Donald Trump

Trump signs Iran agreement while in France

1 of 2 | President Donald Trump attends a press conference at the Hotel Royal during the G7 summit in Evian-les-Bains, France, on Wednesday. Photo by Yoan Valat/EPA

June 17 (UPI) — U.S President Donald Trump signed an agreement with Iran at the Palace of Versailles on Wednesday night while in France for the G7 Summit,

The United States sent an image of the signed agreement to the Iranians, officials said. Dan Scavino, White House deputy chief of staff, later posted a video of the signing on social media.

Earlier, the United States government released the text of the agreement, several days after the agreement was reached. The agreement was expected to be signed Friday in Switzerland.

It includes 14 points, including “the immediate and permanent termination of military operation on all fronts” — including Lebanon, where Israel continued to carry out strikes as of earlier Wednesday — provisions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz and measures for easing financial restrictions on Iran. It also offers expectations for addressing Iran’s nuclear program in future talks. CNN reported the text of the agreement, which was read out loud by an official.

Earlier Wednesday at a press conference in France, Trump had said that if Iran doesn’t abide by the memorandum of understanding, the United States may bomb the country.

The press conference lasted more than an hour, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick standing behind him.

Trump made the remark in his opening statement.

“If they don’t honor that, we’ll probably go back to bombing them until they honor it, you know?” he said. “It’s amazing what bombs can do.”

The president called the MOU the “Trump deal,” and said that the deal says Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, and the Strait of Hormuz will reopen.

He also said that if an agreement hadn’t been reached with Iran, the United States could have continued the war.

“If we didn’t do this deal, we could have dropped more bombs for another three weeks, two weeks, four weeks, two years,” Trump said.

The president also defended releasing Iranian frozen assets.

“We have taken a lot of their money,” Trump said. “We have taken their money; it’s not our money, it’s their money, and we froze it at a certain point in time. I guess we’re going to have to give it back.

“As far as sanctions are concerned, at some point, you know, we have sanctions, which will never let them rebuild. They would have no money. They would be in poverty.”

Trump has said the United States won’t give any money to Iran, but he defended allowing Iran access to its own frozen funds.

“We’re not doing anything; we’re not putting up money, only if they’re doing things right. If they’re doing things right, if people want to invest, they can invest, but they had this $300 million fund. It’s only $300 million fund; it’s only if they’re doing things right,” CNN reported Trump said.

A reporter asked if the president would hold anyone in the administration responsible for the bombing of an elementary school for girls in Iran in late February, and he replied that it was under investigation. The strike killed more than 170 people, mostly children.

Trump responded that it was a “strange question” and said, “You’re talking about a long time ago.”

“But nobody did that on purpose,” Trump said. “I guess you’d have to say about them, what about the thousands of soldiers that they blew up when they opened their car door? What about the thousands of people that were killed by Iran? No, mistakes are made, war is nasty, but I know it’s under investigation.”

Trump also offered a rare criticism of Israel, saying it could do better in its conflict with Lebanon.

“I think they could do better with respect to Hezbollah. I am not saying they should not protect themselves. I am saying when two drones are shot into the desert and dropped harmlessly, you do not have to knock down buildings in Beirut,” Trump said.

“They could behave better and, frankly, they could do a better job.”

“On that, I don’t think they’re doing well, and I feel very bad for Lebanon,” he said. “Lebanon’s been, you know, it was a great culture. It was a great, they had the professors, the doctors, the lawyers, it was an incredible culture, maybe the highest in the Middle East for years and years, centuries. And for the last 50 [to] 60 years, they have been just trashed. They have been, they have been living in hell.”

Source link

Diplomat confirms that US and Iran have signed MoU electronically | US-Israel war on Iran News

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, has announced that a memorandum of understanding with the United States has been finalised and signed electronically by both sides.

He added that the agreement has already gone into effect.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“The text of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding was finalised with the signatures of the presidents,” Baghaei told the news agency IRNA. “Now it is time to test the implementation of the agreement.”

Wednesday’s statement appears to confirm that the US and Iran have agreed to suspend military operations, paving the way for further negotiations.

Given that both sides signed the agreement electronically, Baghaei noted that there would be no signing ceremony on Friday in Geneva, Switzerland, as had previously been expected.

Negotiating teams, however, still plan to be in the Swiss city. A decision on a possible in-person meeting between them is expected in the coming hours, though for now such plans are paused, according to Baghaei.

While the office of US President Donald Trump has yet to issue a formal statement on the signing, Al Jazeera correspondent Mike Hanna explained that a White House spokesperson confirmed earlier in the day that it happened.

But Hanna warned that the memorandum is likely to face domestic backlash in the US, where Trump had been under right-wing pressure to take a hard line against Iran.

“There’s a great deal of dissatisfaction with the memorandum of understanding, as it has been outlined to the public at this particular point, even among some Republicans who have expressed the concern that Iran is being treated leniently,” Hanna said.

He also emphasised the administration’s position that the memorandum is not a full-fledged deal but rather a prelude to more negotiations.

“The administration is fighting hard to persuade the American public and American politicians that this is not a defeat for the United States,” Hanna said.

Since February 28, the US and Israel have been jointly engaged in a war against Iran, though a temporary ceasefire suspended much of the most intense fighting on April 8.

Trump has repeatedly said his goal in launching the war was to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Since the memorandum was revealed, he has highlighted the document’s assurances that Iran will not seek a nuclear weapon, though Tehran has long denied any intention of doing so.

But according to a US account, the memo goes beyond the question of nuclear weapons. It sets up a 60-day timeline for a final deal to be struck, and it indicates that the US will rally “regional partners” to create a $300bn for Iran’s reconstruction.

US sanctions would also work towards lifting its sanctions against Iran, and the country would issue waivers for the export of Iranian fuel.

Iran has touted those terms as a victory. On Wednesday, chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf told Fars, an Iranian state news agency, that the US had failed to achieve its goals with Iran and pointed to the memo as proof.

“The agreement is a record of US failure,” Ghalibaf said. “People will see it and judge.”

He also explained that the Strait of Hormuz would not return to “pre-war conditions” after the 60-day period for negotiations stipulated in the agreement. He suggested that Iran will expect payments for use of the waterway.

“I emphasise again that the Strait of Hormuz will never return to the previous conditions,” Ghalibaf said.

“Iran has the right to sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, and of course, we will receive a fee for services.”

That position is likely to put pressure on the Trump administration, which had pledged that the strait, a key waterway for trade, would be “permanently toll-free”.

Since the start of the war, Iran has blocked the waterway, sending global prices for fuel, fertiliser and other goods soaring.

The US had responded with its own blockade of Iranian ports, though that effort is slated to end under the memorandum.

Both sides, however, have emphasised that the memorandum of understanding is not a final agreement on all issues of dispute. More negotiations are expected to resolve lasting impasses.

“It will only become a deal, as such, at the end of the 60-day negotiation period. At least, that’s the intention,” Hanna reported.

