“It’s an historic moment for the Congress. It’s an historic moment for the women of America. It is a moment for which we have waited over 200 years,” said United States Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi in January 2007, upon becoming the speaker of the US House of Representatives.
“For our daughters and our granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling,” she added, addressing an applauding audience at the House in Washington, DC.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Pelosi, 85, who has served as the Democratic representative for California’s 11th Congressional District since 1987, made history when she was elected as the 52nd speaker of the House of Representatives – as the first-ever woman – and served from 2007 to 2011. She later served again from 2019 to 2023.
On Thursday this week, she announced her retirement from Congress as of January next year.
Paying tribute to her home city of San Francisco, she announced her decision in a video message, telling and citizens of the city: “It was the faith that you had placed in me and the latitude that you have given me that enabled me to shatter the marble ceiling and be the first woman speaker of the House, whose voice would certainly be heard.
“I want you, my fellow San Franciscans, to be the first to know I will not be seeking re-election to Congress,” Pelosi, 85, added.
“With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative.”
Seen as one of the most powerful figures in the modern Democratic Party and one of the most powerful women in US politics, Pelosi was re-elected as speaker of the House in 2019 and served until 2023.
At the end of her second tenure, she stepped down from House leadership for the Democratic Party but retained the honorary title of speaker emerita of the House.
Here’s what we know:
Who is Nancy Pelosi?
Nancy Patricia Pelosi was born on March 26, 1940, in Baltimore, Maryland, and is the only daughter and youngest of six siblings.
She comes from a family with political lineage. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr, was a congressman who served as mayor of Baltimore for 12 years. Her older brother, Thomas D’Alesandro III, also served as mayor of Baltimore.
After graduating with a bachelor’s degree in political science from Trinity College in Washington, DC in the 1960s, Pelosi started an internship with the Maryland senator at the time, Daniel Brewster.
In 1963, she married Paul Pelosi, an American businessman and San Francisco native, and the couple moved to the city six years later, with their six children.
In the 1980s, Pelosi began working with the Democratic National Committee in the state of California. Starting as a fundraiser, she progressed to become the chair of both the California Democratic Party between 1981 and 1983 and the host committee for the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco.
Former US President Joe Biden presents the Presidential Medal of Freedom to US Representative and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a ceremony at the White House in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2024 [File: Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters]
How long has Pelosi been in Congress?
In 1987, Pelosi was elected to Congress as a Democratic representative – a seat she campaigned for, promising action against AIDS, which was badly affecting people, especially from the LGBTQ+ community, in her city of San Francisco.
A national law addressing the epidemic emerged in the 1990s in the form of the Ryan White Care Act, and Pelosi, who was in Congress at the time, celebrated the moment. That law provided the largest funding programme for people with AIDS.
As a congresswoman for nearly 40 years, Pelosi has climbed through the ranks and, in 2001, became the first woman to hold the post of the House minority whip for the Democratic Party. In this post, it was her duty to advance the policies of her party.
In 2002, she became the House minority leader and, in 2007, she was elected speaker of the House when Republican George W Bush was in power.
“In this House, we may be different parties, but we serve one country,” she told the House while accepting the post in January 2007.
What does the House Speaker do?
According to the US Congress website, the Speaker of the House is elected either at the start of a Congress, which lasts for two years, or if there is a vacancy due to death or resignation.
The election takes place by “roll call vote, during which Members state aloud the name of their preferred candidate. If no candidate receives a majority of votes cast, balloting continues.” A speaker remains in office as long as he or she holds the House’s majority vote.
The speaker of the House symbolises “the power and authority of the House” and is tasked with maintaining decorum in the House, allowing members to speak, overseeing debates, and undertaking non-legislative tasks like controlling the Hall of the House.
The Speaker is also responsible for “defending the majority party’s legislative agenda” and also has a role of serving as a member of the House.
But the speaker cannot debate or vote on topics discussed in the House or sit on any standing committee in the House. These committees handle specific issues like overseeing government departments or analysing various financial issues.
What policies has Pelosi championed?
As a congresswoman and speaker of the House twice during her tenure, Pelosi has pursued left-of-centre policies and has been instrumental in passing several important laws and policies.
Climate
When she first took the gavel in 2007 as speaker of the House, she focused on climate policies and set up the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which held many hearings.
In 2015, she supported former US President Barack Obama in joining the Paris Climate Agreement.
In 2017, President Donald Trump ceased US participation, but when President Joe Biden came to power in 2021, climate was once again on the agenda.
As speaker of the House, Pelosi oversaw the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, which also included policies to address climate change.
Women’s rights
As the first woman to hold the position of speaker of the House in the US, Pelosi has been seen as instrumental in advancing women’s rights.
When Obama came to power in 2008, with Pelosi as speaker, she ensured that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which addressed equal wages for men and women, was passed.
She also supported women’s reproductive rights, despite being a Catholic, and fought for Roe v Wade – a US law which established that women had a constitutional right to an abortion – when it was overturned during President Donald Trump’s first term.
Healthcare
During President Obama’s tenure, Pelosi was instrumental in ensuring his Affordable Care Act became a law in 2010.
The law lists guidelines to ensure federal subsidies to ensure every person in the US has access to medical care and services.
The law was initially unpopular in the House, but Pelosi held hearings and spoke to Democrats and Republicans to ensure the smooth passage of the bill.
Between 2021 and 2023, Pelosi was also able to help Democrats pass major bills to propel Biden’s agenda, which included a huge COVID-19 relief package.
Foreign policy
As a Congress member in 2003, she opposed the US’s war in Iraq. She has also voiced strong opposition to Russia’s war in Ukraine.
However, when it comes to Israel’s war in Gaza, Pelosi is a staunch supporter of Israel and has defended the US stance towards the war.
In 2024, however, she called on Biden to halt the transfer of arms to Israel.
Pelosi has also been hawkish towards China and triggered a controversy when she visited Taiwan in 2022.
What is her role now?
She currently serves as the Representative for California’s 11th Congressional District, which includes San Francisco, from where she focuses on employment rights.
After her second tenure as Speaker of the House ended in November 2023, Pelosi announced she would step down from the House’s leadership to make way for young members to take up the role.
The end of her tenure made headlines, and interviews with her focusing on her diet – which involved having “her daily hot dog” – also caught the media’s attention. Pelosi has often told reporters that she enjoys a hot dog with mustard for lunch every day, plenty of Ghirardelli chocolates, and a breakfast that generally includes ice cream.
After stepping down as speaker, Pelosi retained the title of Speaker Emerita of the House.
She is also renowned as a brilliant fundraiser for political campaigns. “I had to raise like a million dollars a day – well, at least five days a week,” she once told reporters.
Why is she retiring now?
Pelosi has not given the precise reason for her decision to retire now. But, according to US media reports, it was widely expected after close to 38 years of service.
“I say to my colleagues in the House all of the time, no matter what title they had bestowed upon me – speaker, leader, whip – there has been no greater honour for me than to stand on the House floor and say, ‘I speak for the people of San Francisco,’” she said in her video message announcing her retirement on Thursday.
How did Trump react to news of her resignation?
President Trump, who has clashed with Pelosi on numerous occasions, called her an “evil woman” following the news.
“I think she did the country a great service by retiring. I think she was a tremendous liability for the country,” he told reporters.
Pelosi and Trump are often referred to as adversaries by political commentators and US media outlets, due to their disagreements over policy.
