Donald Trump

Kyiv hopes progress in talks in Geneva will pave the way for a direct meeting between Russian and Ukrainian leaders.

Russia pounded Ukraine with a barrage of missile and drone attacks across the country overnight, wounding at least eight people, in advance of the latest high-level meeting between Kyiv and Washington aimed at ending the war, now in its fifth year.

Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said the latest attacks on the capital in the early hours of Wednesday caused damage to a nine-storey residential building in the Darnytskyi district, and resulted in fires in a home and garages elsewhere in the city.

The strikes on the capital prompted the activation of air defence systems to counter the attack, Tymur Tkachenko, head of the city’s military administration, said, advising residents to remain in shelters until the assault was over. No casualties were reported in the capital.

Ukraine has faced regular overnight barrages as Russia targets cities with missiles and drones in harsh winter conditions in recent months, also targeting civilian energy infrastructure, even amid an ongoing push by Washington to try to negotiate an end to Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War II.

Attacks also took place in the regions of Kharkiv, Zaporizhia and Dnipropetrovsk, with officials reporting seven wounded in Kharkiv and another in Kryvyi Rih in Dnipropetrovsk, the AFP news agency reported.

US, Ukrainian delegations to meet

The strikes came before a scheduled meeting in the Swiss city of Geneva between Ukraine’s lead negotiator Rustem Umerov and US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, being held in advance of a full session of talks involving Moscow, Kyiv and Washington expected in early March.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Wednesday he had spoken with US President Donald Trump before the talks, with Witkoff and Kushner part of the 30-minute call, to discuss the issues that their representatives would cover in Geneva, “as well as preparations for the next meeting of the full negotiating teams in a trilateral format at the very beginning of March”.

Zelenskyy, who has repeatedly sought face-to-face meetings with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, to resolve the most challenging issues, said he expected the meeting in Geneva would “create an opportunity to move talks to the leaders’ level”.

“President Trump supports this sequence of steps,” he said. “This is the only way to resolve all the complex and sensitive issues and finally end the war.”

Putin has dismissed such a meeting repeatedly in the past, calling into question Zelenskyy’s legitimacy as Ukraine’s leader.

Meanwhile, Russian state news agency TASS reported the Kremlin’s economic affairs envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, was also due to be in Geneva on Thursday, where he would “pursue negotiations with the Americans on economic issues”.

Negotiations stalled

Despite Trump’s desire to bring an end to the conflict, one he claimed he could end in 24 hours after he retook office, the talks so far have failed to bear fruit.

Negotiations, based on a US plan unveiled late last year, have hit a roadblock over the thorniest territorial issues, such as control of the eastern Donbas, an industrial region in eastern Ukraine that has been at the heart of the fiercest fighting.

Russia is pushing for full control of Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk region, in the Donbas, and has threatened to take it by force if Kyiv does not cave in at the negotiating table.

But Ukraine has rejected the demand and signalled it would not sign a deal without security guarantees that deter Russia from invading again. The Ukrainian constitution also forbids the ceding of territory.

Hundreds of thousands of people on both sides are believed to have been killed in Russia’s war in Ukraine.

US eases oil embargo on Cuba as Caribbean neighbours warn worsening humanitarian crisis could destabilise region.

The United States has said it will allow the resale of some Venezuelan oil to Cuba in a move that could ease the island’s acute fuel shortages, as neighbouring countries raised the alarm over a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation caused by Washington’s oil blockade.

In a statement on Wednesday, the US Department of the Treasury said it would authorise companies seeking licences to resell Venezuelan oil for “commercial and humanitarian use in Cuba”.

It said the new “favorable licensing policy” would not cover “persons or entities associated with the Cuban military, intelligence services, or other government institutions”.

Venezuela had been the main supplier of crude and fuel ⁠to Cuba for the past 25 years through a bilateral pact mostly based on the barter of products and services. But since the US abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro last month and took control of the country’s oil exports, Caracas’s supply to Cuba has ceased.

Mexico, which had emerged as an alternate supplier, also halted shipments to the Caribbean island after the US threatened tariffs on countries that send oil to Cuba. The US blockade has worsened an energy crisis in Cuba that is hitting power generation and fuel for vehicles, houses and aviation.

The shift in US policy came as Caribbean leaders gathering in Saint Kitts and Nevis expressed alarm at the impacts of the blockade on the island nation of some 10.9 million people. Speaking to Caribbean leaders during a meeting of the regional political group CARICOM on Tuesday, Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness affirmed solidarity with Cuba.

“Humanitarian suffering serves no one,” Holness said at the meeting. “A prolonged crisis in Cuba will not remain confined to Cuba.”

The Caribbean summit’s host, Saint Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Terrance Drew, who studied in Cuba to be a doctor, said friends have told him of food scarcity and rubbish strewn in the streets.

“A destabilised Cuba will destabilise all of us,” Drew said.

But addressing the meeting in Saint Kitts and Nevis on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that the humanitarian crisis had been caused by the Cuban government’s policies, not Washington’s blockade.

Rubio, whose parents migrated to the US from Cuba in 1956, warned that the sanctions would be snapped back if the oil winds up going to the government or military.

“Cuba needs to change. It needs to change dramatically because it is the only chance that it has to improve the quality of life for its people,” Rubio told reporters.

It is “a system that’s in collapse, and they need to make dramatic reforms”, he said.

Rubio went on to blame economic mismanagement and the lack of a vibrant private sector for the dire situation in Cuba, which has been under communist rule since Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution.

“This is the worst economic climate Cuba has faced. And it is the authorities there, and that government, who are responsible for that,” Rubio said.

The US pressure on Venezuela and Cuba ⁠has left several fuel cargoes undelivered since December, according to the Reuters news agency, contributing to the island’s inability to keep the lights on and cars circulating. A Cuba-related vessel that loaded Venezuelan gasoline in early February at a port operated by state-run company PDVSA remained this week anchored in Venezuelan waters waiting for authorisation to set sail.

