprisingly easy to slip into that rhythm and forget it isn’t your everyday life.

Book it

More information at visitdenver.com

Touchdown Trips offers a nine-night, four-game American football trip, including Denver Broncos vs Seattle Seahawks at Empower Field at Mile High, from £4,895pp. The package includes flights, transfers, game tickets and three all-inclusive tailgates.

Denver is home to seven major league sports teams: the Colorado Rockies (baseball), Colorado Rapids (men’s soccer), Colorado Mammoth (lacrosse), Colorado Avalanche (hockey), Denver Broncos (football), Denver Nuggets (basketball) and new Denver Summit FC (women’s soccer). British Airways and United Airlines fly direct daily from London Heathrow to Denver. Rooms at Limelight Denver start from £150 per night, excluding taxes and fees, based on two sharing a Deluxe King room.

United States President Donald Trump has said Europe has agreed to release a “massive amount” of their diesel stockpile, although no European parties have confirmed the claim.

Trump made the statement on his Truth Social account on Friday as he has heaped pressure on European countries to release diesel stockpiles to ease soaring prices caused by the US-Israel war with Iran and the resulting constriction of traffic via the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump had previously floated banning US diesel exports if European countries did not comply. The European Union had earlier on Friday said it “fully rejects” the threat.

More to come…

Judge Leibowitz’s decision underscores state jurisdiction over voter qualifications, limiting federal actions.

A United States federal judge has ruled that a law criminalising voting by noncitizens is unconstitutional, dealing a setback for President Donald Trump’s administration as it cracks down on alleged election fraud ahead of November’s midterm elections.

US District Judge David Leibowitz in Miami dismissed a federal case on Thursday against Chelsea Cox, a Florida resident originally from Jamaica who had been charged in October 2025 with illegally voting in the 2020 presidential election.

Leibowitz, who was nominated to the bench by former Democratic President Joe Biden, found that under the US Constitution, only individual states, not the US Congress, have the authority to set voter qualifications.

Since every state already requires US citizenship to vote, he wrote, it is up to Florida, not the Department of Justice, to prosecute Cox for breaking that rule. “Florida can and does,” he wrote, noting the state already has its own laws against the conduct Cox is accused of.

The ruling applies only to Cox’s case and it does not bind judges elsewhere, though about 45 similar cases remain pending nationwide. At least four other defendants have raised the same constitutional challenge.

Court filings show Cox entered the US as a tourist in 1999, overstayed her visa, and later used a fraudulent birth certificate from the US Virgin Islands, a US territory in the Caribbean, to obtain a Florida driver’s licence and register to vote in 2012.

Trump has falsely claimed that noncitizen voting, which is already illegal and rare, cost him the 2020 election, and has cast it as part of a broader effort by Democrats to dilute Republican support.

The Department of Justice has charged at least 60 people with the offence since Trump returned to office in January 2025.

Among 129 people charged with “voting by an alien” since 2021, none was accused of conspiring to sway an election, backing a candidate, or being paid to vote, according to Reuters. Most were found to be lawful permanent residents who had registered by mistake or on the incorrect advice of an election worker or government clerk.

Cox’s lawyer, Bruce Udolf, welcomed the ruling and said he hoped authorities would not now seek to deport her, citing her declining health conditions.

United States President Donald Trump has kicked off a 32-day campaign tour ahead of the November midterm elections that could see his Republican Party hurt by his handling of the war on Iran and the economy.

On Thursday, Trump travelled from Washington, DC, for back-to-back rallies in Texas and Oklahoma.

At his first stop in Denton, Texas, Trump sought to shift the narrative around his drooping approval ratings, offering a personal assessment of his administration’s performance.

“I give us an A+ on the government, on economics, on everything,” Trump told a crowd of supporters at the Peterbilt Motors Company, a truck manufacturer.

The president also blamed unfair media coverage for his growing unpopularity, arguing that his pre-election rally blitz was necessary to set the record straight.

“We’re doing an extremely poor job of promotion and an extremely great job of running the country,” Trump said.

