Donald Trump

The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a California redistricting measure meant to net the Democratic Party more congressional seats, rejecting a challenge from the state Republican Party.

There was no dissent in Wednesday’s decision, and the conservative-majority court did not offer any explanation for its decision.

Instead, its order was comprised of a single sentence, stating that the Republican application “is denied”.

Previously, in December, the Supreme Court had allowed a similar redistricting measure, designed to benefit Republicans in Texas, to move forward.

Democratic officials in California have applauded Wednesday’s decision as fair, given that Republican President Donald Trump has led a nationwide push to redraw congressional districts in his party’s favour.

“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a written statement.

“He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November.”

California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed Newsom’s remarks, blaming Trump for launching a kind of redistricting arms race that threatened to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

“The US Supreme Court’s decision is good news not only for Californians, but for our democracy,” Bonta said in the statement.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a win for Democratic efforts to counter the Trump-led redistricting efforts, which began last year in Texas.

In June last year, reports emerged that Trump had personally called Texas state politicians to redraw their congressional districts to give Republicans a greater advantage in Democrat-held areas.

Each congressional district elects one person to the US House of Representatives, which has a narrow Republican majority. Out of 435 seats, 218 are held by Republicans, and 214 by Democrats.

Texas, a Republican stronghold, proceeded to approve a newly revamped congressional map in August, overcoming a walkout by Democratic legislators.

That, in turn, prompted Newsom to launch a ballot initiative in California to counteract the Texas effort.

Just as the new Texas congressional map was designed to increase Republican seats by five, the California ballot initiative, known as Proposition 50, was also positioned to increase Democratic representation by five.

Voters in California passed the initiative overwhelmingly in a November special election, temporarily suspending the work of an independent redistricting commission that had previously drawn the state’s congressional maps.

Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential contender, framed Proposition 50 as a means of fighting “fire with fire”.

The new map approved under Proposition 50, however, will only be in place through the 2030 election, and Newsom has pledged to repeal it, should Republicans in Texas do the same with their new map.

The push to redistrict for partisan gain — a process known as gerrymandering — has long faced bipartisan pushback as an attack on democratic values.

Normally, redistricting happens every 10 years, after a new census is taken, to reflect population changes.

But this mid-decade redistricting battle comes before the pivotal 2026 midterm elections, which are slated to be a referendum on Trump’s second term as president. Trump has already expressed fear that he might be impeached, should Congress switch to Democratic control.

Partisan gerrymandering is not necessarily illegal, unless it purposefully disenfranchises voters on the basis of their race. That, in turn, is seen as a violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, an important piece of civil rights legislation from 1965.

In response to the passage of Proposition 50, Republicans in California sued Newsom and other state officials in an effort to overturn the new congressional map.

They argued the new map was created “specifically to favor Hispanic voters” and would dilute the representation of Republican voters in the state.

The Trump administration joined the lawsuit on November 13, backing the state Republicans.

But Bonta, the California attorney general, argued the redistricting process was legal. In court filings, he also maintained that Trump’s backing of the lawsuit was driven by self-interest.

“The obvious reason that the Republican Party is a plaintiff here, and the reason that the current federal administration intervened to challenge California’s new map while supporting Texas’s defense of its new map, is that Republicans want to retain their House majority for the remainder of President Trump’s term,” his court filing said.

Bonto also called on the Supreme Court not to “step into the political fray, granting one political party a sizeable advantage” by overturning Proposition 50.

The victory for California Democrats on Wednesday comes as redistricting fights continue across the country.

Already, states like North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri have adopted new congressional maps to favour Republicans. There has been pushback, though.

In December, Indiana’s Republican-led legislature voted down a partisan redistricting measure, despite pressure from Trump to pass it.

The Gaitanist Army of Colombia (EGC), the country’s largest criminal organisation, has announced it will temporarily suspend peace talks in Qatar after Colombian President Gustavo Petro reportedly pledged to target its leader.

In a social media post on Wednesday, the EGC, sometimes referred to as the Gulf Clan, indicated the suspension would continue until it received updates from the Petro administration.

“By order of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the EGC delegation at the negotiating table will temporarily suspend talks with the government to consult and clarify the veracity of the information,” the group wrote in a statement on X.

“If the media reports are true, this would be a violation of good faith and the Doha commitments.”

Colombia’s Defence Minister Pedro Sanchez confirmed the reports later on Wednesday, sharing a list of three drug “kingpins” that Petro’s administration would prioritise as “high-level targets”.

Among the three targets was the EGC’s leader, Jesus Avila Villadiego, alias Chiquito Malo. A reward for his capture was set at 5 billion Colombian pesos, equivalent to $1.37m.

The other two “kingpins” included top rebel commanders identified only by their aliases: Ivan Mordisco and Pablito.

The public announcement echoes a private one cemented during a closed-door meeting on Tuesday at the White House, when Petro met United States President Donald Trump in person for the first time.

For months, Trump has pressured the Petro administration to take more “aggressive action” to combat narcotics trafficking out of Colombia.

In response, Petro and his team presented the Trump administration on Tuesday with a dossier on their counter-narcotics operations titled, “Colombia: America’s #1 Ally Against Narcoterrorists”.

The presentation featured statistics on cocaine seizures, programmes to eradicate coca crops, and the high-level arrests and killings of drug lords.

But the commitment to collaborate with the US in the pursuit of Chiquito Malo’s arrest has thrown negotiations with the EGC into peril.

It has also raised questions about the future of Petro’s signature policy, “Total Peace”, which was designed to open talks with rebel groups and criminal networks in an effort to halt Colombia’s six-decade-long internal conflict.

The EGC is a major criminal group with almost 10,000 members, according to a recent report by the Ideas for Peace Foundation.

In December, the US also designated the group as a “foreign terrorist organisation”, as part of its ongoing efforts to crack down on drug trafficking.

The EGC has been engaged in high-level discussions with the Colombian government in Doha since September 2025. The two parties signed a “commitment to peace” on December 5, which outlined a roadmap to the EGC putting down arms.

The first step towards demobilisation was for the group to gather its forces in temporary zones, beginning in March. The government had suspended arrest warrants in December for EGC commanders, including Chiquito Malo, who were due to move to these areas.

But the government’s plans to detain the drug lord, declared yesterday at the White House, destabilised this process, according to analysts.

“[The EGC] interpret this as a direct threat where, if any commander who has arrest warrants … goes to the temporary zones, he runs a high risk,” said Gerson Arias, a conflict and security investigator at the Ideas for Peace Foundation, a Bogota-based think tank.

The Colombian Supreme Court in January approved Chiquito Malo’s extradition to the US in the eventuality of his capture, but the final decision to extradite him resides with the president.

By declaring the drug lord a “target” at the White House, Petro signalled support for capturing and extraditing the EGC commander.

Potential US involvement in the operation also appears to have unsettled the criminal organisation, according to experts.

“It is very different for Chiquito Malo to be pursued solely by the Colombian government than for him to become a target of joint strategic value involving US intelligence,” said Laura Bonilla, a deputy director at the Peace and Reconciliation Foundation, a Colombian think tank.

Although the EGC suspended its peace talks on Wednesday, it stressed that it remained open to resuming negotiations.

“It should be clarified that the suspension is temporary, not permanent, which indicates that they [the talks] will resume shortly,” a lawyer for the group told Al Jazeera, on condition of anonymity.

The representative added that, for talks to continue, the EGC requires that “legal and personal security guarantees” and “the commitments agreed upon in Doha, Qatar, are fulfilled”.

As the prospect of a conflict between the United States and Iran looms, analysts within Israel have questioned the country’s capacity to determine the outcome of a confrontation in a region that, just months ago, it had regarded itself as on the brink of dominating.

“The [Israeli] opposition are accusing [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu of giving in to [US President Donald] Trump and ending the war on Gaza too soon,” said Israeli political analyst Ori Goldberg. “[Israel is] being hounded out of Lebanon, [its] freedom to operate within Syria has been halted. All that’s left to [Israel] is the freedom to kill Palestinians, and with Qatar, Turkiye and Egypt now being involved in Gaza, over Israel’s objection, it won’t be allowed to do that for much longer.”