Source link

Trump pushes to delay appointment of new spy chief in legislative standoff | Donald Trump News

Trump says plan to keep controversial acting DNI head, Bill Pulte, in role as he pushes for surveillance, voter ID law.

United States President Donald Trump has delayed the confirmation of his nominee for director of national intelligence (DNI), while calling for lawmakers to pass legislation on surveillance and voter identification requirements.

Trump made the announcement in a Truth Social post on Wednesday, saying he planned to keep acting DNI Bill Pulte in the role and postpone the confirmation of his nominee, Jay Clayton.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Clayton had been scheduled to appear for a Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday afternoon before Trump forced the delay by directing him to not appear.

The president cited his desire to pressure Democrats to pass a controversial surveillance law and a measure requiring voter identification, as well as his wish not to remove Clayton from his post as federal prosecutor until his replacement was confirmed.

“In the meantime, Bill Pulte will remain as the Acting Director of National Intelligence,” Trump said.

The US president’s nomination last week of Clayton had been a welcome relief to many lawmakers, including prominent Republicans, who raised concerns about Pulte and his lack of experience.

A Trump loyalist and housing official, Pulte had never held intelligence or military positions. The DNI oversees Washington’s 18-agency intelligence community.

Clayton, in contrast, currently serves in what is considered one of the Department of Justice’s most prestigious posts: He works as the US attorney for the southern district of New York in Manhattan.

The DNI vacancy emerged after Tulsi Gabbard announced her resignation in May, citing her husband’s cancer treatment.

FISA and voter identification

Clayton’s confirmation was meant to be fast-tracked to win Democrats’ support for a controversial provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is currently up for renewal.

Section 702 of the law allows spy agencies to collect the communications of targeted foreigners located outside the US without first acquiring a warrant. Civil rights advocates have condemned the tool, saying it exposes US citizens to the government indirectly collecting their data.

Democrats had pledged not to renew the provision if Pulte remained in his role.

In his post, Trump maintained that Clayton could be confirmed before the vote on FISA, giving Democrats the opportunity to change their position.

Trump also added another condition, saying he would not approve FISA without lawmakers also passing a law requiring voter IDs in US elections. The legislation has been a key priority for Trump in advance of the midterm elections in November, but he has not been able to overcome a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

“Therefore, to add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it,” Trump said in his Truth Social post.

Despite the statements, Republican Senator Tom Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, initially said he would proceed with Clayton’s confirmation hearing on Wednesday unless Trump withdrew his nomination or ordered him not to appear.

Trump ultimately did direct Clayton to skip the hearing. That, in turn, forced Cotton to postpone the hearing. Afterwards, the senator issued a statement expressing regret at the circumstances.

“It’s regrettable that the president has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today,” Cotton said in a statement.

“Mr. Clayton is a patriot and a highly qualified nominee, as the president has said repeatedly. While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future.”

Democrats, meanwhile, described the situation as chaotic.

“At every turn, the president has injected more uncertainty into a process that should be focused on one thing: keeping the American people safe,” Senator Mark Warner said in a statement.

“The president’s latest intervention only underscores a simple reality: the biggest obstacle to resolving these issues has not been Senate Democrats or Senate Republicans. It has been the chaos and confusion coming from the White House itself.”

Source link

Warsh takes the helm: What to watch as the Fed weighs its rate decision

Published on

The era of Chair Warsh begins in earnest this Wednesday, as US President Donald Trump’s pick to run the Fed presides over his debut rate decision and steps before the cameras for his first press conference in the role.


ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

Few economists anticipate dramatic action on day one, but the meeting carries unusual weight for what it might reveal about the months ahead.

Policymakers are expected to hold the benchmark rate steady at a target range of 3.50% to 3.75%, which would mark the fourth consecutive meeting without a move. The committee cut 25 basis points in December 2025.

The bigger question is the language, with officials potentially revising their post-meeting statement to drop any hint that the next step will be a reduction, signalling instead that rates may stay elevated for some time, or even rise should inflation prove sticky.

Warsh inherits a far less accommodating picture than the one he faced when he was widely seen as campaigning for the job last year.

At that time, he argued forcefully for lower rates, echoing US President Donald Trump’s demands, and pointed to AI as a force that could expand the economy’s productive capacity and tame prices over time.

Many economists doubted that thesis even then, noting that the surge of investment in semiconductors and computing equipment was adding to inflationary pressure rather than easing it.

A changed economic backdrop

Inflation has indeed accelerated since the outbreak of the Iran war in late February, climbing to a three-year high of 4.2%, driven largely by costlier petrol.

US President Donald Trump has announced a framework for a peace deal that could end the conflict, but it is unclear whether the truce will hold, and prices for fuel, groceries and airfares could take months to cool even if Middle Eastern oil flows freely again.

By the Fed’s preferred gauge, inflation has now run above its 2% target for more than five years. Hiring, meanwhile, has remained resilient.

May brought 172,000 new jobs, a third straight month of solid gains, removing much of the rationale for the two rate cuts the Fed had pencilled into its January projections.

Because the rate itself looks settled, attention turns to the Fed’s updated Summary of Economic Projections and its closely watched “dot plot”, the quarterly projection of future interest rates.

According to Bank of America economist Aditya Bhave, the new dot plot could show the Fed keeping rates on hold for the rest of 2026, with at least three of the committee’s 12 voting members potentially pencilling in rate hikes this year.

Communication is the other wildcard. Warsh has argued that the central bank should speak less often and keep a lower profile, on the view that publicly stated positions can trap policymakers into defending them well past their usefulness.

One option would be to thin out the calendar of press conferences, reverting to the every-other-meeting rhythm favoured by Ben Bernanke, who chaired the Fed from 2006 to 2014, when the format was introduced. Leaner guidance, however, risks unsettling markets long accustomed to clear direction.

Adding intrigue, predecessor Jerome Powell remains on the board as a governor, a seat he can hold until January 2028, and is expected to vote on Wednesday’s decision, denying the Trump administration an additional vacancy to fill.

Additional sources • AP

Source link

Trump-backed Mike Collins wins Georgia Senate GOP runoff

June 17 (UPI) — Rep. Mike Collins was projected Tuesday night to win Georgia’s Republican Senate primary runoff, defeating former football coach Derek Dooley as voters cast ballots in contests across the country.

The Collins-Dooley race was the highest-profile race on a primary night.

President Donald Trump has loomed large over November’s midterm elections, encouraging GOP-led states to redraw congressional maps, warning of impeachment and investigations if Democrats win control of the House and endorsing candidates who align with his agenda.

The Georgia Senate runoff drew national attention as a race that could help decide control of the Senate and test Trump’s influence in a battleground state.

Collins of Georgia’s 10th Congressional District ran with Trump’s endorsement, while Dooley had the support of Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.

With all 159 localities reporting, Collins had secured 55.5% of the vote to Dooley’s 44.4%, according to unofficial results from the office of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Collins, speaking to supporters Tuesday night, projected an image of GOP unity, stating he had spoken with both Dooley, thanking him for running a “spirited campaign,” and Kemp “for his leadership and his friendship over the years.”