But Trump’s poll numbers have raised concerns about Republican prospects ahead of the November 3 midterm election.

Trump himself is not on the ballot, but Republican candidates across the country are seeking to defend the right-wing party’s majorities in both chambers of Congress, as well as key state and local offices.

The economy and Trump’s war on Iran are expected to weigh heavily on the election outcome.

On Thursday, The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research released new poll results showing that 71 percent of Americans disapprove of the war, which has driven up the price of fuel.

About half of survey respondents also said they were worried they would not be able to afford food and petrol. Only 26 percent approved of Trump’s handling of the economy.

Taking centre stage

Still, despite record low approval ratings, Trump has positioned himself as key to the Republican midterm strategy.

At a first-of-its-kind Republican midterm convention in September, Trump encouraged voters to consider his record while at the ballot box. “I’m asking you to pretend that I’m on the ballot,” he said.

During Thursday’s tour, he touted the impact of his tariff campaign, which he credited with creating thousands of manufacturing jobs.

“For decades, you were heartlessly betrayed by politicians, lousy politicians, who let foreign trade cheaters plunder your wages, loot your factories, close up your jobs,” Trump told Peterbilt workers. “They’d still be doing it if I wasn’t here, believe me.”

Trump’s tariffs, however, have been highly controversial, prompting a series of court challenges. Critics have argued that the sweeping import taxes surpass the president’s constitutional powers.

Trump also used his stump speech to ease concerns about the US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28. Both sides have declared victory, though a ceasefire remains elusive.

“Just as I promised, I’m ensuring that Iran will be very quickly ended. I will tell you the energy prices are going to be rapidly, rapidly coming down,” Trump said.

“We’ll win very easily right now,” he added. “I believe right after the election we’ll win, but maybe before the election.”

The war, however, resulted in Iran stopping commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway for the global fuel trade.

The price of diesel — the fuel the trucks built at the plant use — soared to record highs of more than $6 per gallon (3.8 litres) last week. Petrol prices have similarly skyrocketed.

Hurting or helping his fellow Republicans?

Trump, however, has acknowledged that the stakes are high for his presidency in the upcoming midterms.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs, as are 35 seats in the 100-member Senate.

Losing Republican control of either chamber could create roadblocks for Trump’s legislative agenda during the final two years of his second term.

But Trump has also expressed concern that he could be impeached for a third time, after two prior impeachments during his first presidency.

At Thursday’s second stop, in Durant, Oklahoma, the Republican leader repeated that fear. “Pretend I’m running, please,” he told the crowd. “If we don’t win, they’ll end up impeaching me.”

Many of the places Trump is scheduled to visit this month are perceived as reliably Republican voting districts. Following his stops in Texas and Oklahoma on Thursday, Trump will be heading to Alabama, Ohio and Nebraska in the coming days.

Still, some elections that ordinarily would be considered shoo-ins for Republicans have grown more competitive in recent months.

In Texas, for instance, no Democrat has won a statewide race since the 1990s. But this year, Republican Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, is struggling to win a Senate contest against Democrat James Talarico.

During both of Thursday’s stops, Trump sought to bolster Paxton’s prospects. At the Peterbilt factory, for instance, he called Paxton “the greatest attorney general in the United States of America”.

“We gotta get this guy elected,” Trump said, before pivoting to criticisms of Talarico, whom Republicans have sought to paint as out of touch with Texas’s large beef industry.

“He’s a vegan,” Trump said of Talarico, repeating an unsubstantiated rumour. “And vegans don’t do well in Texas.”

But leaked audio appeared to show Paxton lamenting the negative impact Trump had by holding the Republican midterm convention in Texas last month.

“It dropped our numbers. Everybody’s numbers dropped,” Paxton reportedly said.

Trump touts social conservatism

Trump has nevertheless used his pre-election tour to highlight social issues he feels will help rally voters to the Republican cause.

On Thursday, he returned to familiar subjects like immigration and transgender rights, which he depicted as a part of the Democrats’ “radical” agenda.