While senior Israeli figures including Netanyahu are liaising directly with the Trump administration over a possible attack on Iran, analysts say it is increasingly clear that Israel’s ability to shape regional developments is diminished.

After two years of genocide in Gaza, where Israel has killed more than 71,800 Palestinians, the US now appears to have taken the lead and has overruled Israel when it objected to the admission of Turkiye and Qatar to the board that will oversee the administration of Gaza.

In Syria, Israeli ambitions to hobble the new government of President Ahmed al-Sharaa also appear to have fallen foul of Trump’s White House, which is actively pushing the Netanyahu government to reach an accommodation with Damascus. In Lebanon, too, the US continues to play a defining role in determining Israeli actions, with any possible confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel said to be dependent upon Washington’s green light.

What influence Israel could wield over US action in Iran, according to many, is uncertain, even to the point that Washington could enter negotiations with no regard for Israeli concerns.

“There’s a worry that Donald Trump will not strike in Iran, which will continue to endanger Israel, and instead negotiate a conclusion that’s good for him as a peacemaker and leave the regime in place,” Netanyahu’s former aide from the early 90s and political pollster, Mitchell Barak, told Al Jazeera from West Jerusalem. “He’s transactional. That’s what he does. It’ll be like Gaza. Israel will secure their ultimate victory, then lose control to the US, whose interests – under Trump – don’t always align with ours.”

‘Big Bad Wolf’

While analysts’ expectations that Netanyahu could influence Trump’s actions in Iran may be limited, their sense that a fresh war would buy the Israeli prime minister relief from his current difficulties seems universal.

“Iran is Israel’s ‘Big Bad Wolf’,” Chatham House’s Yossi Mekelberg said of the geopolitical opponent that many in Israel believe exists only to ensure Israel’s destruction.

Mekelberg added that a war with Iran would serve as a useful distraction from Netanyahu’s domestic troubles, such as an inquiry into government failures related to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, his attempt to weaken the oversight powers of the judiciary, and his ongoing corruption trials.

“There’s a saying in Hebrew: ‘the righteous have their work done by others.’ I’m not for a moment saying that Netanyahu is righteous, but I’m sure he’s keen on having his work done by others,” Mekelberg said.

War fears

How much public appetite there may be for a confrontation with Iran is unclear.

Israel was able to heavily damage Iran during the conflict it started in June last year. But Iran was also able to repeatedly pierce Israel’s defences, making it clear that the Israeli public is not safe from the wars its state pursues in the region.

The threat – rather than the reality – of a confrontation with Iran also serves the prime minister’s ends, Goldberg noted. “Netanyahu has no need for a war. He doesn’t really need to do anything other than survive, which he’s proven adept at,” the analyst said, referring to the absence of any credible political rival, as well as the risk that an actual war may highlight Israel’s diplomatic weakness in its dealings with the US.

“There’s this joke phrase that became popular with those resisting Netanyahu’s judicial reform: ‘This time he’s done’,” Goldberg said. “Netanyahu’s never done. He committed a genocide, and all people in Israel can object to is the management of it. He’s currently losing military and diplomatic influence across the region, and few are noticing. I can’t imagine that this will be ‘it’ either.”

Feb. 4 (UPI) — Ryan Routh, who was convicted for an attempted assassination attempt on President Donald Trump in Florida, was sentenced to life in prison plus seven years Wednesday.

Before announcing the sentence, Judge Aileen Cannon called Routh an “evil” man.

Routh, 60, was convicted of hiding in the bushes at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach in September 2024. He pointed a military-grade SKS rifle toward Trump, who was then a candidate running for his second term, and a Secret Service agent.

He defended himself in the trial that ended in September. When the verdict was read, he stabbed himself in the neck with a pen.

Prosecutors argued in a court filing that Routh deserved a life sentence.

“Routh’s crimes undeniably warrant a life sentence — he took steps over the course of months to assassinate a major presidential candidate, demonstrated the will to kill anybody in the way, and has since expressed neither regret nor remorse to his victims.

“Routh’s crimes of conviction reflect careful plotting, extensive premeditation, and a cowardly disregard for human life,” prosecutors wrote. “Routh’s motive for his crimes was unconscionable — preventing the American people from electing the candidate of their choice for President. Routh’s gloss on his crimes has always been that anything he may have done was justified by events in Ukraine or American domestic politics.”

Since the conviction, Routh has been represented by court-appointed attorney Martin Roth. He requested a 27-year sentence and argued that he didn’t get a fair trial because he represented himself.

“Defendant recognizes that he was found guilty by the jury but asserts that the jury was misled by his inability to effectively confront witnesses, use exhibits, or affirmatively introduce impeachment evidence designed to prove his lack of intent to cause injury to anyone,” Roth wrote.

Routh had a psychiatric evaluation before the trial, which showed he had bipolar disorder and narcissistic personality disorder.

His family submitted letters of support to the court.

Routh’s son Adam wrote that his father “wants to move forward in the right way and continue to be someone who contributes to our family and his community.” He said, “we still need him, and he still has people who love and support him.”

Routh’s sister Nancy Meyers asked the court to consider placing her brother in a prison in North Carolina. She said the family was devastated by his actions but “committed to assisting him with his rehabilitative efforts.”

Feb. 4 (UPI) — Fulton County, Georgia, filed a motion in federal court on Wednesday demanding the return of election materials taken from the county by the FBI.

The motion was filed under seal, said Jessica Corbitt, a spokesperson for the county, to The New York Times. It also asks for the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant to be unsealed.

Robb Pitts, chair of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, said at a press conference Wednesday that the motion was a way to uphold the Constitution and the rights of Fulton County voters.

“We will fight using all resources against those who seek to take over our elections,” he said. “Our Constitution itself is at stake in this fight.”

Fulton County Commissioner Marvin Arrington Jr. said the motion is important to the people of his county because “actions like this mass seizure risk sowing seeds of distrust in the election process.”

“This morning’s filing could not have come fast enough; justice delayed is justice denied,” Arrington said in a statement to USA Today. “The people of Fulton County deserve justice now, and that’s why I pushed so hard to get this motion filed as soon as possible.”

On Jan. 28, the FBI seized large quantities of materials from the Election Hub and Operations Center in Union City, Ga., just outside of Atlanta. They specifically took items from the 2020 election, which President Donald Trump has claimed he won, despite a lack of evidence.

Fulton County, which makes up a large portion of Atlanta, is a strongly Democratic county and is the most populous in the state.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was present at the raid, and lawmakers have demanded to know why. She responded that Trump had requested that she be there.

In a letter to Rep. James Himes, D-Conn., and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., Gabbard defended her presence.

“My presence was requested by the President and executed under my broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate and analyze intelligence related to election security, including counterintelligence, foreign and other malign influence and cybersecurity,” she said.

The Times reported that a day after the raid, Gabbard facilitated a phone call between her, Trump and the FBI agents involved.

“Tulsi Gabbard has no legal role in domestic law enforcement, yet 5 days ago she participated in an FBI raid of Fulton County, Georgia’s, election office — the center of Trump’s 2020 election conspiracy theories,” Warner said on X on Monday.

“And now we find out that she orchestrated a call between Trump and the FBI agents conducting the raid? Something’s not passing the smell test …,” he said.

Trump has recently said that he wants to “nationalize” the upcoming midterm elections, though he has no legal authority to do so.

The FBI agents loaded three box trucks of evidence from the election facility. Fulton County officials said that more than 20 pallets of ballots, election tape and equipment were taken, but they don’t have a list of items from the Department of Justice, The Times reported.

“We don’t even have copies of what they took, so it’s a problem,” Pitts said. He added that the county wants the items back “so we can take an inventory” of what was taken.

“We don’t know where they are. We don’t know, really, who has them,” The Times reported he said. “We don’t know what they’re doing with them. Are they being tampered with? I can use my imagination, and I would certainly hope not. But we just – we don’t know.”

Pitts mentioned Trump’s comments about taking over the elections in about 15 states.

“We’ll be the test case,” he said. “If they’re successful in Georgia — Fulton County, Georgia, in particular — the others on that list of 15 plus states, they should be aware.”