Mexico and Canada have meanwhile announced they would be sending aid to Cuba, and Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak also said his government was discussing the possibility of providing fuel to the island.

Separately on Wednesday, Cuba’s Ministry of the Interior announced killing four people and wounding six others on board a Florida-registered speedboat that it said entered Cuban waters.

Rubio told reporters it was not a US operation and that no US government personnel were involved.

“Suffice it to say, it is highly unusual to see shootouts in open sea like that,” he said. “ It’s not something that happens every day. It’s something frankly that hasn’t happened with Cuba in a very long time.”

Feb. 25 (UPI) — Dr. Casey Means is scheduled to appear before the Senate Wednesday to discuss her confirmation to become surgeon general.

Means, 38, a friend of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., wellness influencer and Make America Healthy Again advocate, was scheduled to appear in October before the Senate Health, Education Labor and Pension Committee virtually because she was pregnant with her first child. But it was postponed because she went into labor.

Her brother, Calley Means, is a lobbyist and senior adviser to the Health and Human Services Department.

She attended Stanford University for undergrad and medical school. She published a 2024 book, Good Energy, in which she described quitting her residency at Oregon Health and Science University. She had completed almost all of the five-year residency but said she was disillusioned with modern medicine. She advocates for healthy eating, limited pharmaceutical use and alternative remedies.

Her medical license lapsed in January 2024.

Because of this, she has faced questions over qualifications for the job, which would give her the authority to issue warnings and advisories for Americans.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said that Means’ “credentials, research background, and experience in public life give her the right insights to be the surgeon general who helps make sure America never again becomes the sickest nation on Earth.”

Kennedy recommended Means to President Donald Trump, who nominated her in May. Trump had withdrawn his previous nomination, former Fox News medical contributor Dr. Janette Nesheiwat.

Means has said she is for “unbiased research” in the childhood vaccine schedule. She has specifically questioned the safety of the hepatitis B vaccine being given soon after birth.

“I bet that one vaccine probably isn’t causing autism, but what about the 20 that they’re getting before 18 months?” CNN reported she said on Joe Rogan’s podcast in 2024.

There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism.

Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris have long circled one another.

The two moved in the same political slipstream, wooed the same set of Democratic donors and, for a time, even shared the same group of campaign advisors.

Harris rose from San Francisco district attorney to elected positions in Sacramento and Washington before twice running unsuccessfully for president.

Newsom climbed from San Francisco mayor to lieutenant governor to California’s governorship, where he quietly stewed as Harris leapfrogged past him into the vice presidency. While she served in the White House, Newsom tried any number of ways to insinuate himself into the national spotlight.

Now both have at least one eye on the Oval Office, setting up a potential clash of egos and ambition that’s been decades in the making.

Newsom, whose term as governor expires in January, has been auditioning for president from practically the moment the polls closed in 2024 and horrified Democrats realized Harris had lost to Donald Trump.

Harris, who’s mostly focused on writing and promoting her campaign autobiography — while giving a political speech here and there — hasn’t publicly declared she’ll seek the White House a third time. But, notably, she has yet to rule out the possibility.

In a CNN interview aired Sunday, Newsom was asked about the prospect of facing his longtime frenemy in a fight for the Democratic nomination. (California’s gallivanting governor is embarked on his own national book tour, promoting both the “memoir of discovery” that was published Tuesday and his all-but-declared presidential bid.)

“Well, I’m San Francisco now, she’s L.A.,” Newsom joked, referring to Harris’ post-Washington residency in Brentwood. “So there’s a little distance between the two of us.”

He then turned zen-like, saying fate would determine if the two face off in the 2028 primary contest. “You can only control what you can control,” Newsom told CNN host Dana Bash.

A decade ago, Newsom and Harris swerved to keep their careers from colliding.

In 2015, Barbara Boxer said she would step down once she finished her fourth term in the U.S. Senate. The opening presented a rare opportunity for political advancement after years in which a clutch of aging incumbents held California’s top elected offices. Between Lt. Gov. Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Harris, there was no lack of pent-up ambition.

After a weekend of intensive deliberations, Newsom passed on the Senate race and Harris jumped in, establishing herself as the front-runner for Boxer’s seat, which she won in 2016. Newsom waited and was elected governor in 2018, succeeding Jerry Brown.

Once in their preferred roles, the two got along reasonably well. Each campaigned on the other’s behalf. But, privately, there has never been a great deal of mutual regard or affection.

Come 2028, there will doubtless be many Democrats seeking to replace President Trump. The party’s last wide-open contest, in 2020, drew more than two dozen major contestants. So it’s not as though Harris and Newsom would face each other in a one-on-one fight.

But dueling on the national stage, with the country’s top political prize at stake, is something that Hollywood might have scripted for Newsom and Harris as the way to settle, once and for all, their long-standing rivalry.

The two Californians would start out closely matched in good looks and charisma.

Those who know them well, having observed Newsom and Harris up close, cite other strengths and weaknesses.

Harris has thicker skin, they suggested, and is more disciplined. Her forte is set-piece events, like debates and big speeches.

Newsom is more of a policy wonk, a greater risk-taker and is more willing to venture into challenging and even hostile settings.

Newson is more fluent in the ecosphere of social media, podcasts and the like. Harris has the advantage of performing longer on the national stage and bears nothing like the personal scandals that have plagued Newsom.

But Harris’ problem, it was widely agreed, is that she has run twice before and, worse, lost the last time to Trump.

“To a lot of voters, she’s yesterday’s news,” said one campaign strategist.

“She had her shot,” said another, channeling the perceived way Democratic primary voters would react to another Harris run. “You didn’t make it, so why should we give you another shot?”

(Those half-dozen kibbitzers who agreed to candidly assess the prospects of Newsom and Harris asked not to be identified, so they could preserve their relationships with the two.)