In 2019, during Trump’s first term, Pelosi, Democrat Chuck Schumer – who is currently minority leader of the Senate – and Trump got into a heated argument over building a wall along the US border with Mexico. Trump threatened to shut down the government during the squabble, which was broadcast on television channels around the world.
That same year, Trump and Pelosi discussed the war in Syria, but their disagreements were made public by Trump himself, who tweeted a picture of Pelosi pointing a finger at him.
In 2020, their rocky relationship once again made headlines when Pelosi tore up a copy of Trump’s State of the Union speech, calling it a “lie”. Trump said her actions were illegal since it was a government document, but, in fact, it was her own copy of the speech – not the official document.
Trump supporters who stormed into the Capitol on January 6, 2021, to protest the 2020 presidential election results that Biden won, barged into Pelosi’s office looking for her but couldn’t find her.
In 2022, an assailant broke into Pelosi’s home in San Francisco and assaulted her husband with a hammer, fracturing his skull. The former House speaker was not at the house during the attack. Prosecutors believe the act was politically motivated.
In January 2023, Trump mocked her husband’s attack while addressing a California Republican party convention as he prepared to stand for the presidential race for a second time.
“We’ll stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi, who ruined San Francisco – how’s her husband doing, anybody know?” Trump said.
“And she’s against building a wall at our border, even though she has a wall around her house – which obviously didn’t do a very good job,” he added.
How have others reacted?
Many American politicians paid tribute to Pelosi on social media platforms this week.
Former Representative Democrat Gabby Giffords (Democrat-Arizona), who was shot in the head in 2011 by a gunman who also killed six others during a constituent event in Tucson in 2011, said in a press statement: “As the first woman Speaker of the House, she inspired me and and at my bedside following the shooting that turned my life upside-down, she uplifted me.”
Former President Obama said on X: “For almost four decades, Nancy Pelosi has served the American people and worked to make our country better. No one was more skilled at bringing people together and getting legislation passed – and I will always be grateful for her support of the Affordable Care Act.”
Former President Biden called Pelosi “the best Speaker of the House in American history” and said it was the reason why he awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the US’s highest honour, in 2024.
“When I was President, we worked together to grow our economy, create millions of jobs, and make historic investments in our nation’s future. She has devoted much of her life to this country, and America will always be grateful,” he said on X.
Right-wing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene also lauded Pelosi’s leadership. “She had an incredible career. I served under her speakership in my first term of Congress. And I’m very impressed at her ability to get things done. I wish we could get things done for our party,” she told CNN.
Which internet controversies has Pelosi been part of?
According to the Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact, while Pelosi has been lauded for her political achievements, she has also been mocked.
Some posts on the internet said she was removed from the House for being drunk many times. This is untrue.
A few other posts said she associated with Mexican drug lord El Chapo in 2016, when in reality she was at a meeting to discuss US-Mexico trade and security in the Pacific with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and Representative Henry Cuellar from Texas, who internet users mistakenly identified as El Chapo.
SACRAMENTO — A new poll shows that former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter’s support in the 2026 governor’s race dropped after she tangled with a television reporter during a heated interview in October, an incident that rival candidates used to question her temperament.
Porter was the clear front-runner over the summer, but by late October she dropped behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, according to a poll released Friday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.
“She’s the leading Democrat among the various ones that are in there right now,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the poll. “But it’s because nobody really on the Democratic side has really jumped out of the pack. It’s kind of a political vacuum at the moment.”
The governor’s race was frozen in stasis for most of the year, first as Californians waited for former Vice President Kamala Harris to decide whether she was going to jump into the race. It wasn’t until late July that Harris announced, no, she was not running. Then, weeks later, Californians became captivated by a special election to reconfigure the state’s congressional districts — which set off a furious, expensive and high-stakes political battle that could help decide which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives.
Now that the special election is over, gubernatorial candidates can “rev up the public to pay attention,” DiCamillo said.
“It’s the time for someone to break through,” he said.
But it won’t be U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla. The senator would have been the top Democrat in the race, but not a heavy favorite, if he decided to jump in, the poll found. Voters gave him the highest favorability rating among all current and potential contenders in the governor’s race. After months of speculation, however, Padilla on Tuesday announced he would forgo a run for governor.
The new poll found that Bianco was supported by 13% of voters in the state, followed by Porter at 11%. The Berkeley poll in August showed that Porter led all candidates with 17% support, with Bianco in second place at 10%.
A Bianco representative said his lead in the polls was evidence that his campaign was resonating with voters.
“It is abundantly clear that Californians are demanding a new path forward,” campaign manager Erica Melendrez said. “Sheriff Bianco represents a safe California, an affordable California, an educated California and a leader with integrity and character that ALL Californians can be proud of.”
DiCamillo said Porter’s 6% drop over those three months was significant, given that the California governor’s race is so tight, but cautioned that it’s still early in the 2026 campaign season and a lot of shifting will happen before the June gubernatorial primary.
Porter’s campaign declined to comment on the drop in support and noted instead that she still led the Democratic field.
“Poll after poll continues to show Katie as the strongest Democrat in the race, driven by a growing coalition of grassroots supporters — not powerful special interests,” spokesperson Peter Opitz said. “Californians know her record of taking on Donald Trump and trust her to tackle our cost crisis, from skyrocketing rent and housing costs to rising healthcare premiums and unaffordable child care.”
Porter came under fire in October after an outburst during an interview with CBS reporter Julie Watts. When the Sacramento-based journalist asked Porter what she would say to Californians who voted for Trump, the UC Irvine law professor responded that she didn’t need their support.
After Watts asked follow-up questions, Porter accused the reporter of being “unnecessarily argumentative,” held up her hands and later said, “I don’t want this all on camera.”
The next day, a 2021 video emerged of Porter berating a staff member during a videoconference with a member of the Biden administration. “Get out of my f— shot!” Porter said to the young woman after she came into view in the background. Porter’s comments in the video were first reported by Politico.
Porter later acknowledged that she mishandled the television news interview, but explained that she felt the reporter’s questioning implied she should cater to Trump’s supporters. Porter also said she apologized to her staff member, saying her remarks were “inappropriate,” that she values her staff and could have handled that situation better.
Her Democratic gubernatorial rivals seized on the videos. Former state Controller Betty Yee called on Porter to drop out of the race, and businessman Stephen Cloobeck and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa attacked her in ads about the uproar.
While difficult to assess, the negative news coverage and publicity surrounding those incidents appear to have taken a toll on Porter’s reputation. No other candidate experienced a similar shift in support.
According to the new poll, 26% of California voters had a favorable opinion of Porter, compared with 33% who saw her unfavorably — with the remainder having no opinion. That’s a major drop from when she was running for the U.S. Senate last year, when 45% of voters had a favorable opinion in February 2024 and 27% were sour on her.
Political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the Berkeley institute that conducted the poll, said Porter looks vulnerable, and that makes the governor’s race a more attractive contest for current candidates and those who may be considering joining it.
Aside from Porter and Bianco, the poll found that 8% of voters favored former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democrat; the same percentage backed conservative commentator Steve Hilton. Villaraigosa had support from 5% of voters, Yee 3%, and California Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond 1%. Cloobeck and former Democratic legislator Ian Calderon registered less than 1%.
Another potential candidate — billionaire developer Rick Caruso — was backed by 3% of voters, the poll found. Caruso said Monday night that he still was considering running for either governor or Los Angeles mayor and will decide in a few weeks.