He said the raid was “probably the first step in whatever they’re going to do in order to depress voter participation, voter registration, making whatever changes they think are necessary to help their case in 2026, but more importantly, in 2028.”

New Delhi, India – When US President Donald Trump announced a trade deal with India on Monday this week, he declared that New Delhi would pivot away from Russian energy as part of the agreement.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump said, had promised to stop buying Russian oil, and instead buy crude from the United States and from Venezuela, whose president, Nicolas Maduro, was abducted by US special forces in early January. Since then, the US has effectively taken control of Venezuela’s mammoth oil industry.

In return, Trump dialled down trade tariffs on Indian goods from an overall 50 percent to just 18 percent. Half of that 50 percent tariff was levied last year as punishment for India buying Russian oil, which the White House maintains is financing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.

But since Monday, India has not publicly confirmed that it has committed to either ceasing its purchase of Russian oil or embracing Venezuelan crude, analysts note. Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson, told reporters on Tuesday that Russia had received no indication of this from India, either.

And switching from Russian to Venezuelan oil will be far from straightforward. A cocktail of other factors – shocks to the energy market, costs, geography, and the characteristics of different kinds of oil – will complicate New Delhi’s decisions about its sourcing of oil, they say.

So, can India really dump Russian oil? And can Venezuelan crude replace it?

What is Trump’s plan?

Trump has been pressuring India to stop buying Russian oil for months. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the US and European Union placed an oil price cap on Russian crude in a bid to limit Russia’s ability to finance the war.

As a result, other countries including India began buying large quantities of cheap Russian oil. India, which before the war sourced only 2.5 percent of its oil from Russia, became the second-largest consumer of Russian oil after China. It currently sources around 30 percent of its oil from Russia.

Last year, Trump doubled trade tariffs on Indian goods from 25 percent to 50 percent as punishment for this. Later in the year, Trump also imposed sanctions on Russia’s two biggest oil companies – and threatened secondary sanctions against countries and entities that trade with these firms.

Since the abduction of Maduro by US forces in early January, Trump has effectively taken over the Venezuelan oil sector, controlling sales cash flows.

Venezuela also has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, estimated at 303 billion barrels, more than five times larger than those of the US, the world’s largest oil producer.

But while getting India to buy Venezuelan oil makes sense from the US’s perspective, analysts say this could be operationally messy.

How much oil does India import from Russia?

India currently imports nearly 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) of Russian crude, according to analytics company Kpler. Under Trump’s mounting pressure, that is lower than the average 1.21 million bpd in December 2025 and more than 2 million bpd in mid-2025.

One barrel is equivalent to 159 litres (42 gallons) of crude oil. Once refined, a barrel typically produces about 73 litres (19 gallons) of petrol for a car. Oil is also refined to produce a wide variety of products, from jet fuel to household items including plastics and even lotions.

Has India stopped Russian oil purchases?

India has reduced the amount of oil it buys from Russia over the past year, but it has not stopped buying it altogether.

Under increasing pressure from Trump, last August, Indian officials called out the “hypocrisy” of the US and EU pressuring New Delhi to back off from Russian crude.

“In fact, India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict,” Randhir Jaiswal, India’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said then. He added that India’s decision to import Russian oil was “meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer”.

Despite this, Indian refiners, currently the second-largest group of buyers of Russian oil after China, are reportedly winding up their purchases after clearing current scheduled orders.

Major refiners like Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL), Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd (MRPL), and HPCL-Mittal Energy Ltd (HMEL) halted purchasing from Russia following the US sanctions against Russian oil producers last year.

Other players like Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Bharat Petroleum Corporation, and Reliance Industries will soon stop their purchases.

What happens if India suddenly stops buying Russian oil?

Even if India wanted to stop importing Russian oil altogether, analysts argue it would be extremely costly to do so.

In September last year, India’s oil and petroleum minister, Hardeep Singh Puri, told reporters that it would also sharply push up energy prices and fuel inflation. “The world will face serious consequences if the supplies are disrupted. The world can’t afford to keep Russia off the oil market,” Puri said.

Analysts tend to agree. “A complete cessation of Indian purchases of Russian oil would be a major disruption. An immediate halt would spike global prices and threaten India’s economic growth,” said George Voloshin, an independent energy analyst based in Paris.

Russian oil would likely be diverted more heavily towards China and into “shadow” fleets of tankers that deliver sanctioned oil secretly by flying false flags and switching off location equipment, Voloshin told Al Jazeera. “Mainstream tanker demand would shift toward the Atlantic Basin, most likely increasing global freight rates as a result,” he noted.

Sumit Pokharna, vice president at Kotak Securities, noted that Indian refineries have reported robust margins in the last two years, majorly benefitting from the discounted Russian crude.

“If they move to higher-costing, like the US or Venezuela, then raw material cost would increase, and that would squeeze their margins,” he told Al Jazeera. “If it goes beyond control, they may have to pass the excess onto consumers.”

Can India stop buying Russian oil altogether?

It may not be able to. One of India’s two private refiners, Nayara Energy, is majority-Russian-owned and under heavy Western sanctions. The Russian energy firm Rosneft holds a 49.13 percent stake in the company, which operates a 400,000-barrel-per-day refinery in India’s Gujarat, PM Modi’s home state.

Nayara is the second-largest importer of Russian crude, buying about 471,000 barrels per day in January this year, accounting for nearly 40 percent of Russian supplies to India.

Its plant has relied solely on Russian crude since European Union sanctions were imposed on the company last July.

Nayara is not planning to load Russian oil in April as it shuts its refinery for more than a month for maintenance from April 10, according to Reuters.

Pokharna said the future of Nayara hangs in the balance, with the US unlikely to grant India an overt exemption for the Russia-backed company to import crude.

Can India switch to Venezuelan oil?

India has been a major consumer of Venezuelan oil in the past. At its peak, in 2019, India imported $7.2bn of oil, accounting for just under 7 percent of total imports. That stopped after the US slapped sanctions on Venezuelan oil, but some officials of the government-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation are still stationed in the Latin American country.

Now, major Indian refiners have said they are open to receiving Venezuelan oil again, but only if it is a viable option.

For one thing, Venezuela is roughly twice as far from India as Russia and five times further than the Middle East, meaning much higher freight costs.

Venezuelan oil is more expensive as well. “Russian Urals [a medium-heavy crude blend] has been trading at a wide-ranging discount of about $10-20 per barrel to Brent, while Venezuelan Merey currently offers a smaller discount of around $5-8 per barrel,” Voloshin told Al Jazeera.

“Importing from Venezuela and forgoing the Russian discount would be a costly affair for India,” said Pokharna. “From transportation cost to forgoing discounts, it could cost India $6-8 more per barrel – and that is a huge increase in the importing bill.”

Overall, a complete pivot away from Russia could raise India’s import bill by $9bn to $11bn – an amount roughly equal to India’s federal health budget – per year, according to Kpler.

“Venezuelan crude must be discounted by at least $10 to $12 per barrel to be competitive,” argued Voloshin. “This deeper discount is necessary to offset the much higher freight costs, increased insurance premiums for the longer Atlantic voyage, and the somewhat higher operational expenses required to process Venezuela’s extra-heavy high-sulfur crude.”

Without deeper discounts, the longer journey and complex handling make Venezuelan oil more expensive on a delivered basis, he added.

Another major issue is that many Indian refiners simply do not have the facilities to process very heavy Venezuelan oil.

Venezuelan crude is a heavy, sour oil, thick and viscous like molasses, with a high sulphur content requiring complex, specialised refineries to process it into fuel. Only a small number of Indian refineries are equipped to handle it.

“[Venezuelan oil’s heaviness] makes it an option only for complex refineries, leaving out older and smaller refineries,” Pokharna told Al Jazeera. “The shift is operationally difficult and would require blending with more expensive light crudes.”

Then there is the question of availability. Today, Venezuela produces barely a million barrels per day when pushed to its limit. Even if all production was sent to India, it would not match the total Russian oil import.

Where else could India buy oil?

India’s Minister Puri has said that New Delhi is looking to diversify sourcing options from nearly 40 countries.