Most of the handicappers gave the edge to Newsom in a prospective match-up; one political operative familiar with both would have placed their wager on Harris had she not run before.

“I think her demographic appeal to Black women and coming up the ranks as a Black woman working in criminal justice is a very strong card,” said the campaign strategist. “The white guy from California, the pretty boy, is not as much of a primary draw.”

That said, this strategist, too, suggested that “being tagged as someone who not only lost but lost in this situation that has set the world on fire … is too big a cross to bear.”

The consensus among these cognoscenti is that Harris will not run again and that Newsom — notwithstanding any demurrals — will.

Of course, the only two who know for sure are those principals, and it’s quite possible neither Harris nor Newsom have entirely made up their minds.

Those who enjoy their politics cut with a dash of soap opera will just have to wait.

Feb. 25 (UPI) — The Supreme Court‘s ruling to limit President Donald Trump‘s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs is forcing the administration to look to different statutory authorities to carry out its trade policy.

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to generate revenue through tariffs. While this caused Trump to seek another avenue to impose tariffs, landing on a global 15% rate through Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, his plans to use tariffs to negotiate trade deals have not changed.

The decision impacts a great deal of the tariffs Trump has enacted during his second term, Purba Mukerji, professor of economics at Connecticut College, told UPI. She said he has been using the IEEPA to give himself “flexibility” in trade negotiations since returning to the White House.

Trump expressed disappointment in the high court’s decision on Friday but Mukerji said it was expected by economists and is unlikely to disrupt the president’s broader economic policy. Tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as those that target certain sectors, are likely to remain in place.

U.S. markets have not strongly reacted to the Supreme Court ruling in either direction. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by less than a point on Monday, only to rebound on Tuesday. The S&P 500 followed a similar path.

The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes has reflected some uncertainty, though concerns about AI displacing workers, global tensions and broader trade concerns may be factors as well.

“For the business leaders who make decisions, for importers and exporters and foreign countries that are dealing with us in their trade negotiations, this is not a surprise,” Mukerji said. “So I don’t think there will be any long-lasting consequences of this particular Supreme Court ruling, except to put the whole trade negotiations and trade policy on much firmer footing.”

Consumers hoping to see prices come down are unlikely to see significant changes from the ruling either, Mukerji added.

“As far as consumer prices go, I am encouraged by the fact that we didn’t see the rise in consumer prices that was expected in all sectors coming out of tariffs,” she said. “I don’t expect that to be coming down in the future. I don’t think much will change on the ground.”

A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published earlier this month reports that 94% of Trump’s tariffs imposed last year were paid by U.S. entities and consumers during the first eight months of 2025.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported in December that it had collected $200 billion in tariff revenue. The largest portion of tariffs collected was on imports from China, a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond said. The report is based on data from the U.S. Treasury Department and Census Bureau.

We Pay The Tariffs, a coalition of more than 800 small businesses, is circulating a petition to call for the federal government to refund businesses due to the tariffs being ruled unlawful.

“A legal victory is meaningless without actual relief for the businesses that paid these tariffs,” Dan Anthony, executive director of the organization, said in a statement. “The administration’s only responsible course of action now is to establish a fast, efficient and automatic refund process that returns tariff money to the businesses that paid it.”

It remains unclear what will happen to the revenue the court ruled has been unlawfully collected. The Supreme Court did not address refunds for tariffs paid.

Mukerji said reimbursing collected tariffs poses some practical challenges. She explained that while the United States maintains a database of who has paid what tariffs, it often shows a delivery company, like FedEx, as the entity that made the payment, not the importer who in reality incurred the costs.

“So you kind of have to reimburse FedEx, who then turns around and reimburses the importer,” she said. “That is a mess because then we depend on the account keeping, say by FedEx, so it becomes more complicated there.”

There is also a matter of fairness as some wholesalers pass the costs of tariffs on to retailers, who then pass them on to consumers, Mukerji said.

Following the court’s decision, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Trump administration will look to Section 122, as well as Section 301 of the Trade Act and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 tariff authorities to pursue “virtually unchanged tariff revenue” this year.

These statutes notably do not require congressional approval to impose tariffs like the Supreme Court affirmed the IEEPA did.

Section 122 gives the president the authority to impose a maximum 15% tariff for up to 150 days. Tariffs imposed under this authority would remain in effect into July at the latest.

Section 301 of the Trade Act gives the president the authority to impose tariffs in response to unfair trade practices, theft of intellectual property and discriminatory policies by trade partners. An investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative must be completed to determine if there is a violation and allow for the use of Section 301 authority.

Trump’s broad tariffs on China were issued in 2018 under the authority of Section 301.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act allows the president to impose tariffs and other trade restrictions on imports if they are determined to threaten national security. This must be preceded by an investigation by the Commerce Department into the potential of a threat.

Trump used Section 232 to place tariffs on steel and aluminum during his first term.

While President Joe Biden peeled back on many of Trump’s policies when he came into office, he kept some trade policies like these largely intact and reinforced them through investigations.

For Section 301 tariffs, Biden allowed the required four-year review to continue throughout his term, ultimately raising tariffs on electric vehicles from China as well as some semiconductors, critical minerals and other sectors.

For Section 232 tariffs, Biden kept Trump’s tariff framework largely in place and continued to use the national security justification to keep tariffs as a point of negotiations.

“Biden actually made them stronger,” Mukerji said. “Most of them continued under Biden and they were extended and made even stronger. So these trade policies now have the strength of a solid foundation. These stand on the shoulders of investigations so they have this lasting power.”

The Supreme Court’s decision has caused some ongoing negotiations to shift or pause.

Earlier this week, a planned meeting with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Washington, D.C., was put on hold. The sides were planning to meet for three days to discuss an interim trade deal that would likely go into effect in April.

The European Union’s parliament canceled a vote to ratify a trade deal with the United States on Monday in response to the Supreme Court decision and Trump’s subsequent new tariffs.