Schickler said the results of Tuesday’s election may be a sign that moderate or business-friendly Democrats — including Caruso — may not fare so well in a state as Democratic as California. Voters across the nation delivered a sharp rebuke to Trump, electing Democrats in major races in New York City, New Jersey and Virginia and passing Proposition 50, the California ballot measure designed to help Democrats take control of the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 election.
“Somebody like Caruso, his narrative would probably look a lot stronger if Democrats still seemed on the defensive and in disarray,” Schickler said. “But after Prop. 50 passing, big Democratic wins in New Jersey and Virginia, I think the argument for a need to change what we’re doing dramatically, at least in a state like California, is less likely to resonate.”
The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 8,141 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from Oct. 20 to 27. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.
U.S. President Donald Trump and his South Korean counterpart, Lee Jae Myung, shake hands during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington on August 25. To coincide with Lee’s visit, South Korean companies pledged to invest $150 billion in the United States. File Photo by Al Drago/UPI
SEOUL, Nov. 7 (UPI) — After the inauguration of the Donald Trump in January, the South Korean government and its corporations were pressed to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the United States to avoid high tariffs.
Observers expressed concern Friday that such large-scale overseas investments could end up harming Asia’s fourth-largest economy, which heavily depends on the manufacturing industry.
Late last month, Seoul agreed to invest $200 billion in cash and $150 billion in shipbuilding and other industrial projects in the United States over the coming years, with an annual ceiling of $20 billion.
In return, Washington would reduce tariffs on Korean exports to 15% from 25%, honoring the terms agreed upon in late July. Trump also vowed to provide propulsion technology to help the key U.S. ally in East Asia build a nuclear-powered submarine.
The deal coincided with Trump’s visit to Korea to meet his counterpart, President Lee Jae Myung, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit.
“Beginning next year, our annual investments in the United States are expected to double compared to 2025. When corporate funds move abroad, companies will have less capacity to invest at home,” Sogang University economics Professor Hur Jung told UPI.
“The problem is that it appears to become a long-term trend, which is feared to lead to the hollowing out of Korea’s manufacturing sector. The government is required to put forth great efforts to address this,” he said.
Hur recommended the country to prioritize traditional industries, such as semiconductors and automobiles, rather than concentrate on artificial intelligence-based innovations, which have been the main focus of the incumbent Seoul administration.
Other analysts note that the worries go beyond the $350 billion investment plan, as many Korean corporations have announced major spending initiatives in the United States to avoid high tariffs.
For example, Korea’s state-backed companies and private enterprises promised up to $150 billion in investments in the United States in August, when Lee had his first summit with Trump.
Back then, Hyundai Motor Group unveiled a plan to funnel $26 billion in the United States until 2028, while Hanwha Group committed $5 billion to expand its shipyard in Philadelphia, which the Korean conglomerate acquired late last year.
Korean Air also plans to purchase 103 aircraft from Boeing by the end of the 2030s, which is expected to total $36.2 billion in value.
“Korea Inc. invested $106 billion in domestic facilities last year. And its companies are now ready to spend $150 billion in the United States alone after a single meeting between the two countries’ political leaders in August. Does it make sense?” economic commentator Kim Kyeong-joon, formerly vice chairman at Deloitte Consulting Korea, asked rhetorically in a phone interview.
“Our foreign exchange reserves stand at just over $400 billion, and we are preparing to pour more than that amount into a single foreign market. Such an approach could weaken our ability to invest domestically, weighing heavily on the manufacturing-based economy,” he said.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, manufacturing accounts for 27% of South Korea’s gross domestic product, which is almost double the average among other member countries.
Against this backdrop, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources is set to establish a forum involving related researchers and businesses to deal with the expected crisis. The Bank of Korea also warned of the gravity of the situation in an August report.
“As in past crises, our corporations, the government and households need to share a sense of urgency and work together to overhaul the country’s aging economic structure,” the central bank said at the time.
However, critics take issue with the complacency of top policymakers like Kim Yong-beom, chief presidential secretary for policy in the current administration, who downplayed fears about the hollowing out of the domestic manufacturing sector.
“Such assessments may be premature because many partner firms and key operations, including research and development centers, still remain based in Korea,” Kim told a conference in early September.
Nov. 7 (UPI) — Republicans narrowly defeated a bipartisan bill in the Senate requiring congressional approval for military action against Venezuela as the Trump administration continues a military buildup in the region and attacks on alleged drug boats in nearby waters.
The resolution was introduced by Paul, and Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff of California and Tim Kaine of Virginia in response to reporting that President Donald Trump was considering military ground strikes against Venezuela.
Venezuela has long been a target of Trump, who, during his first administration, launched a failed multiyear pressure campaign to oust its authoritarian leader, President Nicolas Maduro.
Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has used his executive powers to target drug cartels, including the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. Trump has claimed, without providing evidence, that TdA has “invaded” the United States at Maduro’s direction, despite his own National Intelligence Council concluding in May that the regime “probably does not have a policy of cooperating” with TdA.
The vote was held as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a 17th known military strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat in Caribbean international waters. Since Sept. 2, the United States has killed around 70 people in the attacks.
The attacks have drawn domestic and international criticism and allegations of war crimes, murder and extrajudicial killings. Some Democrats called on the Trump administration to answer questions over the legality of the strikes without gaining proper congressional approval.
Following the Thursday vote, Kaine said the Trump administration told some members of Congress that it lacked legal authority to launch any attacks into Venezuela. Some worry that an attack could devolve into a full-scale war.
“Trump’s illegal strikes on boats in the Caribbean and threats of land strikes in Venezuela recklessly and unnecessarily put the U.S. at risk of war,” Kaine said in a statement.
In a separate statement, he criticized his Republican colleagues, stating: “If the U.S. is going to put our nation’s sons and daughters into harm’s way, then we should have a robust debate in Congress in front of the American people.”
Sen. Todd Young, a Republican of Indiana, voted against the bill on Thursday, and explained in a statement that he has been informed of the legal rationale behind the strikes and does not believe the resolution is appropriate right now, but that could change.
“My vote is not an endorsement of the administration’s current course in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. As a matter of policy, I am troubled by many aspects and assumptions of this operation and believe it is at odds with the majority of Americans who want the U.S. military less entangled in international conflicts,” he said.
With Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim (left) by his side, U.S. President Donald Trump oversees the signing of a ceasefire agreement between Thailand’s Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul (second from right) and Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Manet (right) on the sidelines of the 47th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on Sunday, October 26, 2025. File Photo via The White House/UPI | License Photo
Nov. 6 (UPI) — The United States on Thursday lifted a Biden-era arms embargo on Cambodia following several high-profile meetings between officials of both countries.
The notice filed by the State Department with the Federal Register that explains the Trump administration was removing Cambodia from the International Traffic in Arms Regulations list due to Phnom Penh’s “diligent pursuit of peace and security, including through renewed engagement with the United States on defense cooperation and combating transnational crime.”
The embargo was placed on Cambodia in late 2021 by the Biden administration to address human rights abuses, corruption by Cambodian government actors, including in the military, and the growing influence of China in the country.
It was unclear if any of those issues had been addressed.
“The Trump administration has completely upended U.S. policy toward Cambodia with no regard for U.S. national security or our values,” Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., said in a statement criticizing the move to lift the embargo.
“There has been broad bipartisan concern about the Cambodian government’s human rights abuses and its deepening ties to Beijing.”