“We’re going to have some robust primaries out there. Sometimes, we got some strong disagreements, but I can tell you we stand united around one mission,” he said to applause.

“That’s right. And y’all know what the mission is: Is to put a Republican in that seat and get rid of that Jon Ossoff in November.”

Ossoff, a Democrat, won the Senate seat in 2021, flipping control of the chamber from the Republicans.

In his victory speech, Collins attacked Ossoff for voting in favor of President Joe Biden‘s landmark Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan as well as voting against banning transgender athletes from competing in female-segregated sports.

Following Collins’ victory, Ossoff attacked him on social media, calling him a “notorious bigot, antisemite and extremist” who is being investigated by the House Committee on Ethics for illegal misuse of tax dollars.

“Collins, who is only a congressman because his daddy was a congressman, voted to double health insurance premiums for more than a million Georgians, for the Iran War and for the Trump tariffs,” he said in a statement.

Dooley conceded defeat.

“While tonight didn’t go our way, I want you to know that I’ll continue to be in this fight,” he said on social media.

“No matter who you voted for or what you believe, one thing we all can agree on is Jon Ossoff does not represent our Georgia values. In November, we’re sending him to the bench!”

Trump endorsed Collins on Friday after early voting ended, while Kemp endorsed Dooley in August.

But Tuesday night was not a clean sweep for Trump-backed candidates in Georgia. Rick Jackson, the billionaire founder of Jackson Healthcare, was poised to defeat Trump-endorsed Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones in the GOP governor runoff race.

According to unofficial results, Jackson had secured 52.65% of the vote share to Jones’ 47%.

The Georgia governor’s mansion is up for grabs as Kemp, a Republican, has been term limited. He faced Democrat Stacy Abrams in the last two gubernatorial elections.

Jones had won 38% of the vote in the primary election last month. Jackson received 32% of the vote. The runoff was scheduled as neither candidate surpassed the 50% threshold needed to win the GOP nomination outright.

Joe Fisher contributed reporting.

Source link

Sensing opportunity, Newsom touts investigation he says is Trump’s doing

Gov. Gavin Newsom did something this week that most politicians would only in a nightmare: He announced that the federal government is investigating him and his wife.

The revelation, delivered in a direct-to-camera 4½-minute video set against a backdrop of U.S. and California flags, became a top headline across the country.

In the upside-down politics of the Trump era, that was exactly as intended.

“He seems to be wearing this as a badge of honor because his brand is being the strongest opponent of Donald Trump,” said Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at UC San Diego. “The ability to show that you’re going on offense and that you know how to effectively fight back against this president is part of making your case for office.”

As he eyes a run for president in 2028, an antagonistic relationship with President Trump is Newsom’s political currency.

So when friends and former employees said the FBI and Internal Revenue Service had knocked on their doors and asked about him and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, last Wednesday, the governor took advantage of the situation to boost his political profile.

“Mr. President, come after me,” Newsom said in the video he posted online. “I’m not going anywhere, and the country is watching.”

Newsom, who is in his final year as California’s governor, has not declared his intent to run for president, though his claim that Trump is targeting him because he’s considering a bid for the White House was an open acknowledgment of his thoughts about the future. Announcing the probe himself — before federal authorities had a chance to describe it on their terms — allowed him to get ahead of and try to discredit any findings as a “personal vendetta” long before potential charges are brought.

Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist and national pollster, said Newsom publicly defending his wife could also play well with voters.

“He’s positioned himself as the front-runner because he’s the one who’s under attack,” Lake said. “Primary voters love it when he engages Trump, and I think the combination of engaging Trump and then also the sexism of going after your wife is just a real home run for a primary electorate that’s 59% female.”

The video released Monday seemed similar to a speech Newsom delivered after Trump sent federal troops to Los Angeles last summer.

That address, in which he countered Trump’s version of events and challenged the president to come after him instead of women and child immigrants, made Newsom the captain of the Democratic response to the unprecedented deployment and ended his attempt to play the part of respectful statesman and ease political tensions following the 2024 election.

Liberals have since seemed to relish Newsom’s near-constant derision of the president on social media.

But David McCuan, a professor of political science at Sonoma State University, said casting the case as another instance of Trump’s political weaponization ignores questions about the murky timeline and origin of the investigation.

Newsom’s aides point to Trump saying that the governor should be arrested during last summer’s anti-ICE protests as evidence that he personally called for the inquiry. The claim has gained oxygen — and been echoed by other Democratic leaders in the state — while going largely unchallenged by federal officials. The Justice Department has declined to comment, as has the White House.

A source familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly, said two federal probes have been going on for about a year, and that they originated not from Washington, D.C. but from conversations between whistleblowers and federal prosecutors based in Sacramento. The probes are linked to Newsom’s former chief-of-staff, Dana Williamson, and Siebel Newsom’s taxes, the source said.

Newsom’s critics have also noted that federal prosecutors under the Biden administration had pursued questions about his involvement in a state lawsuit against Activision Blizzard Inc., a major video game distributor, before Trump retook office.

“This is something that could lead to other elements that blow up, so there’s a risk,” McCuan said.

Newsom’s aides described the investigation as a fishing expedition, with federal authorities searching for anything they can use against the governor.

They said federal authorities appeared to initially investigate allegations that turned up nothing about the Activision case before refocusing their questions on nonprofits and other entities tied to the couple. Investigators also asked about personal information related to the family’s household, Newsom’s office said.

McCuan said three nonprofits that surround the couple have received millions of dollars from donors and political interests and are not subject to campaign finance limits.

The California Partners Project is a nonprofit that promotes gender equity. The Representation Project is an avenue for Siebel Newsom’s documentary films. The California State Protocol Foundation uses private donations to pay for gubernatorial expenses and was founded under former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“It’s a long-running game,” McCuan said. “It’s just the Newsom first couple has perfected it and moved it forward.”

Newsom getting out ahead of prosecutors and framing their probes as nothing but a “witch hunt” — borrowing a phrase often used by Trump during his own previous prosecutions — carries risk.

If prosecutors do turn up evidence of wrongdoing, Newsom’s decision to parade his indignation could backfire.

Publicly challenging Trump also runs the risk that the president could instruct the Justice Department to dig in deeper on an investigation that might have otherwise petered out.

But Lake and others said there’s no placating Trump, who has targeted Newsom and other Democrats.

While traditional politics suggest facing federal charges could sink Newsom’s political ambitions, the rules have been thrown out under Trump.

“You know the last person who got tied up in courts on the campaign trail?” Kousser asked. “That was Donald Trump, and nothing elevated Donald Trump more than doing courthouse press appearances and being seen as the target of an unfair political prosecution.”

Source link

Brazilian court convicts Eduardo Bolsonaro of courting US interference | Jair Bolsonaro News

A panel on the Brazilian Supreme Court has voted to convict Eduardo Bolsonaro of lobbying the United States to interfere in the trial of his father, former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro.