“A deal is a deal,” the European Commission said in a statement on Saturday. “As the United States’ largest trading partner, the EU expects the U.S. to honor its commitments set out in the Joint Statement — just as the EU stands by its commitments.”

With the Supreme Court’s decision, the Trump administration and future administrations definitively have one less tool to use when imposing tariffs. The ruling does not mark an end to Trump’s tariff plans. It only clarifies his authority to impose tariffs. Meanwhile, the president is left to negotiate trade deals under greater scrutiny.

In his State of the Union address, US President Trump reiterated claims the US “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme last year, contradicting his special envoy Steve Witkoff, who said Iran is “one week away” from a nuclear bomb.

In a significant foreign policy shift, Bolivia has reopened its doors to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

The move, confirmed on Monday, ends a nearly two-decade hiatus in bilateral efforts to stem drug trafficking.

Bolivian Minister of Government Marco Oviedo told local media this week that DEA agents were already operating in the country.

“The DEA is in Bolivia,” he said. “Just as the DEA is now present, we also have cooperation from European intelligence and police bodies.”

Oviedo explained that the initial focus of the law enforcement efforts would be to tighten border surveillance and dismantle trafficking networks.

He added that the cooperation with the DEA and European agencies was only the start of Bolivia’s expanded international efforts.

“We want neighbouring countries’ anti-narcotics agencies on board as well,” Oviedo said.

End to Morales order

The announcement marks an end to an order issued under former left-wing President Evo Morales in 2008, effectively expelling all DEA agents from the country.

Morales, the leader at the time for Bolivia’s Movement for Socialism (MAS), had accused the US of using drug enforcement efforts to pressure countries in Latin America to bend to its political and economic agenda.

Under Morales, all drug enforcement cooperation with the US came to a halt, and he refused to let DEA officers into the country, accusing them of destabilising his government. Diplomatic relations were likewise suspended.

In turn, MAS received strong support from rural parts of Bolivia, where the cultivation of coca, the raw ingredient in cocaine, is a key economic driver.

Bolivia, along with other Andean countries like Colombia and Peru, is a key producer of coca, which has traditional uses, including as a remedy for altitude sickness. Morales himself led a union of coca growers, or cocaleros, before taking office.

Advocates have accused the US’s militaristic “war on drugs” of harming impoverished rural farmers through the forced eradication of coca crops. Such campaigns, they argue, can leave farmers without a means of supporting themselves and their families.

MAS remained in power from the start of Morales’s term in 2006 until 2025, when its coalition fractured amid economic instability and internal fighting.

New political direction

In October 2025, two right-wing candidates proceeded to a run-off for the presidency: centrist Rodrigo Paz of the Christian Democratic Party and a former right-wing president, Jorge Quiroga.

It was the first presidential run-off in modern times for Bolivia, and it marked a sharp turn away from two decades of socialist government.

Both candidates made improving the relationship with the US a central pillar of their campaigns, viewing it as essential to solving Bolivia’s severe economic crisis.

Paz, who was educated in Washington, DC, argued that normalising ties would attract the international investment needed to modernise the energy and lithium sectors.

Meanwhile, Quiroga, a conservative who studied at Texas A&M University, campaigned on a more aggressive platform, including fiscal austerity and security partnerships with the US.

His vice presidential candidate, Juan Pablo Velasco, is credited with popularising the tagline “Make Bolivia Sexy Again”, a twist on US President Donald Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again”.

Paz ultimately emerged as the victor in the race, with nearly 54.9 percent of the vote. After his inauguration in November, Paz moved quickly to fulfil his promises by restoring diplomatic ties with the US.

The US, meanwhile, called Paz’s presidency a “transformative opportunity” for the region.

Earlier this month, both Bolivia and the US agreed to appoint ambassadors to one another’s countries for the first time in nearly 18 years.

Uncertainty remains

But it is unclear to what extent the DEA will be operating in Bolivia. Left-wing leaders like Morales continue to have strong pockets of support, particularly in highland and rural areas.

Bolivian Foreign Minister Fernando Aramayo has said negotiations are still under way to finalise the specific areas of cooperation between his country and the DEA, as well as operational limits for the US agency.

A full agreement outlining the scope of the agency’s activities is expected in the coming months.

Since returning to office on January 20, 2025, Trump has intensified the US campaign against drug trafficking in Latin America, including by designating several major cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations”.

Trump has also pressured Latin American governments to take more aggressive actions against the illicit drug trade, using economic sanctions and military threats as leverage.

Already, in late December and early January, Trump has authorised two strikes on Venezuela on the premise of combating drug trafficking.

One, on December 29, targeted a port that the Trump administration said was used for drug smuggling. The second, on January 3, resulted in multiple explosions, dozens dead and the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. He remains in custody in the US, where he faces drug trafficking and weapons possession charges.

Critics have argued that Trump’s anti-drug campaign has blurred the line between law enforcement and military activities.

The increasing use of military force against criminal suspects has raised concerns that human rights are being violated and legal processes circumvented, including through the use of extrajudicial killings.

One example has come as part of a military campaign called Operation Southern Spear.

On September 2, the US announced the first of nearly 44 “lethal kinetic strikes” against suspected drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

As many as 150 people have been killed in the attacks. Operation Southern Spear has continued, despite international organisations like the United Nations questioning its legality and calling for its end.

If Warner’s board changes course and deems Paramount’s latest offer superior, Netflix will be able to revise its bid.

Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) says it is reviewing a new takeover offer from Paramount Skydance, but it continues to recommend a competing proposal from Netflix to its shareholders in the meantime.

Warner disclosed on Tuesday that it had received a revised offer from Paramount after a seven-day window to renew talks with the Skydance-owned company elapsed on Monday. Paramount – which is run by David Ellison, son of United States President Donald Trump ally and Oracle cofounder Larry Ellison – confirmed it had submitted the proposal, but neither company provided details about it. The company was widely expected to have raised its offer.