“They want women in men’s sports. They want open borders. They want transgender mutilation for your children,” Trump said. “What the hell are you thinking about, you liberals?”

The president also used his Texas appearance to push back against critics of data centres, despite bipartisan concern.

Critics worry that the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) has fuelled the proliferation of data centres, which require large amounts of electricity and water to process mass data quantities.

While Trump has dismissed fears about AI as largely unfounded, a poll last month found 53 percent of Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about the technology’s environmental impacts.

Even fellow Republicans in Texas are responding to public pressure about the growing number of data centres, more than 300 of which are operational, with hundreds more in progress.

In August, Governor Greg Abbott called for an audit of all data centres to map their water and electricity usage, and the following month, Paxton in his role as state attorney general launched an investigation into whether they were complying with water reporting requirements.

Trump nevertheless used his Texas rally to tout the expansion of such enterprises.

“It’s a huge thing. It’s bigger than the industrial revolution,” he said, dismissing the concerns as part of a “scam”. He then explained he had urged AI companies to “take care of the people”.

“They’re making a fortune for the communities,” he added.

President Masoud Pezeshkian says Iran “has never avoided” dialogue with the US, even though it’s been attacked three times during negotiations.

A report stating that the Trump administration directed funds towards right-wing groups comes ahead of Brazil’s presidential election.

Brazil’s attorney general has called on law enforcement to investigate alleged efforts by the United States to interfere in the country’s domestic politics through the diversion of funds to far-right causes.

Attorney General Jorge Messias called for the probe on Thursday, one day after the British newspaper The Guardian published a story suggesting that the administration of United States President Donald Trump planned to award $1m to right-wing civil groups opposing the Brazilian Supreme Court.

Messias stated in a social media post that foreign meddling “cannot be tolerated” and that the report represented “an important alert for Brazilian sovereignty”.

“The information is especially serious in light of Brazil’s electoral process and the recent episodes of external pressure on our institutions,” the attorney general added.

The report comes amid a tense presidential election in which leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is seeking re-election.

Lula has sought to focus attention on efforts Trump has undertaken to boost the prospects of far-right allies across Latin America, warning of threats to regional sovereignty.

Trump has endorsed multiple right-wing candidates ahead of elections across the region, sometimes hinging the possibility of economic support on the voting results.

He has also cultivated close relations with the family of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who lost to Lula in the last presidential election.

Bolsonaro’s eldest son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, is a frontrunner in the race to challenge Lula this year. Recent polls have shown Lula and Bolsonaro virtually tied ahead of the first round of voting on October 4.

Flavio Bolsonaro met with Trump at the White House in May. He has promised closer ties with the US, while Lula has positioned himself as a critic of Trump’s interventionist approach to Latin American politics and security.

The Guardian report published on Wednesday states that the Trump administration sought to redirect $175m from the State Department’s human rights fund to various far-right causes around the world.

The recipients allegedly included groups advocating for white Afrikaners in South Africa that the Trump administration has falsely portrayed as victims of a “genocide” and efforts in Brazil to counter what the US called “lawfare and censorship”.

Brazil’s Supreme Court has been a subject of frequent criticism from the political right, both in Brazil and the US.

Much of that criticism stems from the 2025 conviction of Jair Bolsonaro for involvement in an alleged coup plot, designed to subvert his loss to Lula in the 2022 election.

Bolsonaro and his allies, including Trump, have depicted the case as an instance of political persecution.

Citing the trial, Trump last year placed 50-percent tariffs on certain Brazilian goods that he has since removed.

At the time, he announced the tariffs in a letter that denounced Bolsonaro’s prosecution. “The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace,” Trump wrote.

The Trump administration also revoked the visas of Brazilian judicial officials involved in Bolsonaro’s case in an effort to have it tossed out. It also levied short-lived sanctions against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, accusing him of “an unlawful witch hunt” against right-wing voices.

Bolsonaro was ultimately convicted and sentenced to a 27-year prison sentence in September 2025.

In June, one of his sons, Eduardo Bolsonaro, was sentenced to more than four years in prison after a court ruled he had lobbied for US interference in his father’s case.