The embargo was lifted on the heels of Deputy Prime Minister Prak Sokhonn meeting with Michael George DeSombre, U.S. assistant secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, in Cambodia on Tuesday.
On Friday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth met with Tea Seiha, another Cambodian deputy prime minister, in Malaysia, where the two agreed to restart “our premier bilateral military exercise,” the Pentagon chief said in a statement.
Great meeting with Cambodia’s Deputy Prime Minister, Tea Seiha, in Kuala Lumpur. We agreed to restart our premier bilateral military exercise with Cambodia.
President Donald Trump has received much praise from Cambodia for his involvement in securing late July’s cease-fire and then last month’s peace declaration between Thailand and Cambodia, which had been involved in renewed armed conflict in their long-running border dispute.
During Tuesday’s meeting between Prak and DeSombre, the Cambodian official reiterated Phnom Penh’s “deep gratitude” to Trump “for his crucial role in facilitating” the agreements, according to a Cambodian Foreign Ministry statement on the talks.
Meeks framed the lifting of the embargo on Thursday as the Trump administration turning a blind eye to Cambodia’s “rampant corruption and repression … because the Cambodian government placated Trump in his campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize.”
“That’s not how American foreign policy or our arms sales process is meant to work,” Meeks said.
Cambodia in August nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize “in recognition of his historic contributions in advancing world peace,” the letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee stated.
Polls find large majorities of people in the US oppose military action against Venezuela, where Trump has ramped up military pressure.
Republicans in the United States Senate have voted down legislation that would have required US President Donald Trump to obtain congressional approval for any military attacks on Venezuela.
Two Republicans had crossed the political aisle and joined Democrats to vote in favour of the legislation on Thursday, but their support was not enough to secure passage, and the bill failed to pass by 51 to 49 votes.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
“We should not be going to war without a vote of Congress,” Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said during a speech.
The vote comes amid a US military build-up off South America and a series of military strikes targeting vessels in international waters off Venezuela and Colombia that have killed at least 65 people.
The US has alleged, without presenting evidence, that the boats it bombed were transporting drugs, but Latin American leaders, some members of Congress, international law experts and family members of the deceased have described the US attacks as extrajudicial killings, claiming most of those killed were fishermen.
Fears are now growing that Trump will use the military deployment in the region – which includes thousands of US troops, a nuclear submarine and a group of warships accompanying the USS Gerald R Ford, the US Navy’s most sophisticated aircraft carrier – to launch an attack on Venezuela in a bid to oust President Nicolas Maduro.
Washington has accused Maduro of drug trafficking, and Trump has hinted at carrying out attacks on Venezuelan soil.
Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, referencing Trump’s military posturing towards Venezuela, said on Thursday: “It’s really an open secret that this is much more about potential regime change.”
“If that’s where the administration is headed, if that’s what we’re risking – involvement in a war – then Congress needs to be heard on this,” he said.
Earlier on Thursday, a pair of US B-52 bombers flew over the Caribbean Sea along the coast of Venezuela, flight tracking data showed.
Data from tracking website Flightradar24 showed the two bombers flying parallel to the Venezuelan coast, then circling northeast of Caracas before heading back along the coast and turning north and flying further out to sea.
The presence of the US bombers off Venezuela was at least the fourth time that US military aircraft have flown near the country’s borders since mid-October, with B-52s having done so on one previous occasion, and B-1B bombers on two other occasions.
Little public support in US for attack on Venezuela
A recent poll found that only 18 percent of people in the US support even limited use of military force to overthrow Maduro’s government.
Research by YouGov also found that 74 percent of people in the US believe that the president should not be able to carry out military strikes abroad without congressional approval, in line with the requirements of the US Constitution.
Republican lawmakers, however, have embraced the recent strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, adopting the Trump administration’s framing of its efforts to cut off the flow of narcotics to the US.
Questions of the legality of such attacks, either under US or international law, do not appear to be of great concern to many Republicans.
“President Trump has taken decisive action to protect thousands of Americans from lethal narcotics,” Senator Jim Risch, the Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in remarks declaring his support for the strikes.
While only two Republicans – Senators Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski – defected to join Democrats in supporting the legislation to limit Trump’s ability to wage war unilaterally on Thursday, some conservatives have expressed frustration with a possible war on Venezuela.
Trump had campaigned for president on the promise of withdrawing the US from foreign military entanglements.
In recent years, Congress has made occasional efforts to reassert itself and impose restraints on foreign military engagements through the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which reaffirmed that Congress alone has the power to declare war.
Volunteers stack donated food for the North Hollywood Interfaith Food Pantry in Los Angeles on October 24, ahead of the suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for 42 million recipients across the country. Photo by Allison Dinner/EPA
Nov. 6 (UPI) — The Trump administration has one day to fully distribute Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.
U.S. District Court of Rhode Island Judge Jack McConnell ordered the program funding after earlier requiring the Trump administration to access available money to at least partially fund SNAP benefits amid the federal government shutdown.
McConnell required the Trump administration to apprise the court on Wednesday of efforts to fund the program formerly known as “food stamps.”
“People have gone without for too long,” McConnell said during an emergency hearing on Thursday, as reported by CNN.
“Not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable,” he added.
He said the Trump administration has not done enough to access an estimated $4.65 billion in contingency funds to partially fund the SNAP benefits that cost about $9 billion per month to help 42 million recipients put food on their tables.
If SNAP is not funded fully, “people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur,” McConnell said on Thursday, according to CNBC.
“That’s what irreparable harm here means,” he continued. “Last weekend, SNAP benefits lapsed for the first time in our nation’s history.”
He called it a “problem that could have and should have been avoided.”
McConnell ordered the Trump administration to provide the full amount of November SNAP benefits to respective states by Friday, which would enable them to distribute benefits to their residents within a few days.
The federal judge also referenced a Truth Social post made by President Donald Trump on Tuesday.
In that post, the president said SNAP benefits only would be funded “when the radical-left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before.”
The social media post served as evidence that the Trump administration would ignore McConnell’s prior order requiring it to access as much funding as possible to distribute SNAP benefits.
He criticized the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s decision not to access contingency funds to continue SNAP benefits instead of allowing them to be suspended as of Saturday.
“Even when Nov. 1 came, [the] USDA refused to use the congressionally mandated contingency funds,” McConnell said.
“USDA cannot now cry that it cannot get timely payments to the beneficiary for weeks or months because states are not prepared to make partial payments.”
McConnell is presiding over one of two federal cases filed by up to 25 states seeking to continue federal funding of SNAP benefits despite the record 37-day federal government shutdown that started on Oct. 1.
New York is party to both suits, and state Attorney General Letitia James welcomed McConnell’s ruling on Thursday.
“A judge in Rhode Island just stopped the federal government from starving millions of Americans,” James said in a prepared statement.
“I am relieved that people will get the food they need,” she added, “but it is outrageous that it took a lawsuit to make the federal government feed its own people.”
The federal government shutdown is now the longest in US history.
America’s longest government shutdown is becoming more painful by the day.
At least 40 million Americans are struggling to get food, more than a million federal workers haven’t been paid, health insurance premiums are rising, and flights are getting disrupted.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Congress has been locked in a standoff over a bill to fund government services, with Democrats demanding tax credits that will make health insurance cheaper for millions of Americans and an end to federal agency cuts.
Democrats won decisive victories in state and local elections this week. President Donald Trump is blaming the shutdown for this setback to the Republican Party.
So, will he now be willing to negotiate? Can the two sides agree to a comprise?