A WBD buyout would reshape Hollywood and the wider media landscape, bringing HBO Max, cult-favourite titles like Harry Potter and, depending on who wins the Netflix vs Paramount tug-of-war, potentially even CNN under a new roof.

Paramount wants to acquire Warner Bros in its entirety, including networks like CNN and Discovery, and went straight to shareholders with an all-cash, $77.9bn hostile offer just days after the Netflix deal was announced in December. Accounting for debt, that bid offered Warner stakeholders $30 per share, amounting to an enterprise value of about $108bn.

Paramount maintained on Tuesday that its tender offer remains on the table while Warner evaluates its latest proposal.

Netflix wants to buy only Warner’s studio and streaming business for $72bn in cash, or about $83bn including debt. Warner’s board has repeatedly backed this deal and on Tuesday maintained that its agreement with Netflix still stands.

Warner shareholders are to vote on the Netflix proposal on March 20.

If Warner’s board changes course and considers Paramount’s latest offer superior, Netflix would have a chance to match or revise its proposal, potentially setting the stage for a new bidding war. It could also choose to walk away.

Further consolidation

Paramount, Warner and Netflix have spent the last couple of months in a heated back and forth over who has the stronger deal. But along the way, lawmakers and entertainment trade groups have sounded the alarm, warning that either buyout of all or parts of Warner’s business would only further consolidate power in an industry already run by just a few major players. Critics said that could result in job losses, less diversity in filmmaking and potentially more headaches for consumers who are facing rising costs of streaming subscriptions as is.

Combined, that raises tremendous antitrust concerns – and a Warner sale could come down to who gets the regulatory greenlight. The US Department of Justice has already initiated reviews, and other countries are expected to do so too.

Both Paramount and Netflix have argued that their proposals are good for consumers and the wider industry. And the companies have taken aim at each other publicly with regulatory arguments.

Paramount has pointed to Netflix’s much larger market value, and it has argued that if the streaming giant acquires Warner, it would only give it more dominance in the subscription video-on-demand space. But Netflix is trying to persuade regulators that it’s up against broader video libraries, particularly Google’s YouTube, America’s most-watched TV distributor.

Paramount’s bid will create a studio bigger than market leader Disney and fuse two major TV operators, which some Democratic senators said would control “almost everything Americans watch on TV”.

It will also hand control of CNN to the conservative-leaning Ellisons, soon after they acquired CBS News and installed as its editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, a right-leaning opinion editor who had no prior TV experience. The network settled for $16m a lawsuit that Trump had filed, accusing CBS’s 60 Minutes programme of editing an interview with Kamala Harris to his 2024 presidential election rival’s advantage. It also appointed Kenneth Weinstein, a former Trump administration official, as ombudsman to investigate allegations of bias.

In December, Ellison visited the White House, media reports said, and told Trump that Paramount would execute “sweeping changes” if it acquired CNN’s parent company.

More recently, Trump, in a Truth Social post on Saturday, demanded that Netflix fire former US National Security Adviser Susan Rice from its board. Rice, a Black woman, had served under former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, both Democrats.

“This is a business deal. It’s not a political deal,” Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos told BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme on Monday. “This deal is run by the Department of Justice in the US and regulators throughout Europe and around the world.”

Trump previously made unprecedented suggestions about his involvement in seeing a deal through before walking back those statements and maintaining that regulatory approval will be up to the Justice Department.

Feb. 24 (UPI) — The Olympic gold-winning U.S. men’s hockey team and several survivors of Jeffrey Epstein‘s sex trafficking scheme will be among the dozens of people invited to attend President Donald Trump‘s State of the Union address on Tuesday.

It’s Trump’s first official State of the Union address during his second term in office, though in March 2025, he did address a joint session of Congress. His theme this year is “America at 250: Strong, Prosperous and Respected,” unnamed officials who have seen a draft of the speech told CNN.

To that end, Trump has invited Team USA’s men’s hockey team to attend the speech at the U.S. Capitol, two days after they won the gold medal in a game against Canada in Milan, Italy. It was the men’s first gold medal in hockey since the 1980 “Miracle on Ice” team won in Lake Placid, N.Y.

Trump’s invitation — which came during a phone conversation over speakerphone with FBI Director Kash Patel and the team — caused a stir Sunday after the president said he’d also have to invite the women’s team. His comment was met by laughter among some of the men in the locker room, though at least one did yell out that Team USA was “two for two,” seemingly in support of the women.

The women’s hockey team also won gold in a final game against Team Canada. It was their third Olympic gold medal after 1998 and 2018. After Trump’s comments, they declined his invitation to Tuesday’s State of the Union.

First lady Melania Trump invited two people to sit with her during the speech — Sierra Burns, 24, who took part in Trump’s Foster Youth to Independence program; and Everest Nevraumont, 10, who attends a school that incorporates artificial intelligence curriculum.

Meanwhile, several Democratic members of Congress have invited survivors of sex abuser Epstein, The Hill reported. Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md., invited the family of the late Virginia Giuffre; Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., invited Haley Robson; Rep. James Walkinshaw, D-Va., invited Jess Michaels; Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., invited Annie Farmer, the sister of survivor Maria Farmer; House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., invited Marina Lacerda; and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., invited Dani Bensky.

Some of those survivors, however, will be attending the State of the Union without their respective hosts. Some Democratic lawmakers intend to skip the speech entirely or participate other events in protest of Trump’s policies.

A coalition of liberal activist groups, including MoveOn Civic Action, is holding a so-called “People’s State of the Union” event on the National Mall around the same time as Trump’s speech. The group said the event will include “everyday Americans most impacted by Trump’s dangerous agenda.”

Lawmakers expected to attend the event include Sens. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Tina Smith of Minnesota, Adam Schiff of California and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, along with Reps. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona, Becca Balint of Vermont, Greg Casar of Texas, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, Delia Ramirez of Illinois, Bonnie Watson Coleman of New Jersey, John Larson of Connecticut and April Delaney of Maryland, The Hill reported.