On Tuesday, three of the four justices on the panel voted in favour of conviction, with one remaining justice yet to vote.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

They determined that Eduardo Bolsonaro’s actions amounted to coercion against Brazil’s justice system and sentenced him to four years and two months in prison.

“It wasn’t merely an expression of opinion or a political stance, but rather conduct that clearly threatened Brazilian authorities and Brazilian citizens themselves,” Justice Cristiano Zanin said, calling Eduardo Bolsonaro’s actions “illegitimate and criminal”.

The conviction is the latest legal setback for the Bolsonaro family, which remains a dominant force on Brazil’s political right.

Jair Bolsonaro is serving a 27-year prison sentence for his efforts to remain in power after losing the country’s 2022 election.

Prosecutors described his actions as an attempted coup. Bolsonaro and his family have portrayed the trial as a political witch-hunt.

The ex-president’s third son and a member of Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Bolsonaro has been active in his father’s defence.

In March 2025, he pledged that he would move to the US full time to “focus 100 percent” of his energy on “a single cause”: freeing his father.

Prosecutors accused him of mounting an illegal campaign to court US President Donald Trump and use foreign influence to pressure Brazilian officials to drop the case against Jair Bolsonaro.

 

Trump, an ally of Bolsonaro, had likewise tried to remain in office despite his loss in the 2020 election and has accused Brazilian officials of persecuting right-wing voices like Bolsonaro.

In July 2025, Trump issued a letter announcing 50 percent tariffs on certain Brazilian products, citing Jair Bolsonaro’s trial, specifically, as a reason.

“This Trial should not be taking place,” Trump wrote at the time. “It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY.”

Trump also issued an executive order sanctioning one of the Brazilian Supreme Court justices involved in the Bolsonaro case, Alexandre de Moraes, on the basis that he worked to “target political opponents” and “suppress dissent”.

He called de Moraes a “threat” to the US, and his administration later expanded the sanctions to include the justice’s family members, as well as other Brazilian judicial officials.

Brazil’s current president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has denounced those actions as an attempt to interfere in Brazil’s domestic affairs.

As relations with Lula grew more cordial, the Trump administration relaxed its tariffs against Brazil. In December, it also repealed the sanctions against de Moraes and his family.

Lula, meanwhile, visited the White House in May and praised what he described as a productive meeting with his US counterpart.

But it remains unclear what role Trump may seek to play in Brazil’s upcoming presidential elections.

The left-wing Lula is campaigning for a fourth term, and he is likely to face his stiffest competition from Jair Bolsonaro’s eldest son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro.

A CNT/MDA poll released on Tuesday projected that Lula would receive 49.3 percent of the vote in a run-off election against the senator’s 40.2 percent.

Flavio Bolsonaro has faced his own legal trouble in recent months, with police opening a probe in April into whether he defamed Lula. His connections to a disgraced banker have also raised media scrutiny.

Jair Bolsonaro, meanwhile, faced questions this week about the presence of a firearm in his home in Brasilia, where he is serving three months of his sentence on medical grounds.

Justice de Moraes likewise asked the elder Bolsonaro’s legal team to explain the presence of the weapon, which police discovered during a routine inspection on Monday.

A security guard for Bolsonaro initially said the 9mm Glock pistol was his own, but it was later revealed to be the ex-president’s.

De Moraes gave Bolsonaro’s legal team 24 hours to explain why “the convicted man kept a firearm at home”.

Source link

Candidates endorsed by Gov. Kemp, Trump face off in Georgia runoff

June 16 (UPI) — Voters are heading back to the polls in Georgia on Tuesday for primary election runoffs featuring one contest that pits President Donald Trump‘s endorsement against Gov. Brian Kemp‘s.

Among the key races that will be decided Tuesday is the race to see who will challenge Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in November’s midterm election. Trump has endorsed Rep. Mike Collins and Kemp endorsed Derek Dooley.

Kemp gave Dooley, a former college football coach, his endorsement in August. He reiterated his support in a social media post on Monday, asking voters to choose the “conservative fighter who will put Georgians first.”

Trump endorsed Collins on Friday after early voting ended. The president posted his endorsement on social media, calling Collins a “warrior and winner.”

Elsewhere on the ballot, Republican voters will choose their candidate for the state’s gubernatorial race. Kemp is a two-term governor and is in his last year serving in the office. He faced Democrat Stacey Abrams in the last two gubernatorial elections.

Lt. Gov. Burt Jones captured 38% of the vote in the primary election last month, falling short of the 50% threshold required to win. On the other side, billionaire Rick Jackson received 32% of the vote.

The winner of the Republican primary for the gubernatorial candidate will face Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms in November.

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters about restoring commercial fishing access to areas of the Pacific during a signing ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House on Thursday. Photo by Jim Lo Scalzo/UPI | License Photo

Source link

Brent crude oil falls below $80 per barrel; WTI continues to decline

1 of 2 | Crude carrier Universal Winner, a South Korean oil tanker operated by Korean shipping company HMM, reaches waters off the southeastern port city of Ulsan, South Korea, on June 10, about three weeks after exiting the Strait of Hormuz where it had been stranded amid tensions in the Middle East. Photo by Yonhap/EPA

June 16 (UPI) — Oil prices have fallen to their lowest levels since the start of the Iran war with Brent crude oil declining to less than $80 per barrel on Tuesday.

Brent crude oil, the international benchmark, traded for $79.96 on Tuesday morning. It is the first time since the war started that it has traded below $80 per barrel. It has since inched above the $80 mark to about $80.19.

The price of West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark, has dipped by about 3.8% on Tuesday to $77.71 per barrel.

Tuesday marks the second consecutive day of descending oil prices spurred along by Sunday’s announcement that the United States and Iran have come to terms on a peace agreement. Prior to the announcement, oil prices had risen by about 14% since the start of the war.

Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz after the United States and Israel launched attacks on Feb. 28. The United States later instituted a naval blockade on the strait, stopping any vessels using Iranian ports.

The terms of the peace deal have not been made public. The United States and Iran have electronically signed a preliminary agreement and are expected to officially sign off on the peace deal on Friday.

While oil prices have fallen significantly, gas prices have moved more slowly, dropping by three cents on Tuesday. The national average for a gallon of regular-grade gas is $4.04, AAA reports. Gas prices remain elevated by about 36% since the start of the war.

President Donald Trump said Sunday that the traffic on the Strait of Hormuz would resume immediately. However, it may still take weeks for operators on the strait to actually allow tankers to pass through.

About 20% of the Middle East oil trade uses the Strait of Hormuz.

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters about restoring commercial fishing access to areas of the Pacific during a signing ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House on Thursday. Photo by Jim Lo Scalzo/UPI | License Photo

Source link

S. Korea in consultations with U.S., Iran on Hormuz transit following peace deal

South Korea is consulting with the United States and Iran about navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. In this photo, the South Korean oil tanker Universal Winner arrives near Ulsan on June 10 after exiting the Strait. Photo by Yonhap

South Korea has begun consultations with the United States, Iran and other relevant countries regarding navigation through the Strait of Hormuz following the signing of a preliminary deal aimed at ending the monthslong war in the Middle East, the foreign ministry said Tuesday.