Presenter: Bernard Smith
Guests:
Mark Pfeifle – Republican strategist
Jeremy Mayer – Professor of political science at George Mason University
Nov. 6 (UPI) — Former Justice Department paralegal Sean Dunn is not guilty of assault for throwing a sub sandwich at a Border Patrol agent in Washington, D.C., a federal jury ruled Thursday.
The jury deliberated a misdemeanor assault charge against Dunn on Wednesday and Thursday before rendering its verdict, NBC News reported.
Dunn accosted Border Patrol agent Greg Lairimore in the capital’s U Street area, swore at him called him an unwelcome “fascist” before throwing a footlong sub sandwich that struck him in the chest.
Lairimore testified that the sandwich “exploded” when it hit his chest, but photos showed it was still wrapped while lying on the ground after striking him.
The case was tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where a grand jury earlier rejected several potential felony charges against Dunn.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro proceeded with the misdemeanor assault charge against Dunn and agreed to hold a jury trial upon the request of Dunn’s attorneys.
Attorney General Pam Bondi earlier cited Dunn as an example of the “deep state” in Washington and fired him from his DOJ job.
The incident went viral as video footage circulated on social media and inspired murals and other depictions of a masked Dunn preparing to hurl a footlong sub sandwich like a quarterback would throw a football.
Some people also dressed in costumes intended to mimic Dunn, and many Washington-area homes featured skeletons dressed similarly to Dunn during Halloween.
The US Supreme Court has questioned US President Donald Trump’s authority to use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners around the world.
In a closely watched hearing on Wednesday in Washington, DC, conservative and liberal Supreme Court judges appeared sceptical about Trump’s tariff policy, which has already had ramifications for US carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The US president had earlier claimed that his trade tariffs – which have been central to his foreign policy since he returned to power earlier this year – will not affect US businesses, workers and consumers.
But a legal challenge by a number of small American businesses, including toy firms and wine importers, filed earlier this year, has led to lower courts in the country ruling that Trump’s tariffs are illegal.
In May, the Court of International Trade, based in New York, said Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs and “the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, in August.
Now, the Supreme Court, the country’s top court, is hearing the issue. Last week, the small business leaders, who are being represented by Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal, told the Court that Trump’s import levies were severely harming their businesses and that many have been forced to lay off workers and cut prices as a result.
In a post on his Truth Social Platform on Sunday, Trump described the Supreme Court case as “one of the most important in the History of the Country”.
“If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World,” he added.
What happened in Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing, and what could happen if the court rules against Trump’s tariffs?
Here’s what we know:
What was discussed at the Supreme Court on Wednesday?
During a hearing which lasted for nearly three hours, the Trump administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General D John Sauer, argued that the president’s tariff policy is legal under a 1977 national law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
According to US government documents, IEEPA gives a US president an array of economic powers, including to regulate trade, in order “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat”.
Trump invoked IEEPA in February to levy a new 25 percent tax on imports from Canada and Mexico, as well as a 10 percent levy on Chinese goods, on the basis that these countries were facilitating the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the US, and that this constituted a national emergency. He later paused the tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but increased China’s to 20 percent. This was restored to 10 percent after Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping last month.
In April, when he imposed reciprocal tariffs on imports from a wide array of countries around the world, he said those levies were also in line with IEEPA since the US was running a trade deficit that posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to the nation.
Sauer argued that Trump had imposed the tariffs using IEEPA since “our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe”.
He also told the court that the levies are “regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs”.
But Neal Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses that have brought the case, countered this. “Tariffs are taxes,” Katyal said. “They take dollars from Americans’ pockets and deposit them in the US Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone.”
What did the judges say about tariffs?
The judges raised another sticking point: Also, under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to regulate tariffs. Justice John Roberts noted that “the [IEEPA] statute doesn’t use the word tariff.”
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan also told Sauer, “It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.”
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump during his first term as president, asked Sauer, “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defence and industrial base?
“I mean, Spain, France? I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy,” Coney Barrett said.
Sauer replied that “there’s this sort of lack of reciprocity, this asymmetric treatment of our trade, with respect to foreign countries that does run across the board,” and reiterated the Trump administration’s power to use IEEPA.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took issue with the notion that the tariffs are not taxes, as asserted by Trump’s team. She said, “You want to say that tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”
According to recent data released by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, as of the end of August, IEEPA tariffs had generated $89bn in revenues to the US Treasury.
During the court’s arguments on Wednesday, Justice Roberts also suggested that the court may have to invoke the “major questions” doctrine in this case after telling Sauer that the president’s tariffs are “the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress”.
The “major questions” doctrine checks a US executive agency’s power to impose a policy without Congress’s clear directive. The Supreme Court previously used this to block former President Joe Biden’s policies, including his student loan forgiveness plan.
Sauer argued that the “major questions” doctrine should not apply in this context since it would also affect the president’s power in foreign affairs.
Why is this case the ultimate test of Trump’s tariff policy?
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority and generally takes several months to make a decision. While it remains unclear when the court will make a decision on this case, according to analysts, the fact that this case was launched against Trump at all is significant.
In a recent report published by Max Yoeli, senior research fellow on the US and Americas Programme at UK-based think tank Chatham House, said, “The Supreme Court’s outcome will shape Trump’s presidency – and those that follow – across executive authority, global trade, and domestic fiscal and economic concerns.”
“It is likewise a salient moment for the Supreme Court, which has empowered Trump and showed little appetite to constrain him,” he added.
Penny Nass, acting senior vice president at the German Marshall Fund’s Washington DC office, told Al Jazeera that the verdict will be viewed by many as a test of Trump’s powers.
“A first impact will be the most direct judicial restraint at the highest level on Presidential power. After a year testing the limits of his power, President Trump will start to see some of constraints on his power,” she said.
According to international trade lawyer Shantanu Singh, who is based in India, the global implications of this case could also be huge.
“One objective of these tariffs was to use them as leverage to get trade partners to do deals with the US. Some countries have concluded trade deals, including to address the IEEPA tariffs,” he told Al Jazeera.
After the imposition of US reciprocal tariffs in April and again in August, several countries and economic blocs, including the EU, UK, Japan, Cambodia and Indonesia, have struck trade deals with the US to reduce tariffs.
But those countries were forced to make concessions to get those deals done. EU countries, for example, had to agree to buy $750bn of US energy and reduce steel tariffs through quotas.
Singh pointed out that an “adverse Supreme Court ruling could bring into doubt the perceived benefit for concluding deals with the US”.
“Further, trade partners who are currently negotiating with the US will have to also adjust their negotiating objectives in light of the ruling and how the administration reacts to it,” he added.
Other countries including India and China are currently actively engaged in trade talks with the US. Trade talks with Canada were terminated by Trump in late October over what Trump described as a “fraudulent” advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about trade tariffs, which was being aired in Canada.
What happens if the judges rule against Trump?
Following Wednesday’s Supreme Court Hearing, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was at the court with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, told Fox News that he was “very optimistic” that the outcome of the case would be in the government’s favour.
“The solicitor general made a very powerful case for the need for the president to have the power,” he said and refused to discuss the Trump administration’s plan if the court ruled against the tariff policy.
However, Singh said if the Supreme Court does find these tariffs illegal, one immediate concern will be how tariffs collected so far will be refunded to businesses, if at all.
“Given the importance that the current US administration places on tariffs as a policy tool, we can expect that it would quickly identify other legal authorities and work to reinstate the tariffs,” he said.