As India has reduced Russian imports, it has increased them from Middle Eastern nations and other countries in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Now, while Russia accounts for nearly 27 percent share in India’s oil imports, OPEC nations, led by Iraq and Saudi Arabia, contribute 53 percent.

Reeling from Trump’s trade war, India has also increased purchases of US oil. American crude imports to India rose by 92 percent from April to November in 2025 to nearly 13 million tons, compared to 7.1 million in the same period in 2024.

However, India would be competing for these supplies with the European Union, which has pledged to spend $750bn by 2028 on US energy and nuclear products.

Meanwhile, for Venezuela to return to higher production, Caracas needs political stability, changes in foreign investment and oil laws, and to clear debts. That will take time, experts say.

United States border security chief Tom Homan has announced that the administration of President Donald Trump will “draw down” 700 immigration enforcement personnel from Minnesota while promising to continue operations in the northern state.

The update on Wednesday was the latest indication of the Trump administration pivoting on its enforcement surge in the state following the killing of two US citizens by immigration agents in Minneapolis in January.

Homan, who is officially called Trump’s “border czar”, said the decision came amid new cooperation agreements with local authorities, particularly related to detaining individuals at county jails. Details of those agreements were not immediately available.

About 3,000 immigration enforcement agents are currently believed to be in Minnesota as part of Trump’s enforcement operations.

“Given this increase in unprecedented collaboration, and as a result of the need for less law enforcement officers to do this work in a safer environment, I have announced, effective immediately, we will draw down 700 people effective today – 700 law enforcement personnel,” Homan said.

The announcement comes after Homan was sent to Minnesota at the end of January in response to widespread protests over immigration enforcement and the killing of Renee Nicole Good on January 7 by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent and Alex Pretti on January 24 by a US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer, both in Minneapolis.

Homan said reforms made since his arrival have included consolidating ICE and CBP under a single chain of command.

He said Trump “fully intends to achieve mass deportations during this administration, and immigration enforcement actions will continue every day throughout this country”.

Immigration rights observers have said the administration’s mass deportation approach has seen agents use increasingly “dragnet” tactics to meet large detention quotas, including randomly stopping individuals and asking for their papers. The administration has increasingly detained undocumented individuals with no criminal records, even US citizens and people who have legal status to live in the US.

Homan said agents would prioritise who they considered to be “public safety threats” but added, “Just because you prioritise public safety threats, don’t mean we forget about everybody else. We will continue to enforce the immigration laws in this country.”

The “drawdown”, he added, would not apply to what he described as “personnel providing security for our officers”.

“We will not draw down on personnel providing security and responding to hostile incidents until we see a change,” he said.

Critics have accused immigration enforcement officers, who do not receive the same level of crowd control training as most local police forces, of using excessive violence in responding to protesters and individuals legally monitoring their actions.

Trump administration officials have regularly blamed unrest on “agitators”. They accused both Good and Pretti of threatening officers before their killings although video evidence of the exchanges has contradicted that characterisation.

Last week, the administration announced it was opening a federal civil rights investigation into the killing of Pretti, who was fatally shot while he was pinned to the ground by immigration agents. That came moments after an agent removed a gun from Pretti’s body, which the 37-year-old had not drawn and was legally carrying.

Federal authorities have not opened a civil rights investigation into the killing of Good, who they have maintained sought to run over an ICE agent before she was fatally shot. Video evidence appeared to show Good trying to turn away from the agent.

On Friday, thousands of people took to the streets of Minneapolis and other US cities amid calls for a federal strike in protest against the Trump administration’s deportation drive.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and other state and local officials have also challenged the immigration enforcement surge in the state, arguing that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE and the CBP, has been violating constitutional protections.

A federal judge last week said she will not halt the operations as a lawsuit progresses in court. Department of Justice lawyers have dismissed the suit as “legally frivolous”.

On Wednesday, a poll released by the Marquette Law School found wide-ranging disquiet over ICE’s approach, with 60 percent of US adults nationwide saying they disapproved of how the agency was conducting itself. The poll was conducted from January 21 to January 28, with many of the surveys conducted before Pretti’s killing.

The poll still found widespread support for ICE among Republicans, with about 80 percent approving of its work. Just 5 percent of Democrats voiced similar approval.

Perhaps most worryingly for Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterms in November, just 23 percent of independents – potential swing voters in the upcoming vote – approved of ICE’s actions.

US President Donald Trump lashed out at a journalist, calling her the ‘worst reporter’, after she questioned him about survivors of the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump’s name appears in the Epstein files. He has not been accused of any crimes by Epstein’s victims and has denied any wrongdoing.

US President Donald Trump has said that talks with Iran are continuing to try to de-escalate tensions in the Gulf, even as the US military announced shooting down an Iranian drone that approached its aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea.

Thousands of people marched through Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, demanding the release of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, exactly one month since US forces abducted the couple in a bloody nighttime raid.

“Venezuela needs Nicolas!” the crowd chanted in Tuesday’s demonstration, titled “Gran Marcha” (The Great March).

Thousands carried signs in support of the abducted president, and many wore shirts calling for the couple’s return from detention in a US prison.

“The empire kidnapped them. We want them back,” declared one banner carried by marchers.

Nicolas Maduro Guerra, the detained president’s son and a member of Venezuela’s National Assembly, addressed the crowds from a stage, stating that the US military’s abduction of his father on January 3 “will remain marked like a scar on our face, forever”.

“Our homeland’s soil was desecrated by a foreign army”, Maduro Guerra said of the night US forces abducted his father.

The march, called by the government and involving many public sector workers, stretched for several hundred metres, accompanied by trucks blaring music.

Local media outlet Venezuela News said the march was part of a “global day of action” to demand the couple’s release. Protesters showed their solidarity around the world, demonstrating under banners with slogans like “Bring them back” and “Hands off Venezuela”.

The international event united voices “from diverse ideological trends”, who agreed “that the detention of President Maduro and Cilia Flores represents a flagrant violation of international law and a dangerous precedent for the sovereignty of nations”, the news outlet said.

“We feel confused, sad, angry. There are a lot of emotions,” said Jose Perdomo, a 58-year-old municipal employee, who marched in Caracas.

“Sooner or later, they will have to free our president”, he said, adding that he also backed Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodriguez.

Rodriguez has been walking a thin line since taking over as acting president, trying to appease Maduro’s supporters in government and accommodating the demands being placed on Caracas by US President Donald Trump.

Trump has said he is willing to work with Rodriguez, as long as Caracas falls in line with his demands, particularly on the US taking control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

Striking a conciliatory tone with Washington, and promising reform and reconciliation at home, Rodriguez has already freed hundreds of political prisoners and opened Venezuela’s nationalised hydrocarbons sector to private investment.

Earlier on Tuesday, hundreds of university students and relatives of political prisoners also marched in the capital, calling for the quick approval of an amnesty law promised by Rodriguez that would free prisoners from the country’s jails.

Legislation on the amnesty has not yet come before parliament.

For months, United States President Donald Trump has called him a “sick man” and an “illegal drug leader”.

But on Tuesday, Trump welcomed his Colombian counterpart, Gustavo Petro, to the White House for their first face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC.

Both leaders hailed the meeting as productive, while acknowledging the lingering tensions that divide them.

At a news conference after their meeting, Petro waved away questions about his rocky history with Trump, whom he has publicly accused of human rights violations.

Instead, he called the interaction “ a meeting between two equals who have different ways of thinking”.

“He didn’t change his way of his thinking. Neither did I. But how do you do an agreement, a pact? It’s not as between twin brothers. It’s between opponents,” Petro said.

Separately, Trump told reporters from the Oval Office that he felt good about the meeting. “I thought it was terrific,” he said.

On the agenda for the two leaders were issues including the fight against transnational drug trafficking and security in Latin America.

Here are five takeaways from Tuesday’s meeting.

A White House charm offensive

Over the past year, Trump has invited the media to participate in his meetings with foreign leaders, often holding news conferences with the visiting dignitaries in the Oval Office.

Not this time, however. The meeting between Trump and Petro lasted nearly two hours, all of it behind closed doors.

But the two leaders emerged with largely positive things to say about one another.