According to U.S. officials, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iran’s parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf inked the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would extend the countries’ ceasefire for 60 days, during which negotiations will take place to address nuclear and other issues to reach a final peace deal.

A large number of vessels, including two dozen South Korea-linked ships, have been stranded in the waterway, which Iran has effectively choked off with threats of missile and drone strikes amid the war.

“We are assessing the details related to maritime transit and have begun necessary communication with relevant countries, including the U.S. and Iran,” ministry spokesperson Park Il said during a regular press briefing.

According to Park, the government is closely monitoring a range of factors before making judgments on passage operations, including the presence of naval mines, the overall security situation in the strait and shipping traffic conditions.

He said the government will continue to prioritize the safety of South Korean vessels and sailors while working to ensure the smooth resumption of shipping.

Park added the government will also maintain close consultations with shipping companies in assessing developments in the region.

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.

Source link

US fuel prices to take ‘months’ to normalise after US-Iran deal to end war | US-Israel war on Iran News

The preliminary deal to end US-Israel war on Iran has sent oil prices tumbling to a three-month low amid hopes that the Strait of Hormuz will reopen.

But it could be months before American consumers see major relief at the petrol pump.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The closure of the strategic chokepoint disrupted global energy markets for more than three months, cutting off a major shipping route through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas normally passes.

On Sunday, US President Donald Trump said prices would “drop like a rock” once the strait reopens, a claim he has made multiple times in the past few weeks.

However, experts caution that a major decline in prices is unlikely to happen as quickly as Trump suggests.

While Asian markets rely more heavily on oil shipped through the Strait of Hormuz than North American markets, tighter supply and steady demand have pushed prices higher worldwide.

On Monday, petrol prices in the US remained above $4 per gallon (3.78 litres), averaging $4.06 nationwide, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA). This was a dip from a high in early May of $4.48 per gallon.

By comparison, prices stood at $2.98 per gallon on February 28, when the US and Israel first struck Iran, triggering a ripple effect across global energy markets.

Energy prices have risen sharply in the US in recent months, increasing 7.7 percent over the last two months alone, and are up 40 percent from a year ago, according to last week’s inflation report from the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics,

However, prices are beginning to fall, a dip that began as Washington and Tehran entered negotiations.

“The potential deal that the US and Iran agreed to over the weekend certainly could pave the way for even lower prices… in the next two to three days by what we saw over the weekend,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, which tracks petrol prices, told Al Jazeera.

But De Haan expects a plateau and says that consumers may not see gas prices at pre-war levels until 2027, even if the ceasefire holds.

“It may take many months, if not beyond a year, for global oil inventories to recover to pre-war levels,” De Haan said.

Amid strains on the supply chain, producers will also need time to ramp up output, while port bottlenecks and heightened demand during the busy summer travel season could delay any substantial relief for everyday consumers.

“There are some mitigating factors that are going to slow the decline in prices. There are a lot of organisations and companies that have to re-up their stockpiles [like the US’s strategic petroleum reserve] and fulfil contracts that have been on hold for the last few months,” John Deal, managing director of capital markets at the Post Oak Group investment bank, said.

Supply chain strains

Fixing kinks in the supply chain takes time.

Oil production slumped amid the war. More than 14 million barrels per day, or 14 percent of the world’s demand, has been shut, according to the International Energy Agency.

Deal said it would take time to get oil production back online.

“My sense is that there’s going to be sustained high demand through the summertime, and we probably won’t get back to pre-war levels [on petrol prices] until after the summer, maybe September or October,” Deal said.

Mark Jones, a professor of political science at Rice University, said that producers might be reluctant to bring full operations back online until they can see the ceasefire hold.

The agreement opening the blockade is for a 60-day negotiation period between the two countries.

“Many [producers] may be reluctant to restart production until they are convinced that the peace will hold, because the last thing they want to do is carry out the costly effort to restart production only to see the conflict revived and then have to shut it down once again,” Jones told Al Jazeera.

Getting production back online is also dependent on the impact individual producers have faced throughout the war.

Refineries that were shut as a precaution could reach as much as 95 percent capacity within 40-60 days, Vitol Bahrain’s head of research, Bader Nooruddin, told the Reuters news agency. Those damaged in the fighting could take much longer.

But bottlenecks at ports could be the biggest hurdle, according to Deal.

“There’s a lag time with shipping capacity. Shipping capacity is perhaps the most significant constraint,” Deal said.

This is because there are more than 500 ships still awaiting passage, according to shipping data from Kpler.

With the ships headed all over the world, it will take them weeks to reach their destinations, dock, and unload at the ports.

That also means a wave of empty ships is waiting in limbo for spots at ports to load cargo and ramp back up to normal operations.

Major shipping giants are in a holding pattern.

Norway’s Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Denmark’s Maersk both told Reuters that they have not changed their Middle East operations in the wake of the announcement.

During the war, there was limited passage through the Strait of Hormuz, with an average of 10 ships a day passing through, compared with 135 that normally transit the waterway, according to an analysis by Bloomberg.

“Tankers take months to reach their final destination and then come back again. So the ability to replenish the stocks is going to take until, I think, the early fall, just from a shipping perspective, to get back to the status quo that was in place before the conflict started,” Jones said, referring to the preferred term for the months of September through November in North America.

At the same time, US strategic reserves are running low, at their lowest levels since 1983. Reserves have tumbled by 18 percent since the war began.

“Demand might keep prices high through the summer as strategic reserves get refilled,” Deal added.

Jet fuel demand will also put pressure on consumers amid the normally busy JuneAugust travel season in the US.

“The war has really affected airlines and their ability to schedule and anticipate how the summer months are going to go,” Deal added.

In April, United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby said that airfares for the carrier may have to jump as much as 20 percent on higher fuel prices.

Grocery woes

The increase in prices is also hitting food budgets.

The most recent consumer price index report showed US inflation ticked up by 4.2 percent compared with this time last year. While inflationary pressures were mostly driven by fuel prices, the impact has still been felt at the grocery store.

Almost half of the world’s urea, which is used in fertiliser, is produced in the Gulf region and passes through the Strait of Hormuz. For American farmers, that means access to fertilisers for the next crop season is more expensive.

Tomato prices, already driven up by Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, have surged 40 percent in the last year amid rising transportation costs.

Lettuce prices rose by more than 16 percent in May, and the price of ground beef increased by about 12 percent compared with this time last year.

Jones warned that food prices may not go down.

“Many retailers, wholesalers, and producers will keep them where they are or only reduce them if forced to from a sales perspective. Unlike petrol, which tends to ebb and flow with the price of oil, prices for many other goods that have been adversely affected by all of this are much less likely to return to where they were prior to the start of the conflict,” Jones said.

“For groceries, for manufacturing goods, for anything that has gone up during the conflict, the price that is there now often becomes the new baseline from which prices move in the future.”