Nass added: “The President has many other tariff powers, and will likely quickly recalibrate to maintain his deal-making efforts with partners,” she said, adding that there would still be very complicated work for importers on what to do with the tariffs already collected in 2025 under IEEPA.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Coney Barrett asked Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses contesting Trump’s tariffs, whether this process of paying money back would be “a complete mess”.
Katyal said the businesses he’s representing should be given a refund, but added that it is “very complicated”.
“So, a mess,” Coney Barrett stated.
“It’s difficult, absolutely, we don’t deny that,” Katyal said in response.
In an interview with US broadcaster CNN in September, trade lawyers said the court could decide who gets the refunds. Ted Murphy, an international trade lawyer at Sidley Austin, told CNN that the US government “could also try to get the court to approve an administrative refund process, where importers have to affirmatively request a refund”.
What tariffs has Trump imposed so far, and what has their effect been?
Trump has imposed tariffs of varying rates on imports from almost every country in the world, arguing that these levies will enrich the US and protect the domestic US market. The tariff rates range from as high as 50 percent on India and Syria to as low as 10 percent on the UK.
The US president has also imposed a 50 percent tariff on all copper imports, 50 percent on steel and aluminium imports from every country except the UK, 100 percent on patented drugs, 25 percent levies on cars and car parts manufactured abroad, and 25 percent on heavy-duty trucks.
According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, which analyses the US Treasury’s data, tariffs have brought in $223.9bn as of October 31. This is $142.2bn more than the same time last year.
In early July, Treasury Secretary Bessent said revenues from these tariffs could grow to $300bn by the end of 2025.
But in an August 7 report, the Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that “all 2025 US tariffs plus foreign retaliation lower real US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth by -0.5pp [percentage points] each over calendar years 2025 and 2026”.
Meanwhile, according to a Reuters news agency tracker, which follows how US companies are responding to Trump’s tariff threats, the first-quarter earnings season saw carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers take the worst hit from tariff threats. Levies on aluminium and electronics, such as semiconductors, also led to increased costs.
Reuters reported that as tariffs hit factory orders, big manufacturing companies around the world are also struggling.
In its latest World Economic Outlook report released last month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the effect of Trump’s tariffs on the global economy had been less extreme.
“To date, more protectionist trade measures have had a limited impact on economic activity and prices,” it said.
However, the IMF warned that the current resilience of the global economy may not last.
“Looking past apparent resilience resulting from trade-related distortions in some of the incoming data and whipsawing growth forecasts from wild swings in trade policies, the outlook for the global economy continues to point to dim prospects, both in the short and the long term,” it said.
Flights to Orlando, New York, Miami and Los Angeles are all set to be affected by the historic US government shutdown
Airports serving the largest cities in the US are set to have thousands of flights cancelled daily in a looming holiday travel nightmare sparked by the government shutdown.(Image: AFP via Getty Images)
Thousands of British travellers headed to the United States face either severe delays or flight cancellations as the US government’s shutdown shows no sign of ending.
Those with plans to fly to or return from the States are being advised that they could face disruption after the Trump administration announced a ten per cent to air traffic control. The ongoing US federal government shutdown is also affecting other areas of travel, airport staffing, and access to major tourist attractions.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has updated its guidance for UK travellers, cautioning that those flying to or through the US may face longer queues, delayed flights and reduced services at airports. Officials have also advised visitors to check in advance whether famous landmarks, national parks and museums remain open, as many are federally funded and may now have limited access or be closed altogether.
The warning comes after Washington lawmakers failed to agree on new funding for government operations, leading to a shutdown on 1 October that has left hundreds of thousands of federal workers unpaid and key services running on skeleton staff. The situation has become the latest flashpoint in the deepening political standoff between Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
In its updated travel advisory, the FCDO states: “There could be travel disruptions, including flight delays and longer queue times at some airports, due to the current US federal government shutdown. Check for messaging from your travel provider or airline and follow their guidance. There may also be restrictions on access to some federally-managed tourist attractions. Please check the relevant websites in advance.”
While the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and air traffic control services are still operating, many employees are either working without pay or calling in sick, placing pressure on staffing levels. Travel industry analysts warn that prolonged shortages could lead to further delays, particularly at major international gateways such as New York’s JFK Airport, Los Angeles International, Orlando, and Atlanta.
Tourists planning domestic flights within the US may also see longer wait times at security checkpoints, which could disrupt connecting flights and cause knock-on delays across the country. Airlines operating transatlantic services have begun issuing their own advisories. Some are advising passengers to arrive at airports earlier than usual for check-in and security screening, and to regularly monitor their flight status.
Another area of concern is the possible closure of major tourist attractions. National parks, including Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, and the Great Smoky Mountains, are overseen by the National Park Service, which is affected by the government shutdown. Historically, visitor centres, museums, restrooms, guided tours, and safety patrols have all been suspended during previous shutdowns, leaving tourists with little access or support.
In major cities, museums such as the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, the National Air and Space Museum, and the National Museum of American History may also face reduced opening hours or temporary closure if funding is not restored.
Holidaymakers are being encouraged to verify opening times before visiting, and to have backup plans in case venues are closed. Travel providers say travellers should be prepared to be flexible, especially those on multi-stop itineraries.
The Foreign Office guidance is precautionary rather than alarmist. Flights between the UK and US remain operational, most major tourist hubs continue to function, and hotels, restaurants and privately-run attractions are unaffected. But experts say travellers should avoid assuming everything will run as normal.
The shutdown stems from a political deadlock in Congress over government spending.
Republican lawmakers, particularly those aligned with President Donald Trump, have blocked funding bills in a bid to push for cuts to public services and changes to government programmes. Democrats have refused to agree to the proposals, saying they would damage key areas of the economy and the welfare system.
Without a funding agreement, government departments have been forced to limit operations. Essential services, including national security and emergency response, continue to operate. But many civil servants are furloughed without pay, and non-essential federal programmes are pausing operations until funding is restored.
List of airports that will see thousands of flights cancelled starting Friday
US President Donald Trump labelled New York mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani ‘a communist’ and claimed New Yorkers would flee the city when he becomes mayor. In his election victory speech, Mamdani called Trump ‘a despot’ and said he had ‘betrayed the country’.
Nov. 6 (UPI) — The Trump administration has moved to end deportation protections for those from South Sudan as the United Nations warns the country is on the brink of war.
Amid President Donald Trump‘s crackdown on immigration, the Department of Homeland Security has targeted countries that have been given Temporary Protected Status, which is granted to countries facing ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters or other extraordinary conditions.
TPS enables eligible nationals from the designated countries to live and work in the United States legally, without fear of deportation.
DHS announced it was ending TPS for South Sudan on Wednesday with the filing of a Federal Register notice.
The termination will be in effect Jan. 5.
“After conferring with interagency partners, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem determined that conditions in South Sudan no longer meet the TPS statutory requirements,” DHS said in a statement, which explained the decision was based on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services review of the conditions in South Sudan and in consultation with the Department of State.
South Sudan was first designated for TPS in November 2011 amid violent post-independence instability in the country, and the designation has been repeatedly renewed since.
The Trump administration has sought to end TPS designations for a total seven countries: Afghanistan, Cameroon, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal, Venezuela and now South Sudan. Court challenges have followed, with decisions staying, at least for now, the terminations for all of the countries except for Afghanistan and Cameroon, which ended July 12 and Aug. 4, respectively.