In a post on social media, Petro revealed that Trump had gifted him several items, including a commemorative photograph of their meeting accompanied by a signed note.

“Gustavo – a great honor. I love Colombia,” it read, followed by Trump’s signature.

In another post, Petro showed off a signed copy of Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal. On its title page, Trump had scrawled another note to Petro: “You are great.”

“Can someone tell me what Trump said in this dedication?” Petro wrote jokingly in Spanish on social media. “I don’t understand much English.”

A turning point in a tense relationship?

Petro’s joke appeared to be a cheeky nod to his notoriously rocky relationship with Trump.

It was only six days into Trump’s second term, on January 26, 2025, that he and Petro began their feud, trading threats on social media over the fate of two US deportation flights.

Petro objected to the reported human rights violations facing the deportees. Trump, meanwhile, took Petro’s initial refusal to accept the flights as a threat to US “national security”. Petro ultimately backed down after Trump threatened steep sanctions on imported Colombian goods.

They continued to trade barbs in the months since. Petro, for instance, has condemned the deadly US attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, comparing the strikes with murder.

He has also criticised Trump for carrying out a US military offensive in Venezuela to abduct then-President Nicolas Maduro. That attack, Petro said, was tantamount to “kidnapping”.

Trump, meanwhile, stripped Petro of his US visa following the Colombian leader’s appearance at the United Nations General Assembly, where he criticised the US and briefly joined a pro-Palestinian protest.

The Trump administration also sanctioned Petro in October, blaming the left-wing leader for allowing “drug cartels to flourish”.

After removing Maduro from power on January 3, Trump offered a warning to Petro: he had better “watch his a**”. The statement was widely interpreted to be a threat of military action against Colombia.

But Trump and Petro appeared to have reached a turning point last month. On January 7, the two leaders held their first call together. Tuesday’s in-person meeting marked another first in their relationship.

Agreeing to disagree

Despite the easing tensions, the two leaders used their public statements after the meeting to reaffirm their differences.

Trump was the first to speak, holding a news conference in the Oval Office as he signed legislation to end a government shutdown.

The US president, a member of the right-wing Republican Party, used the appearance to reflect on the political tensions the two leaders had in the lead-up to the meeting.

“He and I weren’t exactly the best of friends, but I wasn’t insulted, because I’d never met him,” Trump told reporters.

He added that Tuesday’s meeting was nevertheless pleasant. “I didn’t know him at all, and we got along very well.”

Petro, meanwhile, held a longer news conference at the Colombian Embassy in Washington, DC, where he raised some points of divergence he had with Trump.

Among the topics he mentioned was Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which the US has supported, and sustainable energy initiatives designed to be carbon neutral. Trump, in the past, has called the so-called green energy programmes a “scam”.

Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing leader, also reflected on his region’s history with colonialism and foreign intervention. He told reporters it was important that Latin America make decisions for itself, free from any outside “coercion”.

“ We don’t operate under blackmail,” he said at one point, in an apparent reference to Trump’s pressure campaigns.

Differing approach to combating drug trafficking

One of the primary points of contention, however, was Petro’s approach to combating drug trafficking.

Colombia is the world’s largest producer of cocaine, responsible for 68 percent of the global supply.

The Trump administration has used the fight against global drug trafficking as a justification for carrying out lethal military strikes in international waters and in Venezuela, despite experts condemning the attacks as illegal under international law.

It has also stripped Colombia of its certification as an ally in its global counter-narcotics operations.

Trump’s White House has said it will consider reversing that decision if Petro takes “more aggressive action to eradicate coca and reduce cocaine production and trafficking”.

But Petro has rejected any attempt to label him as soft on drug trafficking, instead touting the historic drug busts his government has overseen.

He made this argument yet again after Tuesday’s meeting, claiming that no other Colombian administration had done as much as his to fight cocaine trafficking.

Rather than take a militarised approach to destroying crops of coca, the raw ingredient for cocaine, Petro argued that he has had more success with voluntary eradication programmes.

This push, he said, succeeded in “getting thousands of peasant farmers to uproot the plant themselves”.

“These are two different methods, two different ways of understanding how to fight drug trafficking,” Petro said. “One that is brutal and self-interested, and what it ends up doing is promoting mafia powers and drug traffickers, and another approach, which is intelligent, which is effective.”

Petro maintained it was more strategic to go after top drug-ring leaders than to punish impoverished rural farmers by forcibly ripping up their crops.

“I told President Trump, if you want an ally in fighting drug trafficking, it’s going after the top kingpins,” he said.

A Trumpian note

Tuesday’s meeting ultimately marked yet another high-profile reversal for Trump, who has a history of shifting his relationships with world leaders.

Last year, for instance, he lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a public Oval Office clash, only to warm to the wartime leader several months later.

But Colombia is quickly approaching a pivotal presidential election in May, which will see Petro’s left-wing coalition, the Historic Pact, seek to defend the presidency against an ascendant far right.

Petro himself cannot run for consecutive terms under Colombian law. But there is speculation that Tuesday’s detente with Trump may help Petro’s coalition avoid US condemnation ahead of the vote.

Colombia, after all, was until recently the largest recipient of US aid in South America, and it has long harboured close ties with the North American superpower. Straining those ties could therefore be seen as an election liability.

While Petro acknowledged his differences with Trump during his remarks, at times he expressed certain views that overlapped with the US president’s.

Like Trump has in the past, Petro used part of his speech on Tuesday to question the role of the UN in maintaining global security.

“ Did it not show incapacity? Isn’t a reform needed?” Petro asked, wondering aloud if there was “something superior to the United Nations that would bring humanity together better in a better way”.

But when it came to donning Trump’s signature “Make America Great Again” baseball cap, Petro drew a line – or rather, a squiggle.

On social media, he shared an adjustment he made to the cap’s slogan. A jagged, Sharpie-inked “S” amended the phrase to include the entire Western Hemisphere: “Make Americas Great Again.”

These are the key developments from day 1,441 of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Here is where things stand on Wednesday, February 4:

Fighting

• At least two teenagers were killed, and nine other people were injured following a Russian strike targeting the southeastern Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia, regional Governor Ivan Fedorov wrote on the Telegram messaging app.
• A 24-hour air raid alert was issued in the Zaporizhia region following the attack, which damaged four high-rise apartment buildings.
• Three people were killed in Ukrainian shelling of the Moscow-occupied southern Ukrainian town of Nova Kakhovka, in the Kherson region, Kremlin-installed authorities said.
• Russia launched an overnight attack described as the “most powerful” this year on Ukraine’s battered energy facilities, officials in Kyiv said, leaving hundreds of thousands of people without heating amid glacial winter temperatures and in advance of talks to end the four-year war.

• The latest Russian operation against Ukraine’s energy sector was the biggest since the start of 2026, Ukraine’s leading private energy company DTEK said on Telegram.

• A power plant in Ukraine’s second-largest city of Kharkiv was also badly damaged in the Russian attack, Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov said. The attack on Kharkiv also injured at least five people, according to officials.

• Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said that Russia deployed 450 attack drones and more than 60 missiles during the onslaught and accused Moscow of waiting for temperatures to drop before carrying out the strikes.

• A power plant in Kyiv’s eastern Darnytskyi district was seriously damaged in the Russian attack, Ukrainian Energy Minister Denys Shmyhal said on Telegram, prompting officials to redirect resources to restoring heating to thousands of residents in the city.

• At least 1,142 high-rise apartment blocks have been left without heating in the Ukrainian capital following the Russian attacks, Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Kuleba said.

• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused Russia of launching “a deliberate attack against energy infrastructure”, which he said involved “a record number of ballistic missiles”.
• Zelenskyy also said that Russia had exploited the recent brief United States-backed truce on attacks against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure to stockpile weapons, which had been used in the latest attacks. The latest Russian strikes came a day before the next scheduled trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday.
• Part of the gigantic Motherland monument in Kyiv, an iconic Soviet-era World War II memorial featuring a woman holding a sword and a shield, was damaged during the latest Russian attack, with Ukrainian Culture Minister Tetyana Berezhna describing the damage inflicted as “both symbolic and cynical”.