The National Press Club is also hosting an event it’s calling “State of the Swamp” to take place ahead of Trump’s speech. Reps. Jason Crow, D-Colo., and Seth Moulton, D-Mass., plan to attend both this event and Trump’s speech, while Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.’s office said he’ll only be attending the “State of the Swamp.”

Rep. Ami Bera, D-Calif., said he plans to boycott the State of the Union this year.

“After watching President Trump run roughshod over the Constitution, display utter disregard for Congress, and openly engage in corruption as he and his family use the office to enrich themselves and tarnish this country that I love, I will not give him the dignity of having my presence at the State of the Union,” Bera said.

The White House’s comment comes days after a senior Trump aide said Iran is one week away from having material for nuclear bomb.

The White House has insisted that last year’s strikes against Iran destroyed the country’s nuclear programme despite a recent claim by a senior US official that Tehran is a week away from having bombmaking material.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House spokesperson, told reporters on Tuesday that the June 2025 attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, known as Operation Midnight Hammer, was an “overwhelmingly successful mission”.

The attack “did, in fact, obliterate Iran’s nuclear facilities“, Leavitt said.

But just this weekend, President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff suggested that Iran is close to having enough material to build a nuclear weapon.

“They’re probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material,” Witkoff told Fox News on Saturday.

Since last June’s strikes, Trump has repeatedly hailed the attack, arguing that it eliminated Iran’s nuclear programme and led to “peace” in the Middle East. Operation Midnight Hammer came towards the end of a 12-day war Israel initiated with Iran that month.

But eight months later, US and Iranian officials are once again holding talks to reach a nuclear deal and avert another war.

On Tuesday, Leavitt said the destruction of Iran’s nuclear programme had been “verified” by Trump and the United Nations’ watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“That does not mean that Iran may never try again to establish a nuclear programme that could directly threaten the United States and our allies abroad, and that’s what the president wants to ensure can never happen again,” she added.

Last year, after the US attack, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said Iran could resume uranium enrichment “in a matter of months”.

But the UN agency’s inspectors have not been able to assess Iran’s nuclear sites since the US strikes.

The Pentagon’s public assessment was that the Iranian nuclear programme was set back by one to two years.

There has been no official confirmation of the US claims that Iran has restarted nuclear enrichment after the attack.

After a visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the US in December, Trump renewed his threats to attack Iran if it tries to rebuild its nuclear or missile programme.

Tensions have spiralled since then, with the US amassing military assets near Iran.

Still, Tehran and Washington are set to hold the third round of negotiations this year to push for a nuclear deal.

Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear weapon, has said it would agree to minimal uranium enrichment under strict IAEA supervision in exchange for lifting sanctions against its economy.

But Trump has repeatedly stressed that it is seeking zero enrichment.

Enrichment is the process of isolating and concentrating a rare variant, or isotope, of uranium that can produce nuclear fission.

At low levels, enriched uranium can power electric plants. If enriched to approximately 90 percent, it can be used for nuclear weapons.

Before the June 2025 war, Iran was enriching uranium at 60 percent purity.

Tehran had been escalating its nuclear programme since 2018, when Trump, during his first term, nixed a multilateral agreement that capped Iran’s enrichment at 3.67 percent. He instead started piling up sanctions on the Iranian economy, as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign.

The White House on Tuesday suggested the military option against Iran remains on the table.

“President Trump’s first option is always diplomacy. But as he has shown, he is willing to use the lethal force of the United States military if necessary,” Leavitt said.

Feb. 24 (UPI) — Panama authorities have taken control of two ports operated by a subsidiary of a Hong Kong company, assets that came under scrutiny after President Donald Trump claimed China exerted too much influence over their operation.

Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison Holdings condemned the Monday takeover in a statement on Tuesday that said the actions of Panama were “unlawful” and raised risks to the operations, health and safety of the Balboa and Critobal terminals that its subsidiary, Panama Ports, has been operating for decades.

“None of the actions by the Panama State were advised to or coordinate with PPC,” Hutchison Holdings said.

“The Panama State is responsible for harm and damage caused by the confiscatory actions it has taken.”

On Monday morning, Panama’s official gazette published a late-January Supreme Court ruling that made final the court’s decision that the contract law granting Panama Ports Company’s concession extension to operate the ports was unconstitutional.

The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits filed challenging the contract, which was issued by the Maritime Authority of Panama on June 23, 2021. According to a statement from the Panama presidency’s office, the contract was found unconstitutional because it gave a foreign-based company broad rights that limited the state’s control over the use and management of its resources.

After the gazette was published, Panama authorities arrived at the two ports and informed representatives of the Panama Ports Company that it must cease operations, and that those who do not comply with their orders will be prosecuted.

“PPC and CKHH will continue to consult with their legal advisors regarding the ruling and forceful takeover, the purported termination of PPC’s concession and all available recourse, including additional national and international legal proceedings against the Republic of Panama and its agents and third parties colluding with them,” CK Hutchison Holdings said.

The two ports and their Hong Kong connection were thrust into the spotlight on the first day of Trump’s second presidency, when in his inaugural address he said the United States has been “treated very badly” by Panama and that “China is operating the Panama Canal.”

Trump has repeatedly made the claim since, drawing attention to the Hong Kong-based conglomerate that has operated the two ports since 1997.

Seoul shares surged more than 2 percent Tuesday to close at a fresh record high above the 5,900-point mark, driven by strong gains in technology shares. The Korean won fell against the U.S. dollar.

The benchmark Korea Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI) advanced 123.55 points, or 2.11 percent, to finish at an all-time high of 5,969.64.

The index has extended its upward momentum in recent weeks, surpassing the 5,000-point mark for the first time on Jan. 27 and crossing 5,500 on Feb. 12. It moved above 5,800 on Friday.