The move to terminate TPS for South Sudan is also expected to be challenged in court.
The announcement comes a little more than a week after the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan warned the General Assembly that the African nation is experiencing escalating armed conflict and political crisis, and that international intervention is needed to halt mounting human rights violations.
A civil war erupted in South Sudan in December 2013, just two years after the country gained independence — a conflict that came to an end with a cease-fire in 2018.
Barney Afako, a member of the human rights commission in South Sudan, said Oct. 29 that the political transition spearheaded by the cease-fire agreement was “falling apart.”
“The cease-fire is not holding, political detentions have become a tool of repression, the peace agreement’s key provisions are being systematically violated and the government forces are using aerial bombardments in civilian areas,” he said.
“All indicators point to a slide back toward another deadly war.”
The DHS is urging South Sudanese in the United States under TPS to voluntarily leave the country using the U.S. Customs and Border Protection smartphone application. If they do, they can secure a complimentary plane ticket, a $1,000 “exit bonus” and potential future opportunities for legal immigration.
SEOUL, Nov. 6 (Yonhap) — North Korea on Thursday denounced the latest U.S. sanctions on Pyongyang as a demonstration of Washington’s hostile policy, vowing to take proper measures to counter it with patience.
The North’s reaction came as the U.S. announced Tuesday that it had imposed sanctions on eight North Korean individuals and two entities for their involvement in laundering money stolen through illicit cyber activities.
The sanctions came even as U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed his wish to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to resume stalled diplomacy with Pyongyang.
Kim Un-chol, North Korea’s vice foreign minister in charge of U.S. affairs, said in a statement that by imposing fresh sanctions, the U.S. has showed its “invariable hostile” intents toward North Korea in an “accustomed and traditional way,” according to the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).
“Now that the present U.S. administration has clarified its stand to be hostile towards the DPRK to the last, we will also take proper measures to counter it with patience for any length of time,” the statement showed.
Denouncing the U.S. for revealing its “wicked nature,” the North’s official warned Washington should not expect its tactics of pressure, appeasement, threat and blackmail against North Korea will work.
“The U.S. sanctions will have no effect on the DPRK’s thinking and viewpoint on it in the future, too, as in the past,” Kim said, using the acronym of North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
In regard to North Korea’s statement, South Korea’s unification ministry assessed the North appears to have responded to the imposition of U.S. sanctions in a “restrained” manner.
The U.S. move came as North Korea has not responded to Trump’s proposal to meet with the North’s leader during his latest trip to South Korea on the occasion of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) gathering.
Earlier this week the U.S. State Department also raised the need to seek U.N. sanctions on seven ships accused of illegally exporting North Korean coal and iron ore to China in violation of U.N. Security Council sanctions over the North’s nuclear and missile programs.
South Korea’s spy agency said this week there were signs that North Korea had been preparing for a possible meeting with the U.S. in time for last week’s APEC gathering.
The National Intelligence Service said there is a high possibility that the North and the U.S. would hold a summit some time after an annual joint military exercise between South Korea and the U.S. in March next year.
Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has told top Kremlin officials to draft proposals for the possible resumption of nuclear weapons testing, as Moscow responds to President Donald Trump’s order that the United States “immediately” resume its own testing after a decades-long hiatus.
The Russian leader told his Security Council on Wednesday that should the US or any signatory to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) conduct nuclear weapons tests, “Russia would be under obligation to take reciprocal measures”, according to a transcript of the meeting published by the Kremlin.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
“In this regard, I instruct the Foreign Ministry, the Defence Ministry, the special services, and the corresponding civilian agencies to do everything possible to gather additional information on this matter, have it analysed by the Security Council, and submit coordinated proposals on the possible first steps focusing on preparations for nuclear weapons tests,” Putin said.
Moscow has not carried out nuclear weapons tests since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But tensions between the two countries with the world’s largest nuclear arsenals have spiked in recent weeks as Trump’s frustration with Putin grows over Russia’s failure to end its war in Ukraine.
The US leader cancelled a planned summit with Putin in Hungary in October, before imposing sanctions on two major Russian oil firms a day later – the first such measures since Trump returned to the White House in January.
Trump then said on October 30 that he had ordered the Department of Defense to “immediately” resume nuclear weapons testing on an “equal basis” with other nuclear-armed powers.
Trump’s decision came days after he criticised Moscow for testing its new Burevestnik missile, which is nuclear-powered and designed to carry a nuclear warhead.
According to the Kremlin transcript, Putin spoke with several senior officials in what appeared to be a semi-choreographed advisory session.
Defence Minister Andrei Belousov told Putin that Washington’s recent actions significantly raise “the level of military threat to Russia”, as he said that it was “imperative to maintain our nuclear forces at a level of readiness sufficient to inflict unacceptable damage”.
Belousov added that Russia’s Arctic testing site at Novaya Zemlya could host nuclear tests at short notice.
Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, also cautioned that if Russia does not “take appropriate measures now, time and opportunities for a timely response to the actions of the United States will be lost”.
Following the meeting, state news agency TASS quoted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying that Putin had set no specific deadline for officials to draft the requested proposals.
“In order to come to a conclusion about the advisability of beginning preparations for such tests, it will take exactly as much time as it takes for us to fully understand the intentions of the United States of America,” Peskov said.
Russia and the US are by far the biggest nuclear powers globally in terms of the number of warheads they possess.
The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (CACNP) estimates that Moscow currently has 5,459 nuclear warheads, of which 1,600 are actively deployed.
The US has about 5,550 nuclear warheads, according to the CACNP, with about 3,800 of those active. At its peak in the mid-1960s during the Cold War, the US stockpile consisted of more than 31,000 active and inactive nuclear warheads.
China currently lags far behind, but has rapidly expanded its nuclear warhead stockpile to about 600 in recent years, adding about 100 per year since 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
France, Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea comprise the remaining nuclear-armed countries.
The US last exploded a nuclear device in 1992, after former Republican President George HW Bush issued a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing following the collapse of the Soviet Union a year earlier.
Since 1996, the year the CTBT was opened for signatures, only three countries have detonated nuclear devices.
India and Pakistan conducted tests in 1998. North Korea has carried out five explosive tests since 2006 – most recently in 2017 – making it the only country to do so in the 21st century.
Such blasts, regularly staged by nuclear powers during the Cold War, have devastating environmental consequences.
Trump has yet to clarify whether the resumption he ordered last week refers to nuclear-explosive testing or to flight testing of nuclear-capable missiles, which would see the National Nuclear Safety Administration test delivery systems without requiring explosions.
Security analysts say a resumption of nuclear-explosive testing by any of the world’s nuclear powers would be destabilising, as it would likely trigger a similar response by the others.
Andrey Baklitskiy, senior researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, said that the Kremlin’s response was a prime example of the “action-reaction cycle”, in which a new nuclear arms race could be triggered.
“No one needs this, but we might get there regardless,” he posted on X.
Russian MOD Belousov suggests Russia should start to prepare for a full-scale nuclear test in response to the US statements. Action-reaction cycle at its best. No one needs this, but we might get there regardless
Mayor-elect of New York says he will not mince words on Trump, but ‘door open’ to dialogue.
United States President Donald Trump has suggested that he is open to assisting New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, but warned that the trailblazing democratic socialist will need to be “respectful” of Washington to succeed.