• In remarks following the Tuesday attacks, US President Donald Trump defended Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that he “kept his word” and had stuck to a short-term deal halting strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure until Sunday.
• Trump’s spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, had said earlier that the US president was not surprised by the attacks.
• NATO chief Mark Rutte, during a visit to Kyiv on Tuesday, said that Russia’s overnight attacks did not suggest Moscow was serious about making peace.

Military aid

• Sweden and Denmark will jointly procure and supply Ukraine with air defence systems worth 2.6 billion Swedish crowns ($290m) to help it defend against Russian attacks, Swedish Defence Minister Pal Jonson and his Danish counterpart, Troels Lund Poulsen, announced.

Politics and diplomacy

• Ukraine has agreed with Western partners that any persistent Russian violations of a future ceasefire agreement would trigger a coordinated military response from Europe and the US, the Financial Times reported, citing people briefed on the discussions.

• French President Emmanuel Macron said he was preparing to resume dialogue with Putin nearly four years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but he stressed that Moscow was not showing any “real willingness” to negotiate a ceasefire.

• UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke to Trump and discussed the situation in Ukraine, including the overnight Russian attacks on the country, the United Kingdom government said.

• Reaching a peace deal to end Russia’s war will require tough choices, NATO’s Rutte said in an address to Ukraine’s parliament during his Kyiv visit.

Economy

• The Kremlin said it had heard no statements from India about halting purchases of sanctioned Russian oil after Trump announced that New Delhi had agreed to stop such purchases as part of a trade accord with Washington.
• Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia was carefully analysing Trump’s remarks on the trade deal with India. He added that despite the recent announcement, Moscow intends “to further develop our bilateral relations with Delhi”.

• Russia’s economy grew by 1 percent in 2025, Putin said, marking a much slower expansion compared with the 2024 figure, as the country stutters under the burden of its war on Ukraine and international sanctions. Putin acknowledged during a government meeting that growth is “lower” than the two previous years.

Sport

• Russia welcomed remarks by FIFA president Gianni Infantino, who said he wanted Russia’s four-year ban from international football tournaments lifted because it had “achieved nothing”, Peskov said, describing Infantino’s comments as “very good”.
• Ukrainian Sports Minister Matvii Bidnyi called Infantino’s comments “irresponsible” and “infantile”, noting that Russia’s invasion had killed more than 650 Ukrainian athletes and coaches.
• Ukrainian athlete Vladyslav Heraskevych said the International Olympic Committee’s allowing Russian and Belarusian athletes to compete as neutrals, despite their links to occupied territories or expressions of support for Moscow’s war on Ukraine, undermined the principle of neutrality. He said he intends to use the Winter Olympic Games to draw attention to the war in Ukraine.

Feb. 3 (UPI) — A federal judge denied bail for Anthony Kazmierczak, who is accused of disrupting a town hall by Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., in Minneapolis on Jan. 27 by spraying her with water and vinegar.

U.S. District Court of Minnesota Magistrate Judge David Schultz on Tuesday denied a motion by Kazmierczak, 55, to be released from custody while his case is active.

He is charged with assaulting and interfering with a member of Congress when he approached Omar, 43, while she stood at a lectern and used a plastic syringe to spray her midsection with what later was determined to be a mixture of apple cider vinegar and water.

He could be sentenced to a year in prison if he is convicted.

Kazmierczak interrupted Omar after she called for Homeland Security Sec. Kristi Noem to resign and accused the congresswoman of “splitting Minnesotans apart.”

Omar’s security staff tackled Kazmierczak and kept him detained until local police arrived to arrest him.

An FBI affidavit indicates that Kazmierczak has a history of making threatening comments toward Omar and years ago allegedly suggested “somebody should kill her.”

He also has been arrested many times during the past 40 years and was convicted in 1989 on a felony charge for vehicle theft.

Omar was born in Somalia and spent part of her childhood in a refugee camp in Kenya before her family migrated to the United States in the 1990s.

The congresswoman is a central figure in allegations of widespread fraud among the Somali community in Minneapolis and other parts of Minnesota.

President Donald Trump has accused Omar of profiting from the fraud and suggested that she have her citizenship status revoked.

He also wants Omar to be jailed and deported for alleged fraud after she recently reported her family has up to $30 million in assets, despite reporting a much lower amount two years ago.

On Tuesday, the president on social media posted a photo of U.S. forces striking ISIS and Somali leaders in a cave in Somalia in February 2025.

He prefaced the photo with the question: “Was Ilhan Omar there to protect her corrupt ‘homeland?'”

Omar also is a prominent opponent of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection efforts to remove “undocumented migrants” from the United States.

Omar became a U.S. citizen in 2000 and is the first Somali-American to be elected to Congress.

Feb. 3 (UPI) — House Republicans gave former President Bill Clinton and former first lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a deadline of noon Tuesday to clarify the terms under which they plan to testify in an investigation into sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The former first couple agreed Monday evening to testify in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee probe. Committee Chairman James Comer of Kentucky and the Clintons have repeatedly butted heads as they negotiate the details of the testimony.

The Clintons have “been so dishonest about the negotiation process, and their attorneys have been so dishonest about the negotiation process,” Comer told The Hill on Tuesday.

“We sent the terms, which are the basic standard terms of a congressional deposition … They have to sign it, and then if they sign it, then we agree to terms, and we’ll be deposing the Clintons in the month.”

Angel Urena, a spokesperson for former President Clinton, called Comer disingenuous amid the negotiations Monday.

The Clintons “negotiated in good faith. You did not. They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care,” Urena said in a post on X. “But the former President and former Secretary of State will be there.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson said if the Clintons don’t sign the terms by the noon deadline, Republicans will move forward with holding them in criminal contempt of Congress.

“We’re holding off until noon,” Johnson said. “They have a deadline until noon to work out the details, and if it’s not done satisfactorily, then we’ll proceed with the contempt.”

Republican leader Steve Scalise said Republicans would hold a contempt vote Wednesday if need be.

Unnamed sources familiar with the negotiations told Politico and The Hill that the committee wants the Clintons to accept the terms under which they were initially subpoenaed in the case — transcribed, filmed depositions with no time limits.

Bill Clinton, however, seeks to narrow the focus of the testimony to “matters related to the investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein.” He also didn’t want a transcribed interview, but instead a deposition under oath, and sought a 4-hour time limit.

Hillary Clinton sought a secondary sworn declaration instead of appearing in person for a deposition.

The committee issued subpoenas in August compelling the Clintons to testify. Bill Clinton is a former associate of the late Epstein but said he broke off relations with the disgraced financier in the early 2000s before his crimes became publicly known. Hillary Clinton has said she doesn’t recall ever speaking with Epstein.

Democrats have accused the Republican-led committee of trying to focus on the Clintons as part of President Donald Trump‘s pursuit of investigations of political rivals and to deflect from Epstein’s relationships with notable Republicans, including the sitting president.

US President Donald Trump is set to welcome Colombian President Gustavo Petro only weeks after threatening military action against the South American country.

South Korean stocks shot up by the most in six years Tuesday, rebounding from the previous session’s deep trough, as investors brushed off concerns over the newly nominated Federal Reserve chair and went bargain hunting. The Korean won also rose against the U.S. dollar.

The benchmark Korea Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI) climbed 338.41 points, or 6.84 percent, to close at a new high of 5,288.08, a sharp upturn from the previous day’s plummet.

It marked the steepest daily increase since March 24, 2020, when the index rose by 8.6 percent, according to data provided by the Korea Exchange (KRX), South Korea’s main bourse operator.

Trade volume was heavy at 666.5 million shares worth 29.3 trillion won (US$20.3 billion). Winners outnumbered losers 825 to 75.

Strong buying demand triggered the KRX to temporarily suspend stock purchases in early trading.

The temporary halt in trading, also known as a “sidecar” in Korea, came a day after the bourse operator issued a sidecar for sell orders, with the KOSPI plunging by more than 5 percent.

The last time when the KRX consecutively issued a sell-side and a buy-side sidecar was on April 7 and 8, following U.S. President Donald Trump‘s announcement of sweeping tariffs, Lee Kyoung-min, an analyst from Daishin Securities, said.

“As there was no change in the market’s fundamentals, the benchmark index recovered on bargain hunting,” he said.