The case is the latest dispute over US President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case focused on the Trump administration’s policy requiring millions of undocumented immigrants to remain in detention while they fight deportation.

The case, accepted on Thursday by the justices, is the latest dispute over US President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown to reach the nation’s highest court.

At issue is whether migrants already living in the US have a legal right to a hearing where a judge can decide whether they should be released on bond from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention while their deportation cases are pending.

In July 2025, the administration introduced new guidance directing federal immigration authorities to detain undocumented immigrants without a bond hearing for the duration of their deportation proceedings, which can last for years.

The new policy, which has divided lower courts, reverses a decades-old interpretation that allowed some immigrants in the US to be released while their cases were pending in immigration court, according to Reuters news agency.

Most US federal appeals courts have ruled that immigrants cannot be detained without a bond hearing. But the 5th and 8th US Circuit Courts of Appeals have found that immigrants accused of illegally entering and remaining in the country must remain detained while their deportation cases proceed.

Trump administration attorneys told the Associated Press the split is “disrupting the orderly administration of immigration law”.

“The result is an unworkable patchwork of inconsistent immigration enforcement, where aliens present without admission are subject to mandatory detention in some circuits but are entitled to bond hearings and often released in others,” the lawyers wrote.

Millions could be affected

The Supreme Court case stems from a 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling involving Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian national who entered the US around 2004 or 2005.

Immigration officers arrested him in September 2025 while he was driving to work in the US state of Massachusetts. He was initially denied a bond hearing under the administration’s policy but was later released on bond, according to court documents cited by Reuters.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is representing the plaintiffs, told the Associated Press the Trump administration is trying to deny bond hearings for immigrants apprehended within the US rather than limiting the restriction to noncitizens stopped at the border.

“Millions of noncitizens could be affected by the government’s new interpretation,” ACLU attorneys wrote.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on Monday, when its new term starts.

New Delhi, India — Speaking at an event in New York this week, India’s Foreign Affairs Minister S Jaishankar offered a blunt assessment of Washington: It has been an insensitive partner to India’s concerns over “terrorism”; has warmed to its arch-rival Pakistan; and has pursued “self-centered” trade policies that have disproportionately hurt the Global South.

That tone marks a new edge in how New Delhi is dealing with US President Donald Trump’s administration in Washington, analysts say, on the back of rising bilateral tensions between the capitals.

For decades, India has dealt with divisive issues with otherwise friendly nations quietly behind the scenes, away from spectacle. That has especially been New Delhi’s approach with Washington, where the relationship has broadly enjoyed wide bipartisan support.

However, after months of tensions, New Delhi is adopting a more openly critical tone towards Washington to address the volatility and uncertainty that Trump brings to the White House.

The changing tune in New Delhi also comes at a critical time for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who faces mounting domestic pressure and criticism from the opposition for allegedly bowing down to US pressure, time and again. On Wednesday, Modi held a telephone call with Trump, which the Indian PM called “productive” — a cold and formal depiction far removed from his description of the US president as a “good friend” in previous years.

Chietigj Bajpaee, a senior research fellow for South Asia at the Chatham House think tank, said that Jaishankar’s remarks “offer a frank assessment” on the current state of the India-US relationship. “Clearly, the shine has come off the bilateral relationship after India was initially among the most optimistic about a second Trump term,” he said.

India’s pain points

Jaishankar addressed frictions between India and the US while speaking at an Asia Society event after the UN General Assembly in New York ended on Monday.

“If I stand back and look at the [India-US] relationship, I note that much of the world has had a more difficult relationship with the US,” he said. “I mean that may not be a consolation, but that’s a reality.”

Trade

Trade has been one of the flashpoints. Washington is India’s largest trading partner, with bilateral goods trade reaching $149.1 billion in 2025; but the relationship remains tilted towards India with a $58.4 billion goods surplus.

Jaishankar started by noting: “Countries should not be so self-centred that you’re in your own world and take your decision and say, ‘Well, it was not my intention to make your life difficult’.”