Trump made the comments on Wednesday as Mamdani announced his transition team following his historic election as the first Muslim and first South Asian mayor of the US’s largest city.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Responding to Mamdani’s victory night remarks pledging to stand up to Trump, the US president described the mayor-elect’s comments as a “dangerous statement”.
“He has to be a little bit respectful of Washington, because if he’s not, he doesn’t have a chance of succeeding,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier.
“And I want to make him succeed. I want to make the city succeed,” Trump added, before quickly clarifying that he wanted New York City, not Mamdani, to succeed.
Earlier on Wednesday, Trump suggested that his administration would “help” the new mayor, even as he branded him a “communist”.
“The communists, Marxists, and globalists had their chance, and they delivered nothing but disaster, and now let’s see how a communist does in New York. We’re going to see how that works out,” Trump said in a speech to the American Business Forum in Miami, Florida.
“We’ll help him, we’ll help him. We want New York to be successful. We’ll help him a little bit, maybe.”
Trump railed against Mamdani in the run-up to Tuesday’s mayoral election in New York, describing him as a “communist lunatic” and threatening to cut off federal funding to the city if he won the race.
Mamdani, whose platform includes free universal childcare, free buses, and government-run grocery stores, has rejected the communist label, describing himself as a democratic socialist.
While Mamdani will be responsible for governing a city of about 8.5 million people, his election has been widely seen as having implications nationwide amid the Democratic Party’s struggles to reconcile its centrist and progressive factions and effectively counter Trump.
In his victory speech, Mamdani cast his election as a model for how to defeat Trump, addressing the TV-loving president directly by telling him to “turn the volume up”.
In a speech laying out his priorities on Wednesday, Mamdani, who is set to take office on January 1, reiterated his determination to oppose Trump, while also indicating his willingness to engage with the administration.
“I will not mince my words when it comes to President Trump,” the mayor-elect said.
“I will continue to describe his actions as they are, and I will also always do so while leaving a door open to have that conversation.”
Here are the key events from day 1,351 of Russia’s war on Ukraine.
Published On 6 Nov 20256 Nov 2025
Share
Here is how things stand on Thursday, November 6:
Fighting
The Russian Ministry of Defence said encircled Ukrainian troops in the cities of Pokrovsk and Kupiansk should surrender as they have no chance to save themselves otherwise.
Russia said its forces were advancing north inside Pokrovsk in a drive to take full control of the Ukrainian city, but the Ukrainian army said its units were battling hard to try to stop the Russians from gaining new ground.
Ukraine has acknowledged its troops face a difficult situation in the strategic eastern city, once an important transport and logistics hub for the Ukrainian army, which Russia has been trying to capture for more than a year.
Russia sees Pokrovsk city as the gateway to its capture of the remaining 10 percent, or 5,000 square-kilometres(1,930 square miles), of Ukraine’s eastern industrial Donbas region, one of its key aims in the almost four-year-old war.
A Ukrainian drone attack caused minor damage to oil pumping stations in two districts of Russia’s Yaroslavl region, Mikhail Yevrayev, the regional governor, said.
Energy
Ukraine has resumed gas imports from a pipeline that runs across the Balkan peninsula to Greece, to keep its heating and electric systems running through the winter after widespread damage from intensified Russian attacks on Kyiv’s energy infrastructure.
Data from the Ukrainian gas transit operator showed that Ukraine will receive 1.1 million cubic metres (mcm) of gas from the Transbalkan route on Wednesday, after the import of 0.78 mcm on Tuesday. The route links Ukraine to LNG terminals in Greece, via Moldova, Romania and Bulgaria.
Poland is working on a deal to import liquefied natural gas from the United States to supply Ukraine and Slovakia, an agreement that would further tighten the European Union’s ties to US energy, the Reuters news agency reports, citing two sources familiar with the negotiations.
Nuclear weapons
Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered his top officials to draft proposals for a possible test of nuclear weapons, something Moscow has not done since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.
Putin’s order – made in response to US President Donald Trump’s announcement last week that Washington would resume nuclear testing – is being seen as a signal that the two countries are rapidly nearing a step that could sharply escalate geopolitical tensions.
The US notified Russia in advance of its test launch of an unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California on November 5, Russia’s Interfax news agency reported, citing Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov.
Russia-US relations have deteriorated sharply in the past few weeks as Trump, frustrated with a lack of progress towards ending the war in Ukraine, has cancelled a planned summit with Putin and imposed sanctions on Russia for the first time since returning to the White House in January.
Trump said he “may be working on a plan to denuclearise” with China and Russia, during a speech at the American Business Forum in Miami.
Sanctions
Bulgaria is drafting legal changes that will allow it to seize control of sanctioned Russian oil firm Lukoil’s Burgas refinery and sell it to a new owner to protect the plant from US sanctions, local media reported.
Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna called on China to stop its economic support of Russia’s war in Ukraine and urged Beijing to join European and US efforts to pressure President Putin into a ceasefire.
“China says that they are not part of this military conflict, but I was very clear that China has huge leverage over Russia, every week more and more, because the Russian economy is weak,” Tsahkna told Reuters.
Economy
Ukraine plans to replace its kopek coins to shake off a lingering symbol of Moscow’s former dominance, Central Bank Governor Andriy Pyshnyi said, adding that he hoped the change could be completed this year.
Ukraine introduced its hryvnia currency in 1996, five years after it gained independence from the Soviet Union, minting its own coins but retaining the former Soviet name kopek – kopiyka in Ukrainian. The new coins will be known by the historical Ukrainian term “shah”.
“You have to deliver on addressing that crisis.” New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani criticised President Donald Trump for not fixing the affordability crisis he campaigned on, adding that Republicans are scared the new mayor may actually deliver.
Nov. 5 (UPI) — ADP reported Wednesday that jobs growth for October provided better insight after fears of further decline after September’s report.
Some 42,000 jobs were added over the month in companies with at least 250 workers following September’s drop of around 29,000, according to Automatic Data Processing Inc. However, a revision showed 3,000 fewer jobs in September.
“Private employers added jobs in October for the first time since July, but hiring was modest relative to what we reported earlier this year,” said Nela Richardson, ADP’s chief economist.
ADP data showed that small business lost around 34,000 employees.
“Meanwhile, pay growth has been largely flat for more than a year, indicating that shifts in supply and demand are balanced,” Richardson said in a release.
Job categories in utility, transpiration and trade gained 47,000, which offset losses in other job areas. In addition, around 26,000 jobs were added in health and education services with 11,000 in finance.
A decline in some 17,000 roles in the area of information services was seen despite the ongoing boom in the artificial intelligence industry.
But the manufacturing sector continues to struggle in the growing aftermath of tax-like tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump in his bid to revive American manufacturing jobs.
Small business account for three of every four U.S. jobs, according to ADP.
ADP’s chief economist stated the shift away from growth in small business is noteworthy.
“While big companies make headlines, small companies drive hiring,” Richardson told CNBC.
“So to see that weakness at the small company level is still a concern, and I think that’s one of the reasons why the recovery has been so tepid.”
The payroll processing giant reported an average monthly growth of 60,000 jobs a month for the first half of the year, but that figure showed a decline in the year’s second half.
The historic ongoing shutdown by the Republican-controlled federal government resulted in a suspension in data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which typically is at the forefront of detailed job data. In addition, a temporary stop in SNAP benefits is poised to heighten food insecurity in the United States.
US President Donald Trump admitted that the federal government shutdown hurt Republicans in Tuesday’s elections, saying it was time for his party to eliminate the Senate filibuster to prevent further losses.