On a similar note, JP Morgan raised its target for the KOSPI to a range of 6,000 to 7,500 in a report released Tuesday, citing strong delivery in other sectors, such as defense and shipbuilding.

Foreign and Institutional investors turned net buyers, scooping up 703.3 billion won and 2.2 trillion won of equities, respectively. Retail investors sold off a net 2.9 trillion won.

Large-cap shares ended higher across the board.

Market top-cap Samsung Electronics soared 11.37 percent to 167,500 won, while its rival SK hynix advanced 9.28 percent to 907,000 won.

Defense giant Hanwha Aerospace rose 4.84 percent to 1,299,000 won, top carmaker Hyundai Motor added 2.82 percent 491,500 won, and major financial group KB Financial closed up 3.81 percent to 138,800 won.

The local currency was quoted at 1,445.4 won against the greenback at 3:30 p.m., up 18.9 won from the previous session.

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.

Feb. 2 (UPI) — A federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status for Haitians in the United States, allowing at least half a million people from the island nation to remain in the country.

Judge Ana Reyes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a temporary stay for more than 500,000 people from Haiti, who have fled their home country because of the ongoing dangerous instability there, The New York Times and the Guardian reported.

In her 83-page decision, Reyes called the Trump administration’s justification for ending the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program for people from Haiti is flawed, noting that it ignores that “TPS holders already live here, and legally so.”

Congress created the TPS program in 1990 to provide protection for foreign nationals who are in the United States until their countries are safe to return to — be it because of natural disasters, armed conflicts or other dangerous situations — according to a 2025 report from the Congressional Research Service.

Based on current law, the Secretary of Homeland Security can designate people from countries experiencing some type of dangerous circumstances for at least 6 to 18 months, but can extend the time frame based on conditions in these people’s home countries.

As of March 2025, there were more than 1.3 million people in the United States granted TPS status from 17 countries, CRS reported.

Over the course of 2025, however, DHS has revoked TPS status for at least seven of the countries since President Donald Trump was inaugurated back into office in January 2025.

TPS protection for Haitians in the United States, as well as employment authorization, is scheduled to end on Tuesday, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website, but Reyes’ ruling puts that on hold for an unknown period of time.

Monday’s ruling comes on the heels of three judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week ruling against DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s efforts to end TPS protection not only for people in the U.S. from Haiti, but also from Venezuela.

On Monday evening, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Axios that the administration would appeal the ruling.

“Supreme Court, here we come,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. “Temporary means temporary and the final word will not be from an activist judge legislating from the bench.”

Feb. 3 (UPI) — U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Monday said she attended an FBI search of election offices in Georgia last week at the request of President Donald Trump, defending her and the Trump administration’s role in the law enforcement action against mounting Democratic criticism.

Gabbard has come under growing scrutiny since photographs surfaced showing her with FBI agents executing a search warrant at the Fulton County elections hub, where authorities seized documents related to the 2020 election.

Democratic concerns about alleged Trump administration efforts to undermine the upcoming midterm elections have been stoked by Gabbard’s unprecedented involvement in the raid at Fulton County, prompting House and Senate Democrats on their respective intelligence committees to demand she explain her role.

In a Monday letter addressed to Rep. James Himes, D-Conn., the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Gabbard said she accompanied FBI personnel “for a brief time” while they executed the search warrant.

“My presence was requested by the President and executed under my broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate and analyze intelligence related to election security, including counterintelligence, foreign and other malign influence and cybersecurity,” she said.

“ODNI’s Office of General Counsel has found my actions to be consistent and well within my statutory authorities as the Director of National Intelligence.”

In the letter, she told the Democrats that her office “will not irresponsibly share incomplete intelligence assessments,” but she would share them with Congress once they are completed.

Fulton County was the focal point of Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, which he lost to President Joe Biden. Trump and 18 others were later charged in Georgia for their alleged efforts to overturn the state’s results, a racketeering case that was dropped late last year following Trump’s return to the White House.

The letter came as The New York Times reported Monday that a day after the Wednesday raid, Gabbard arranged a phone call between the involved FBI agents and Trump.

“Tulsi Gabbard has no legal role in domestic law enforcement, yet 5 days ago she participated in an FBI raid of Fulton County, Georgia’s election office — the center of Trump’s 2020 election conspiracy theories,” Warner said on X on Monday.

“And now we find out that she orchestrated a call between Trump and the FBI agents conducting the raid? Something’s not passing the smell test…”

Gabbard confirmed the call in her letter Monday, stating: “While visiting the FBI File Office in Atlanta, I thanked the FBI agents for their professionalism and great work, and facilitated a brief phone call for the President to thank the agents personally for their work.”

“He did not ask any questions, nor did he or I issue any directive,” she added.

Cuban diplomat says Havana is ready for dialogue with Washington, but certain things are off the table, including the constitution and its socialist government.

Cuba and the United States are in communication, but the exchanges have not yet evolved into a formal “dialogue”, a Cuban diplomat has said, as US President Donald Trump stepped up pressure on Havana.

Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, Cuba’s deputy foreign minister, told the Reuters news agency on Monday that the US government was aware that Cuba was “ready to have a serious, meaningful and responsible dialogue”.

De Cossio’s statement represents the first hint from Havana that it is in contact with Washington, even if in a limited fashion, as tensions flared in recent weeks amid Trump’s threats against the Cuban government in the aftermath of the US military’s abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, Cuba’s longstanding ally.

“We have had exchange of messages, we have embassies, we have had communications, but we cannot say we have had a table of dialogue,” de Cossio said.

In a separate interview with The Associated Press news agency, De Cossio said, “If we can have a dialogue, maybe that can lead to negotiation.”

The deputy minister also stressed that certain issues are off the table for Cuba, including the country’s constitution, economy, and its socialist system of government.

On Sunday, Trump indicated that the US had begun talks with “the highest people in Cuba”.

“I think we’re going to make a deal with Cuba,” Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

Days earlier, Trump had referred to Cuba in an executive order as “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security, and warned other countries he would impose more tariffs on them if they supplied oil to Cuba.

On Monday, Trump reverted to issuing threats to Havana, announcing at the White House that Mexico “is going to cease” sending oil to Cuba, a move that could starve the country of its energy needs.

Mexico, which has yet to comment on Trump’s latest statement, is the largest supplier of oil to Cuba.

Mexico had repeatedly said that it would not stop shipping oil to Cuba for humanitarian reasons, but also expressed concern that it could face reprisals from Trump over its policy.

In recent weeks, the US has moved to block all oil from reaching Cuba, including from Cuba’s ally Venezuela, pushing up prices for food and transportation and prompting severe fuel shortages and hours of blackouts, even in the capital, Havana.

Responding to Trump’s threat regarding oil supplies, Cuba’s De Cossio said that the move would eventually backfire.

“The US… is attempting to force every country in the world not to provide fuel to Cuba. Can that be sustained in the long run?” de Cossio said to Reuters.

The US has imposed decades of crushing sanctions on Cuba, but a crippling economic crisis on the island and stepped-up pressure from the Trump administration have recently brought the conflict to a head.

These are the key developments from day 1,440 of Russia’s war on Ukraine

Here is where things stand on Tuesday, February 2:

Fighting

• The ‍Ukrainian ‍capital, Kyiv, came under attack early on ⁠Tuesday morning from ​Russian missiles, ‍Tymur Tkachenko, head of the city’s ‍military administration, ⁠said on the Telegram messaging app.
• Tkachenko said several apartment ​buildings ‌and an educational establishment had been damaged. Reuters news agency ‌witnesses reported ‌loud explosions ⁠in the city.

• A father and a son have been killed, and two children and their mother were wounded after Russia struck an area in the front line of the Donetsk region, according to regional authorities.

• A coal mining site in Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk region was attacked for the second time in 24 hours, according to the private energy producer DTEK. There were no immediate reports on casualties or damage to infrastructure.

Diplomacy and politics

• Russia has largely observed a ceasefire on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in his nightly video address on Monday, as Kyiv prepared for the next round of trilateral talks with the US and Russia, expected to begin on Wednesday.