The minister was partly referring to the economic spillover of the wars in Iran and Ukraine, urging that “sound common sense” should ensure that the basic needs of countries were not neglected.

But then, he referred to the trade negotiations between India and the US, that have so far yielded a roadmap to a deal — but not a deal itself. “Apart from the per capita gap between India and the United States, the nature of production and the nature of society is very different,” he noted.

The agricultural sector has been among the most contested points between the two, where India has kept its market largely closed for decades to safeguard its farmers. “The expectation that it could rapidly move forward was tested against the ground reality, which was much more complex,” he said, adding that “there is more or less an understanding on the trade agreement.”

At one point, India was among the countries facing the worst tariff rates imposed by Trump. After the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s sweeping tariffs in February, his administration swiftly turned to other tools, including a new 10 percent global tariff. Earlier this month, Trump signed a law under which the US can impose up to 100 percent tariffs on countries like India that purchase Russian oil.

Jaishankar pointed to these changes, noting that the negotiations created “bumps last year for the relationship,” and added that once the deal is closed, it “would contribute to a better relationship.”

Ajay Bisaria, a retired diplomat who served as high commissioner to Canada and Pakistan, and as ambassador to Poland, told Al Jazeera that with Washington, in particular, “India has decided to be more public because there has been a lot of public criticism and a sentiment that the US is bullying India and India has been silent.”

The new 100 percent tariff on India, due to come into effect in less than a month, “is sort of a deal breaker in the relationship right now,” said Bisaria. “If that becomes reality, then all Indian efforts [to reach out to the US] would come under scrutiny.”

‘Terrorism’

But trade isn’t the only challenge in the relationship. A major rupture emerged in May last year, when New Delhi engaged in a four-day war with its bitter neighbour, Pakistan, after an attack by armed fighters in Indian-administered Kashmir killed 26 civilians.

New Delhi was upstaged as President Trump announced a ceasefire, claiming that he threatened both countries with economic damage if they didn’t stop fighting. For India, any question on Kashmir is strictly bilateral with Pakistan, with no room for so-called third-party intervention.

Nevertheless, Trump has gone on to claim dozens of times that he brokered the crucial ceasefire — as recently as at the UNGA in New York — that halted the war between two nuclear-armed neighbours. India took offence to these claims.

On the other hand, Pakistan’s leaders cozied up to Trump, showered high praise, and nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize. Since then, the relationship between Islamabad and Washington has bloomed, to New Delhi’s obvious irk.

For India, Jaishankar said, “particularly important is the issue of terrorism.”

“As a country, perhaps there are very few countries which have been subjected to the kind of terrorism that we have from a neighbour as part of a deliberate, conscious policy over many, many decades,” Jaishankar said, referring to Pakistan.

“Now, if something which matters so deeply to us, there isn’t enough understanding or appreciation or empathy of that, I think that creates a problem too,” he said, adding that India’s primary concerns are “not fully appreciated” by its partner, the US.

New Delhi’s changing tone while addressing Washington “is a lesson learnt from its experiences,” said Bisaria, the former diplomat. “After the ceasefire issue, the moods changed — and it all became worse.”

Harsh Pant, vice president of the Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi-based think tank, said that “the obsession with Pakistan in the Trump administration without taking India’s sensitivities into account contributed to the sense that, look, we need to start articulating it.”

“When at the top level, you don’t see reciprocity, then calculations change and decisions are taken to bring differences out in the open,” Pant told Al Jazeera, referring to Jaishankar’s comments.

Domestic Pressure

Indians have been the biggest beneficiaries of the US’s H1B programme which allows hiring of foreign workers with training in specialty fields. But that has come under fire from Trump, under whose watch Washington has raised barriers and fees for applicants, amid growing criticism of the scheme from supporters of his MAGA movement.

“For many years, mobility was seen as an economic gain. Today the economics of mobility and the politics of mobility are at odds with each other, at least in some quarters,” Jaishankar said, referring to Trump’s anti-immigration politics.

“That certainly in public perception is an issue,” the minister said.