This can be compared with the COVID-19 pandemic period. When the pandemic stalled supply chains, producers increased prices. A 2024 investigation by the Federal Trade Commission found that retail grocers kept prices elevated after supply chain constraints brought on by the pandemic had eased.

“Some in the grocery retail industry seem to have used rising costs as an opportunity to further raise prices to increase their profits,” the report said.

Source link

Supreme Court will not take Carter Page’s lawsuit against James Comey

James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, testifies via videoconference during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 30, 2020. The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up former Trump adviser Carter Page’s lawsuit against Comey, it decided Monday. File Pool Photo by Stefani Reynolds/UPI | License Photo

June 15 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up former Trump adviser Carter Page’s lawsuit against former FBI director James Comey, it decided Monday.

Page sought to revive his lawsuit against Comey over errors and omissions made on warrant applications used to get permission to surveil him. The FBI wiretapped Page while it was investigating allegations against President Donald Trump‘s 2016 campaign colluding with Russia to interfere with the election.

Page’s lawsuit was dismissed by lower courts as they ruled he did not file his claims on time. Page alleges that the investigation into him harmed his reputation and cost him business opportunities.

The Trump administration paid Page $1.25 million in April to settle claims he made against the federal government.

The Justice Department said when announcing the agreement to settle with Page that the investigation into him was based on flawed information.

“No American should ever face covert and unlawful surveillance based on their political view,” a spokesperson for the Justice Department said in a statement.

Page has continued his attempts to sue Comey and seven others who served with the FBI during the investigation as individuals.

The Supreme Court released a list of cases it will and will not accept to its docket on Monday. The justices did not say why Page’s case has been denied.

Source link

World welcomes US-Iran ‘peace deal’ criticised by Israel | Donald Trump News

Governments across the world have welcomed the tentative deal between the US and Iran to end the war, calling it a major diplomatic breakthrough. But Israeli politicians have been quick to criticise it, claiming it would undermine Israel’s security.

Source link

Israel strikes Beirut, accuses Hezbollah of cease-fire violation

People stand near the site of an apartment targeted by an Israeli airstrike in Beirut’s southern suburbs on Sunday. Photo by Wael Hamzeh/EPA

June 14 (UPI) — The Israeli military launched an attack on Hezbollah targets in Beirut on Sunday, accusing the group of violating a cease-fire agreement earlier in the day and throwing an Iranian peace deal into question.

The Israeli strikes hit the southern suburbs of Beirut, specifically in Dahiyeh, a neighborhood where Hezbollah holds sway, The New York Times reported.

Lebanon‘s state-run news agency, NNA, reported that two people died and four others sustained injuries in the attack. A strike hit a residential building, the agency said, as reported by NBC News.

Lebanese security sources told NBC News that Israel fired two missiles in a targeted strike. Israel said it hit a Hezbollah command center used to “advance terrorist attacks against the citizens of the state of Israel and [Israel Defense Force] soldiers operating in southern Lebanon.”

Hours before the strike, the Israeli military accused Hezbollah of violating a cease-fire by firing toward Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz issued a joint statement confirming they ordered the strike.

“Israel will not tolerate fire into its territory,” they said.

Sunday’s violence between Israel and Lebanon could complicate U.S. and Iranian negotiations for a peace deal. The United States and Pakistan — which has acted as a mediator — said Saturday the agreement was ready to be signed Sunday in an additional round of talks, but Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there were no plans for Iran’s negotiators to be involved in any talks for the next few days.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s speaker of parliament and chief negotiator with the United States, accused Washington of “giving the green light” to Israel for its attack on Dahiyeh.

“The game of bad cop and good cop is outdated,” he said in a post on X.

“If you lack the will and ability to fulfill your commitments, speaking of continuing the path is not possible.”

President Donald Trump was apparently incensed about Sunday’s attack and issued a rare rebuke against Netanyahu — saying he has “no [expletive] judgment” — in comments to Axios.

Trump called on Israel and Hezbollah to stand down in a post on Truth Social.

“This morning’s attack on Beirut should not have happened, particularly on a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran,” he wrote. “Israel has the right to defend itself against threats, but the attack it was responding to was very small and meaningless, nobody was hurt, injured, or killed, and should not disrupt this important process.

“This could be the beginning of a long and beautiful peace — Let’s not blow it!”

Source link

Oil drops to $80 a barrel and markets rise as Trump touts peace agreement with Iran

Published on

Crude prices retreated on Monday as US President Donald Trump confirmed a peace agreement with Iran and both sides announced a lifting of their respective blockades of the Strait of Hormuz.


ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

At the time of writing, the front month contract on US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude was down almost 6% from Friday’s close to roughly $80 per barrel, while Brent crude, the international standard, dropped around 5% to about $83 per barrel.

The specific concessions made by each side are still unclear and there are questions surrounding whether the Prime Minister of Israel will respect the withdrawal of troops from southern Lebanon, which, according to the Prime Minister of Pakistan is included in the deal.

Benjamin Netanyahu has yet to publicly address the US-Iran deal, or the issue of Lebanon, and CNN has reported that the Prime Minister of Israel is seeking an urgent meeting with US President Donald Trump after this week’s G7 summit.

Nonetheless, markets are reacting swiftly to the prospect of the Strait of Hormuz slowly reopening and the potential that the Iran war is closer to ending than reigniting.

The freshly announced peace deal is currently expected to be signed on Friday.

European, Asian and US markets

At the open, European markets also rose on the news that there is meaningful progress in ending the Iran war.

Both the Euro Stoxx 50 and the broader pan-European Stoxx 600 traded over 1% higher at the start of Monday’s session.

The UK’s FTSE 100, Germany’s DAX 30, Italy’s FTSE MIB, Spain’s IBEX 35, the Netherlands’ AEX and Switzerland’s CH20, all traded between 0.5% and 1% higher than their Friday close.

France’s CAC 40 led the pack and rose almost 1.5%.

In the US, S&P500 futures traded over 2% higher and the teach-heavy Nasdaq 100 rose more than 3%.

In other trade dealings on Monday, Asia-Pacific markets jumped overnight with South Korea’s Kospi climbing over 5%, recovering from a 4% drop on Friday, while Japan’s Nikkei 225 also traded roughly 3% higher.

Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 rose 0.8%, while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index jumped about 0.5% and Shangai’s SSE climbed over 1.5%.

Source link

Iran war day 108: Iran, US reach a tentative deal to end conflict | Conflict News

US President Donald Trump and Iranian leaders say a deal has been agreed to end more than 100 days of war that killed thousands.

United States President Donald Trump and Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on Sunday that they had reached an initial deal to end the war and to resume traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump said the deal allows for toll-free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed since the US and Israel launched an assault on Iran on February 28.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday.

The US and Iran will sign a memorandum of understanding in Switzerland on Friday, said the prime minister of Pakistan, whose country has served as a mediator.