Trading volume was heavy at 1.58 billion shares worth 30.73 trillion won (US$21.3 billion), with decliners outnumbering gainers 465 to 407.

Institutions bought a net 2.37 trillion won worth of stocks, offsetting net sales of 199.16 billion won by foreign investors and 2.28 trillion won by retail investors.

The rally came despite overnight losses on Wall Street.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 1.66 percent, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite declined 1.13 percent.

In Seoul, investors scooped up major chip stocks ahead of an earnings report from U.S. chipmaker Nvidia later this week, while remaining cautious over U.S. President Donald Trump‘s push to impose new tariffs after the Supreme Court struck down his original sweeping duties, analysts said.

Trump signed an executive order Friday (U.S. time) authorizing new 10 percent global tariffs that took effect Tuesday. He has also threatened to raise the rate to 15 percent, though no formal order has been issued.

“Even if the global tariffs are raised to 15 percent, there will be no major impact on the local stock market because current U.S. tariffs on Korean imports already stand at 15 percent,” an analyst at IBK Securities Co. said.

Technology and automobile stocks led the gains.

Market bellwether Samsung Electronics jumped 3.63 percent to 200,000 won, while chip giant SK hynix surged 5.68 percent to a record high of 1,005,000 won.

Top automaker Hyundai Motor rose 0.19 percent to 524,000 won, and leading battery maker LG Energy Solution gained 4.17 percent to 412,500 won.

Among decliners, shipbuilder Hanwha Ocean fell 2.79 percent to 143,100 won, and Lotte Shopping declined 1.67 percent to 111,700 won.

The Korean won was quoted at 1,442.50 won against the U.S. dollar at 3:30 p.m., down 2.5 won from the previous session.

Bond prices, which move inversely to yields, closed lower. The yield on three-year Treasurys rose 0.4 basis point to 3.158 percent, and the return on the benchmark five-year government bonds also climbed 0.5 basis point to 3.410 percent.

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.

CK Hutchison says the Panamanian government has taken ‘administrative and operational control’ of its two ports on the canal.

The government of Panama has seized control of two ports on either end of the Panama Canal from a Hong Kong conglomerate following a recent ruling by the country’s Supreme Court.

Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison said on Tuesday that Panama’s government had “made direct physical entry into the terminals at Balboa and Cristobal” and assumed “administrative and operational control” over the two ports on the Panama Canal.

The company said the “unlawful” takeover reflects the culmination of a campaign by the Panamanian state against its subsidiary, Panama Ports, following the Supreme Court ruling last month.

According to a government decree, the Panama Maritime Authority has been authorised to occupy the ports for “reasons of urgent social interest”, according to The Associated Press (AP) news agency.

The maritime authority also has the right to take over port property, including computer systems and cranes, according to the decree.

The state takeover marks the latest twist in a yearlong saga for CK Hutchison, which has been caught in a three-way fight between China, the United States, and Panama following US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House last year.

Starting in December 2024, Trump began to allege that the Panama Canal was being operated by China and promised to “take it back” – using military force if necessary – as part of a greater effort to reassert US dominance over the Western Hemisphere.

Last month, Panama’s Supreme Court ruled that CK Hutchison’s concession to operate the two ports was “unconstitutional” despite the company renewing its concession in 2021 for another 25 years.

The Chinese government’s Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office (HKMAO) weighed in on the controversy, describing the ruling as “absurd” and “shameful”, while warning that the Latin American country would pay “heavy prices both politically and economically”.

Panama’s President Jose Raul Mulino responded, saying he “strongly” rejected China’s threat against his country and that Panama was a country that upholds the rule of law “and respects the decisions of the judiciary, which is independent of the central government”.

The attack on alleged drug smugglers brings death toll of US military campaign against suspected drug boats to about 150.

The United States military has announced another strike in the Caribbean Sea that it said targeted drug smugglers, killing three people.

The Southern Command of the US military (SOUTHCOM) shared footage of the attack on Monday, showing a small boat exploding and going up in flames after the strike.

“Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Caribbean and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations,” SOUTHCOM said in a statement.

“Three male narco-terrorists were killed during this action. No US military forces were harmed.”

The attack brings the death toll from US boat strikes on boats allegedly smuggling drugs, which began last year, to about 150.

Rights advocates have said the US military campaign targeting alleged drug smugglers amounts to extrajudicial killings and risks violating international and domestic laws.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has argued that all the targeted boats were carrying drugs, but it has offered little evidence other than grainy footage of the strikes.

United Nations experts warned last year that the attacks “appear to be unlawful killings carried out by order of a Government, without judicial or legal process allowing due process of law”.

“Unprovoked attacks and killings on international waters also violate international maritime laws,” the experts added.

“We have condemned and raised concerns about these attacks at sea to the United States Government.”

The strikes started in September last year, as the US was building up its military assets in the Caribbean amid tensions with Venezuela. Since then, the attacks have expanded to also targeting boats in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

A separate US strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat on Friday also killed three people.

The campaign has continued even after US forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro early in 2026.

Trump and other US officials have argued, without providing evidence, that each bombing saves thousands of lives from overdose deaths. But it is not clear whether the deadly campaign has significantly affected the drug trade in the region.

The latest attack comes as Mexican authorities push to curb violence by drug cartels after the killing of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel leader, Nemesio Ruben Oseguera Cervantes, also known as “El Mencho”.

Trump has been pushing to present himself as launching a literal war on drugs across the Western Hemisphere.

“Mexico must step up their effort on Cartels and Drugs!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday.

The US has often accused its critics in Latin America, including Colombian President Gustavo Petro, of ties to the drug trade.

Meanwhile, in December, Trump pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was serving a 45-year prison sentence in US jails after being convicted of drug trafficking.