Domestic pressure appears to be finally catching up in New Delhi. “Modi is feeling domestic pressure, with key state elections coming up next year, especially amid some anti-incumbency,” said Bisaria. “It dictates that the government’s posture should not be one of taking bullying from the US.”

Pant said issues like migration impact the general public in India, with the world’s largest population. For years, such connections made the US “an attractive partner for a large mass of Indians.” But today, he said,
”the same issues are becoming a negative drag on the relationship.”

“The public mood in India is also changing perceptibly towards the US. And I think the government is articulating that negative sentiment now publicly,” Pant said.

‘Waiting out Trump’

When Trump returned to the White House for his second presidential run, many in New Delhi’s strategic community were optimistic about bilateral relations, because of the US president’s warm personal relations with PM Modi during his first term.

But things unravelled in the coming months.

Still, Chatham House’s Bajpaee said that despite widening divisions between the US and India, “both have not given up on reviving their relationship”.

He pointed to Jaishankar’s remarks that India isn’t singled out in having a difficult relationship with the US. “Rather, the downturn in India-US relations is a reflection of the Trump administration’s transactional and often unpredictable or erratic foreign policy,” he told Al Jazeera.

“This offers a potential off-ramp for an eventual reset in relations. The conclusion of a bilateral trade agreement is a key watchpoint for this,” Bajpaee added.

For New Delhi, Pant said, “it is now just the question of waiting Mr. Trump out.” Though he added, with a laugh, that India is not alone in that queue.

“Everyone is waiting him out. President Trump has little respect for conventions and norms of inter-state behaviour. How do you just deal with that individual?” Pant said.

Trump repeats the claim that the US has “virtually total control” over the Strait of Hormuz during an event marking Hispanic Heritage Month.

Mammoth deal has raised questions about corporate consolidation and editorial independence in media.

A United States judge has entered an order giving the green light for the media giant Paramount to complete its $110bn acquisition of entertainment company Warner Bros., despite fears about the long-term impacts of media consolidation.

On Wednesday, US District Court Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin approved a settlement between Paramount, Warner Bros, and a group of 12 states that had sued to block the merger.

In her ruling, Martinez-Olguin described the proposed deal as a “fair, reasonable, and good faith approach to address the competitive harms”.

Analysts have long raised concerns about the acquisition, one of the largest media mergers in history.

The coalition of states that sued to block the deal, led by California, had argued that combining Paramount with Warner Bros would effectively stifle media competition. They estimated that nearly one-third of all theatrical releases and basic cable programming would be consolidated under the merger.

But the states abandoned their lawsuit in favour of a settlement on September 21.

The five-year agreement requires Paramount to abide by theatrical film release quotas, committing to 30 releases per year in the US.

It also mandates that the combined company must keep negotiations with cable providers for Warner-owned channels separate from its deals for Paramount-owned channels.

The settlement approved on Wednesday also includes the creation of a five-member panel meant to safeguard the editorial independence of CNN and CBS, two major news networks.

But sceptics have pointed out that the merger puts a large swath of US media under the control of David Ellison, who leads Paramount.

Under Wednesday’s agreement, Ellison is in charge of appointments to the board that would oversee news independence.

The Paramount CEO is the son of billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison, a strong backer of pro-Israel causes who has close ties to the administration of President Donald Trump.

The founder of the film production company Skydance, David Ellison acquired Paramount last year as part of another controversial merger.

The 2025 Paramount-Skydance deal brought CBS under Ellison’s control. Ahead of the merger, sceptics questioned the abrupt cancellation of the CBS comedy show The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, which had been critical of Trump.

Ellison later installed Bari Weiss, a pro-Israel media figure, as the head of CBS News in a move that also raised questions about diminished independence within major journalism outlets.

Some critics depicted Wednesday’s settlement as a further capitulation to powerful corporate interests.

“Allowing one Trump-aligned, foreign-owned conglomerate to dominate American news and entertainment is a disastrous outcome,” Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in the wake of the settlement’s announcement.

But public officials like California Governor Gavin Newsom had called on his state’s Attorney General Rob Bonta to scrap the 12-state effort to block the deal and to pursue a settlement instead.