Monday marks 108 days since the war began, with the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran. Here is what’s happening:

What we know about the deal

  • The content of the agreement, which follows weeks of fraught negotiations and periodic threats from Trump of new hostilities unless Iran reaches a deal, remained unclear.
  • Strait of Hormuz to reopen: Iran’s semi-official Mehr news agency said the draft deal called for reopening the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days under Iranian arrangements. Trump, who turned 80 on Sunday, said the deal allows for toll-free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed since the US and Israel launched an assault on Iran on December 28.
  • Frozen assets to be released: Iran’s Mehr news agency reported that the US would release $12bn in frozen assets to Iran before the start of negotiations.
  • Iran’s enriched uranium: In an interview with The New York Times on Sunday, Trump said Washington was still negotiating whether Iran would suspend its enrichment for 20 years. Trump hinted that he might settle for a 15-year suspension, but said he did not want to negotiate via the press.
  • Israel has not commented: There has been no official comment from Israel about the peace agreement.

In Iran

  • The secretariat of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said on Monday that the deal with the US includes the immediate suspension of hostilities on all fronts. “Based on the agreements reached, the war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, will end immediately and permanently as of tonight, and in addition, the naval blockade against Iran will end immediately and completely,” it said in a statement.

In the US

  • Democrats slam Trump over war: While Democratic lawmakers welcomed the deal, they criticised the Trump administration’s decisions pertaining to the war. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said that while the deal moves the situation in the “right direction”, several questions remain. He warned that competing interpretations of what was agreed upon could pose risks. Senator Chris Murphy, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the deal is a “surrender to Iran” but that the US should be “glad about it because every day this insane, illegal war continues, we get weaker”.

In Lebanon

  • Trump rebukes Israeli attack on Beirut: On Sunday, shortly before the deal was announced by Trump, Israel launched an air attack on Beirut. Trump angrily blamed Israel for delaying the deal’s signing after launching this attack. In an expletive-laden phone interview with US news outlet Axios, Trump fumed about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying: “I was so pissed off. I let him know.”

Global response

  • Western leaders praise deal: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was ready to aid the further technical talks between the US and Iran, adding that he hopes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz will stabilise energy markets.
  • French President Emmanuel Macron also praised the deal and said Paris would support the Lebanese government.
  • European Union chief Antonio Costa welcomed a deal between the US and Iran to end the Middle East war, adding that the bloc was ready to contribute to a strategy for “lasting peace”.
  • UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said it was a “critical step” towards resolving the war in the Middle East.

Global economy

  • Oil prices drop: Oil prices slipped to their lowest since March on Monday, with global benchmark Brent crude futures falling $4.08, or 4.7 percent, to $83.25 a barrel by 04:15 GMT. US West Texas Intermediate was at $80.53, down $4.35, or 5.1 percent. Both contracts fell to their lowest levels since March 10 on Monday after tumbling more than 3 percent on Friday.
  • Asian markets soar: Markets in Japan soared, more than 5 percent up; in South Korea, they were up 5.3 percent; in Taiwan, they were up 2.4 percent. In Shanghai, they were up 1.3 percent; and in Hong Kong, they were up half a percent; while in Indonesia, they were up 2.07 percent; and in the Philippines, they were up 5.2 percent.

Source link

Thousands protest as Trump, other world leaders set to meet for G7 summit | Protests News

Activists rally in Geneva to denounce policies of G7 countries ahead of group’s annual meeting this week in France.

Thousands of protesters have gathered in Geneva ahead of this week’s Group of Seven (G7) summit, which is set to bring together United States President Donald Trump and other world leaders in nearby France.

The demonstration on Sunday was led by the so-called “No-G7” coalition, which is comprised of more than 60 associations and groups, including Palestinian rights advocates, feminist activists and environmentalists.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“We are very afraid of the policy and the politics of Mr Trump and also of the other leaders of the G7, because they are fighting, making war all over the place,” said Francoise Nyffeler, a spokesperson for the coalition.

“The planet is in danger, and we are very scared about it and we want to protest and say that the people of the world are against their policies,” she added.

Swiss and French authorities have deployed thousands of police to provide security for the three-day summit, which begins on Monday in the French resort town of Evian-les-Bains.

Authorities have blocked off roads, banned unauthorised gatherings, and pledged financial support for businesses that could be hit by unrest.

A woman holds a sign which reads "G7-mental age years" as she participates in a "No G7" demonstration in Geneva, Switzerland, Sunday, June 14, 2026, ahead of the G7 summit scheduled to take place June 15-17. (AP Photo/Baz Ratner)
Protesters gather at the ‘No G7’ demonstration in Geneva, Switzerland [Baz Ratner/AP Photo]

Scores of businesses and shops have boarded up their storefronts with wooden panels as a precaution, leery of upheaval that left a trail of damage in Geneva during a similar summit in Evian in 2003.

Reporting from the protest in Geneva on Sunday, Al Jazeera’s Natacha Butler said demonstrators had denounced the G7 as being “all about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer”.

“They say the club of wealthy nations doesn’t represent the global population; that their policies and decisions have a negative impact on the world in terms of climate, equal rights and poverty,” Butler said.

Questions about the legitimacy of the G7 – which includes the US, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom – are not new.

The group of countries previously accounted for 70 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) – a figure that has shrunk to just 40 percent – while representing one-tenth of the global population.

In a sign that global power dynamics are shifting dramatically, other global groups also are growing. The BRICS countries – which include India, Russia and China – have doubled their bloc’s number of members from five to 11.

While G7 summits regularly draw protests, this year’s event also comes amid global frustration with Trump’s leadership on issues as diverse as tariffs, the US-Israeli war on Iran, and the climate crisis.

Demonstrators had been gathering for days in advance of Sunday’s march in Geneva.

A flotilla of around 20 boats appeared on Lake Geneva off the coast of Evian on Saturday, displaying anti-G7 and pro-Palestinian banners. Some 20 protesters were detained on Friday evening, according to Swiss media reports.

Source link

Trump makes endorsement in key Georgia Republican US Senate run-off | US Midterm Elections 2026 News

Donald Trump picks Mike Collins over Derek Dooley in race to determine who will face Democrat Jon Ossoff in November midterms.

United States President Donald Trump has made a late endorsement in a Republican run-off for a key US Senate race in Georgia ahead of the US midterm elections.

In a post on his Truth Social account, Trump threw his support behind US Representative Mike Collins over former football coach and political newcomer Derek Dooley.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Collins and Dooley will face off in a Republican run-off race on Tuesday to determine who will challenge incumbent Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, in the midterm election in November.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump praised Collins for being a staunch supporter of his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement and a “true friend, fighter, and WARRIOR”.

Ossoff entered office in 2021 as part of a blue wave in Georgia that saw the majority of the state vote for former US President Joe Biden, as well as his fellow Democrat, Senator Raphael Warnock.

Georgia, which had for decades been dominated by Republicans, swung back towards Trump in the 2024 vote. Defeating Ossoff is seen as one of the Republicans’ best chances at claiming a new seat in the 100-member chamber, where they are hoping to hold on to their slim 53-seat majority.