• In a separate post on social media, Zelenskyy added that a recent “de-escalation” with Russia – an apparent reference to a brief ceasefire in attacks on energy facilities – was helping to build trust in the negotiations.

• Zelenskyy said in separate remarks that it was realistic to achieve a dignified and lasting peace, in advance of the next round of peace talks with Russian and US officials in the United Arab Emirates. He added that a deal on US security guarantees for Ukraine post-war is now “complete”.

• US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, will travel to Abu Dhabi for the talks with Russia and Ukraine on Wednesday and Thursday, a White House official said.

• Russia would regard the deployment of any foreign military forces or infrastructure in Ukraine as foreign intervention and treat those forces as legitimate targets, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow said, citing Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

• Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, said that a proposal by European powers to deploy NATO-member troops in Ukraine as part of a proposed security guarantee and peace deal was unacceptable for Russia.
• German authorities detained at least five people suspected of operating a network that exported goods to Russian defence companies, contravening EU sanctions imposed after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, federal prosecutors announced.

Sport

• FIFA President Gianni Infantino said he supports the reinstatement of Russia in the football federation and called for an end to the country’s four-year exclusion from international tournaments, including the World Cup in Qatar and the qualifying matches for the 2026 World Cup.
• Sport federations that claim sport is separate from politics should not include armed conflicts in that definition, because “war is a crime, not politics”, Ukrainian Minister of Sports Matvii Bidnyi said in an interview with the AFP news agency in advance of the Winter Olympics.

Energy

• Indian oil refiners will need a wind-down period to complete Russian oil deals before imports from that country can be halted, Reuters reported after Trump announced a trade agreement with India that included a halt to oil purchases from Russia.

• Ukraine’s electricity imports jumped by 40 percent in January 2026 compared with December 2025, hitting a record 894 gigawatt hours amid constant Russian attacks on the Ukrainian energy system, which have left millions of people without power and heating, Reuters reported, citing analysts.

• The EU’s decision last week to ban Russian gas imports was “100 percent legally sound”, the bloc’s energy commissioner, Dan Jorgensen, told reporters in Portugal’s capital, Lisbon, adding it would prevent Russia from weaponising energy amid its war on Ukraine.

United States President Donald Trump has announced the launch of a strategic minerals stockpile.

The stockpile, called Project Vault, was announced on Monday. It will combine $2bn of private capital with a $10bn loan from the US Export-Import Bank.

It is the latest move by the White House to invest in rare-earth minerals needed in the production of key goods, including semiconductor chips, smartphones and electric car batteries.

The aim is to “ensure that American businesses and workers are never harmed by any shortage”, Trump said at the White House.

The move to develop a strategic stockpile is the latest in a slew of efforts by the Trump administration to take control of the means of production for critical rare-earth materials to limit reliance on other countries, particularly China, which has held up its exports to gain leverage in negotiations with Trump.

Here’s a look at some of the investments the US government has made in this space.

What are the investments?

In 2025, the Trump administration acquired equity stakes in seven companies by converting federal grants into ownership positions. Among the investments is a 10 percent stake in USA Rare Earth, which plans to build rare-earth element and magnet production facilities in the US.

The project is supported by $1.6bn in funding allocated under the CHIPS Act, legislation passed during the administration of former Democratic President Joe Biden, aimed at reducing dependence on China for semiconductor manufacturing.

USA Rare Earth announced the investment last week and expects commercial production to begin in 2028.

The US government also acquired a roughly 10 percent stake, valued at about $1.9bn, in Korea Zinc to help fund a $7.4bn smelter in Tennessee through a joint venture controlled by the US government and unnamed US-based strategic investors, who would then control about 10 percent of the South Korean firm.

The venture will operate a mining complex anchored by two mines and the only operational zinc smelter in the US. Construction is set to begin this year, with commercial operations expected to start in 2029.

In October, the government announced a $35.6m investment to acquire a 10 percent stake in Canadian-based Trilogy Metals to support the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects (UKMP) in Alaska. The investment backs the development of critical minerals, including copper, zinc, gold, and silver, in Alaska’s mineral-rich northwest Ambler mining district.

Also in October, the US announced a 5 percent stake in Lithium Americas as part of a joint venture with General Motors (GM) to fund operations at the Thacker Pass lithium mine in Nevada. The project will supply lithium for electric vehicles and has attracted significant interest from the Detroit-based automaker.

In August, the White House acquired an almost 10 percent stake in Intel. The government’s investment in the semiconductor chip giant was an effort to help fund the construction and expansion of the company’s domestic manufacturing capabilities.

In July, the White House announced a 15 percent investment in MP Materials, which operates the only currently active rare-earth mine in the US, located in California. The largest federal stakeholder in the investment is the Department of War, then called the Department of Defense, which committed $400m.

The US is also reportedly exploring an 8 percent share in Critical Minerals for a stake in the Tranbreez rare-earths deposit in Greenland, underscoring Trump’s unsolicited attempts to acquire the Danish self-governed territory, the Reuters news agency reported.

Amid news of Trump’s stockpile plan, sector stocks are mixed. MP Materials and Intel are up 0.6 percent and 5 percent, respectively. Others finished out the day trending downwards. Lithium Americas is down 2.2 percent. Trilogy metals is down almost 2 percent, USA Rare Earth is down by 1.3 percent, and Korean Zinc finished down 12.6 percent.

Is this unusual?

The government buying equity stakes in large companies is unusual in US history, but not unprecedented.

During the 2008 financial crisis, the US government temporarily acquired equity stakes in several major companies through the Troubled Asset Relief Programme (TARP). In 2009, TARP provided federal assistance to General Motors, ultimately leaving the government with a more than 60 percent ownership share. This intervention began in the final months of the administration of former President George W Bush. The government fully sold its stake in GM in 2013.

Through TARP, the government also acquired a 9.9 percent stake in Chrysler, which it exited in 2011.

The programme extended beyond car makers to the financial sector. The US government took a more than 73 percent stake in GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation, now Ally Financial), exiting its ownership in 2014. It also acquired nearly 74 percent of the financial services insurance giant AIG, selling its remaining stake in 2012, and took a 34 percent stake in Citigroup, which it fully exited by 2010.

“This isn’t like 2008, when there was an urgent need to shore up critical companies. There’s a much more measured approach here. They [the US government] want these investments to generate returns, and they need to be seen as good investments in order to attract other forms of capital,” Nick Giles, senior equity research analyst at B Riley Securities, an investment banking and capital markets firm, told Al Jazeera.

During the Great Depression, the government bought stakes in several large banks. Before that, at the turn of the 20th century, it bought an equity stake in the Panama Railroad Company, which was responsible for building the railway that would be used during the construction of the Panama Canal. That equity stake was attached to a specific project rather than a more open-ended challenge, such as foreign dependence on critical minerals.

“There may not be a defined end date, but they’re clearly looking to make a return, and it sends an important signal that more is coming. I don’t think they [the government] are going to let this fail,” Giles added.

Political divide on the approach

Interest in providing funds to critical mineral projects was shared by Trump’s predecessor, Biden, who brought in the CHIPS Act for that purpose. Biden was focused on providing grants for projects rather than buying equity stakes.

Trump’s approach to buy stakes is actually more aligned with progressive Democrats than with members of his own party. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has long been a proponent of the US government buying equity stakes in companies.

In August, after the White House bought an equity stake in Intel, Sanders applauded the move.

“Taxpayers should not be providing billions of dollars in corporate welfare to large, profitable corporations like Intel without getting anything in return,” Sanders said at the time.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, a Republican known for his libertarian stances, called ownership a “terrible idea” and referred to it as a “step towards socialism” on CNBC. North Carolina’s Thom Tillis likened the Intel investment to something that countries like China or Russia would do.

For Babak Hafezi, professor of international business at the American University, the investments are a step to remove any reliance on China.

“Without domestic control and resiliency in both extraction and production, we are dependent on China, which extracts nearly 60 percent of global rare-earth minerals and produces 90 percent of it. This creates a major global chokepoint, and China can use this chokepoint as a means to dictate American Foreign policy via supply chain limitations,” he said.

“Thus, establishing free and open markets for US consumption is critical to remove any dependency.”