Paramount emerged victorious from a bidding war with the streaming giant Netflix in February to win control of Warner Bros’s holdings.

That includes a series of media and entertainment services, including the film studio Warner Bros Pictures, CNN and HBO Max. The Trump administration approved the deal without alterations in June.

Seven Minnesota judges face ethics complaint after speaking publicly about the US president’s immigration crackdown.

The United States Justice Department has filed a misconduct complaint against seven federal judges in Minnesota who spoke publicly about the pressure their courts came under during President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The judges spoke to The New York Times this month about dealing with a flood of cases during Operation Metro Surge, an immigration crackdown that led to thousands of arrests in the Minneapolis-St Paul area from December to February.

The Justice Department says it crossed an ethical line by talking publicly about the cases.

Attorney General Todd Blanche accused the judges of showing “obvious bias” against the Trump administration and called on them to step aside from any cases involving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

“When we have a situation like we have now, where you have a judge, a couple of judges, just not only violating the canons in our view but also showing bias in what they’re saying, we have no choice but to act,” Blanche told reporters.

The judges say they did nothing wrong. A spokesperson for Minnesota’s federal court system said legal experts had found that the judges were “well within the ethical rules” when they spoke to the newspaper.

The complaint is the latest in a series of clashes between the Trump administration and the judiciary, which has blocked some of the president’s policies and, in several cases, accused government lawyers of failing to follow court orders.

One of the judges named in the complaint, Patrick Schiltz, alleged that the government did not comply with nearly 100 court orders related to immigration enforcement in January alone.

In one ruling, he wrote that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “is not a law unto itself”.

Schiltz was nominated by Republican President George W Bush and previously clerked for conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

He later told The New York Times that what happened in Minnesota’s federal courts during the crackdown “created a grave threat to the rule of law”.

Schiltz also pointed to guidance issued by a federal judicial ethics panel in February, saying that judges can speak publicly about issues such as the rule of law and judicial independence.

“That is exactly what I did,” he said.

US president’s comments came after he was asked why North Korea can have nuclear weapons when Iran cannot.

United States President Donald Trump has described North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as “a friend” and played down concerns about Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal, saying, “as long as I’m around, he’s going to be fine”.

Trump made the remarks in Washington, DC, on Tuesday after a reporter asked him why North Korea could have nuclear weapons but Iran could not.

“That’s interesting. You know why? Because you had a different president, and they could have stopped him,” he said, referring to previous US administrations.

“He happens to be a friend of mine, Kim Jong Un, he’s a friend of mine. He likes Trump, doesn’t like a lot of other people. I’m about the only person in the entire world that he likes, and I like him,” he said.

He said North Korea’s nuclear capacity was “pretty large” but “not like us”.

“You know what, as long as I’m around, he’s going to be fine,” he added. “You know why? Because he respects me and he likes me.”

South Korea’s Defence Minister Ahn Gyu-back said last week that its northern neighbour possessed between 80 and 120 nuclear warheads. The figure is significantly higher than Trump’s recent assertion that Pyongyang has 57 nuclear weapons.

Trump is seeking to re-engage with Kim and secure a win on the international stage as the US and Israel’s war on Iran enters its eighth month.

The US president launched the war along with Israel on February 28, saying Iran could not have a nuclear weapon. Iran has denied seeking a weapon, noting it had signed an agreement with world powers in 2015 that curbed its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. But Trump abandoned the agreement during his first term in 2018.

The US-Israel war on Iran has disrupted global energy supplies, raised fuel costs and hurt Trump’s popularity ahead of the November midterm elections.

Trump held summits with North Korea’s Kim in 2018 and 2019, but diplomacy broke down over US demands that Pyongyang give up its nuclear weapons. Since then, Kim has expanded his arsenal of nuclear-capable missiles and strengthened his diplomatic footprint by aligning with Russia over its war in Ukraine and tightening relations with China.

Trump had earlier said he planned to hold in-person talks with Kim before the end of the year.

But North Korea has not formally committed to such a meeting.