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

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

So, where do both sides stand?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Jamal Abdi – President of the National Iranian American Council

Hassan Ahmadian – Associate professor at the University of Tehran

Richard Weitz – Senior fellow at the NATO Defense College

The White House is set to impose a 15 percent tariff through Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the US Supreme Court ruled against Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

United States President Donald Trump has ramped up tariff threats following last week’s US Supreme Court decision that ruled that Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, were unlawful.

On Monday, Trump said that any countries that wanted to “play games” after the high court’s ruling would be hit “with a much higher tariff ” in a post on his social media platform Truth Social.

In a separate post on the platform, Trump claimed that he does not need the approval of the US Congress for tariffs.

“As President, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval of Tariffs . It has already been gotten, in many forms, a long time ago! They were also just reaffirmed by the ridiculous and poorly crafted supreme court decision!” Trump said in the post.

Trump does have some authority to impose other tariffs, but they are much more limited.

Following the court’s 6–3 decision on Friday, the president said he would introduce a 10 percent tariff, raising it to 15 percent by Saturday under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, the maximum limit under the statute that enables the White House to impose tariffs for 150 days.

The statute only requires a presidential declaration and does not require further investigation. Section 122 is only temporary; the tariffs would then expire unless Congress extends them.

Trump’s tariffs are overwhelmingly unpopular. A new Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of tariffs.

Looming uncertainty

Experts warn that Trump’s newly imposed tariffs will fuel further economic uncertainty.

“What we do know is that it would continue to require all those parties affected to continue to live in uncertainty and, as many have already pointed out, such uncertainty is not good for our economy and has negative impacts on American consumers,” Max Kulyk, partner and CEO of Chicory Wealth, a private wealth advisory firm, told Al Jazeera.

“It’s impossible to plan. You hear that tariffs are off, and you are considering how to get refunds. Then a few hours later, it’s 10 percent. Then it’s 15 percent the next day…. Not having that stable framework is hurtful for activity, hiring, investment,” Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon, told the Reuters news agency.

Gold, which is considered a safe investment in times of economic uncertainty, surged by 2 percent on Monday, hitting a three-week high as tariff pressures remain unclear.

US markets are also taking a hit. The tech-heavy Nasdaq is down 1.1 percent in midday trading. The S&P 500 is also down by 1 percent, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped by 1.5 percent since the market opened on Monday.

Stalling trade deals

Trump’s erratic approach has also deterred movement on looming trade deals.

On Monday, the European Parliament opted to postpone voting on a trade deal with the US. It is the second time the bloc has pushed back the vote. The first was in protest against Trump’s unsolicited attempts to acquire Greenland.

The assembly had been considering removing several European Union import duties on US goods. Committee chair Bernd Lange said the new temporary US tariff could mean increased levies for some EU exports, and no one knew what would happen after they expire in 150 days. EU lawmakers will reconvene on March 4 to assess if the US has clarified the situation and confirmed its commitment to last year’s deal.

Feb. 23 (UPI) — A federal judge in Florida on Monday blocked the public release of former special counsel Jack Smith’s report on his investigation into classified documents held at President Donald Trump‘s Mar-a-Lago estate.

In the order, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon of the Southern District of Florida said Smith’s report should not be made public after she previously ruled that he was illegally appointed to spearhead the case.

In July 2024, she said Smith’s appointment as special counsel by President Joe Biden violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. She took issue with what she described as the “broad power” given to Smith, the “indefinite” appropriate given to the task and his lack of supervision.

Biden appointed Smith to investigate whether Trump — then the former president — mishandled classified documents by storing them at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla. Smith’s probe resulted in 41 criminal counts against Trump, but Cannon dismissed the case in 2024.

In her order Monday, she accused Smith of accelerating efforts to prepare the report after her ruling so it could be completed before he left his position in January 2025 upon Trump’s inauguration to a second term. She said Smith used “discover materials generated in this case,” and there was a 2023 protective order preventing the public release of such materials unless approved by a court.

Cannon said she’s also blocking the release of the report because doing so “would cause irreparable damage to former defendants” involved in the case. Also named in the indictment against Trump were his aide, Walton Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira, a maintenance worker accused of helping Nauta move 30 boxes of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago into a storage room under Trump’s direction.

Smith defended his investigation into the handling of classified documents — and another into Trump’s alleged attempts to interfere with the 2020 election — to Congress in December. He said if given the same evidence, he would charge Trump with crimes again.

“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power,” Smith said.

“Our investigation also developed powerful evidence that showed President Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after he left office in January 2021, storing them at his social club, including in a bathroom and a ballroom where events and gatherings took place.”

Feb. 23 (UPI) — A meeting on trade negotiations between the United States and India this week has been postponed in light of Friday’s Supreme Court ruling on President Donald Trump‘s tariffs.

Officials representing the United States and India were scheduled to meet for three days in Washington, D.C., to discuss their interim trade deal but the meeting has been delayed, CNBC, the BBC and Hindustan Times reported.

India’s top trade negotiator, Darpan Jain, was slated to travel to the United States for the meeting.

India is under a 25% reciprocal tariff imposed by the United States. It was expected to be reduced to 18% as part of an interim agreement between the countries earlier this month. The sides have continued to discuss future trade plans virtually since reaching the interim deal.

The United States and India were slated to finalize the interim agreement in March with it likely to go into effect in April. The framework for the agreement noted that any changes to the deal would allow the other country to “modify its commitments.”

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump improperly applied the Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose a swath of tariffs. With those tariffs ruled unlawful, Trump announced a 15% global tariff, citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to impose temporary tariffs.

The act allows for the president to impose tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days.

The Trump administration continues to consider new plans to continue with its tariff policy, exploring other legal routes, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a social media post.

“We will immediately shift to other proven authorities — Actions 232, 301, and 122 — to keep our tariff strategy strong,” Bessent wrote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calls to ‘nationalise’ election administration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His statements were swiftly condemned by voting rights groups.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Department of Justice pushes boundaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Tulsi Gabbard’s role?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voter ID law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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