Democrats are hoping to win control of both the House and the Senate in November, which would create a major bulwark against Trump’s agenda during his final two years in office.

Republican divides

Trump’s endorsement pits Collins against Georgia’s Republican Governor Brian Kemp, who has supported Dooley.

Kemp has remained generally supportive of Trump, but has faced off with him on several issues, notably Trump’s evidence-less claims that the 2020 election in Georgia was marred by fraud.

Dooley has said he did not vote in 2016 or 2020 when Trump was on the ballot, and has maintained that the election results in Georgia were legitimate.

Collins carried about 40 percent of the vote during Georgia’s Republican primary on May 19, with Dooley taking about 30 percent. Representative Buddy Carter, who did not advance to the run-off, came in a close third.

It remains unclear how big of an impact Trump’s endorsement will have. He made the announcement after early voting had already ended for the run-off.

Trump’s endorsements have seen mixed results in the primary season.

Trump’s decision to back Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was seen as aiding in the MAGA loyalist’s defeat of US Senator John Cornyn in Texas’s primary run-off.

Cornyn had widely been viewed as the strongest Republican candidate to take on Democratic challenger James Talarico in the general election.

In Iowa, Trump’s late endorsement of US Representative Randy Feenstra did not give him the bump needed to defeat fellow Republican Zach Lahn in the gubernatorial primary race.

Beyond the run-off in Georgia, Alabama will also hold several primary run-offs on Tuesday. That includes a Republican race for the solidly red seat of US Senator Tommy Tuberville, who is running for governor.

Oklahoma and the federal district of Washington, DC, will also hold primary votes.

Source link

Judge extends block on Trump administration ‘anti-weaponization’ fund

A judge on Friday permanently blocked President Donald Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund because, despite administration officials’ statements that the fund will not be enacted, she does not believe them. Photo by Samuel Corum/UPI | License Photo

June 12 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday extended an order to indefinitely block President Donald Trump‘s $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund because she does not trust the administration’s word that it will not attempt to enact it.

The fund was announced last month and meant to compensate people the Trump administration alleged were targeted by the Biden administration, including people who were convicted for their actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.

Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia in her ruling blocked Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Jr., and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent from taking “any action to create or operate” the fund and that they not proceed with the concept “in any manner, or under any name.”

Brinkema’s ruling builds atop one from Washington, D.C., Judge Richard Leon that they do not believe the administration will not attempt to distribute money in the scheme.

Both judges indicated that they do not believe that the Department of Justice will back off from the plan because no officials from the agency have said they would do so while sworn in and under penalty of perjury.

“When the President of the United States says” that he wants something, referring to Trump, Brinkema said “that’s a pretty good indicator there will be an incentive and motive to make it happen,” CNN reported.

Even with the fund having been on hold for the last week, at least one person already has attempted to file a claim, to which the federal court responded that it is “not accepting applications”

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters about restoring commercial fishing access to areas of the Pacific during a signing ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House on Thursday. Photo by Jim Lo Scalzo/UPI | License Photo

Source link

Trump, Pakistan say peace deal to be signed Sunday; Iran doesn’t agree

June 13 (UPI) — President Donald Trump and Pakistan have said that a memorandum of understanding extending the cease-fire between the United States and Iran will be virtually signed Sunday, though Iran has not confirmed the meeting.

Trump posted on Truth Social at 12:45 p.m. EDT Saturday: “The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL.”

He also posted a screenshot of a Saturday morning tweet by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif: “We are closer to a peace deal than ever before. With finalization expected in the next 24 hours, Pakistan is preparing for the electronic signing of the peace deal immediately after, followed by technical level talks next week.”

The Pakistani foreign minister confirmed that the signing was set for Sunday, Axios reported.

But Iran said there were no talks planned for Sunday. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said there were no plans for an Iranian negotiating team to travel to Geneva or elsewhere in the next day or two, according to IRIB, Iran’s state broadcaster, The New York Times reported. While Iran could also sign electronically, it’s unclear if the signing event will happen.

One of the main reasons the signing will be virtual is that Vice President JD Vance, who has been negotiating the peace deal, wouldn’t be able to go to the signings and be back in the United States before Trump leaves for the G7 summit in France Monday, Axios said.

Also, Sunday is the president’s 80th birthday and the day of the UFC fight on the White House lawn.

Source link

Trump says Iran deal to be signed tomorrow, contradicting Iranian official | US-Israel war on Iran News

United States President Donald Trump has said an initial agreement to end the US-Israeli war with Iran is “scheduled to get signed tomorrow”.

But that announcement, made on Trump’s Truth Social account on Saturday, contradicts an earlier statement by Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

In remarks carried by Iran’s IRNA news agency, Baghaei said a memorandum of understanding would not be signed on Sunday and that negotiators are not planning to travel immediately to Geneva, Switzerland, in preparation for such an event.

According to Baghaei, a signing could happen “in the coming days”.

Hours later, Trump wrote, “The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL.” Sunday marks Trump’s 80th birthday.

In recent days, Iran and the US have repeatedly contradicted each other when describing the details of the anticipated agreement, even as both sides have broadly signalled that a deal was closer than ever before.

Still, no terms have been officially released, with US and Iranian officials on Friday stressing that the agreement had not been finalised.

Beyond opening the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said in Saturday’s post that the agreement would be a “A WALL TO NO NUCLEAR WEAPON!” and that “no money would exchange hands”.

Trump also maintained that “at the appropriate time, when all is calm, we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust”, referring to Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium.

But speaking on Iran’s Press TV on Friday, Iranian ⁠⁠Foreign ⁠⁠Minister Abbas Araghchi said the initial memorandum of understanding would only be a launch point for negotiations about the future of Iran’s nuclear programme.

He added that the signing would result in an immediate pause in fighting, but that Iran and Oman would continue to administer the Strait of Hormuz.

The issue of lifting foreign sanctions against Iran and unfreezing the country’s assets would be discussed following the signing of the memorandum of understanding, Araghchi said.

From threats to diplomacy

The latest flurry of diplomacy came after the US and Iran traded strikes for two days this week, threatening to end a pause in fighting that has persisted since April 8.

The US and Israel launched the war on Iran on February 28, amid ongoing indirect talks on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme.

The US and Israel had also launched a 12-day war on Iran in 2025, during another round of nuclear talks.

Iranian officials have said that deep distrust towards the US has slowed the progress towards creating a lasting agreement to bring the current war to an end.

Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly pledged to reach a deal that would surpass the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), struck under his Democratic rival, former President Barack Obama.

That agreement, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018, saw Tehran agree to limit its nuclear programme and allow for international inspections in exchange for sanctions relief.

For years, Iran has maintained that it is building a nuclear programme for civilian use only and is not seeking a nuclear weapon.

In his post on Truth Social, Trump again pledged that any deal reached would be more stringent than the JCPOA.

“Our relationship with Iran is a much different and better one than previous Administrations have had,” he said.

“Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly,” he added.

“If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!” he wrote, without elaborating on what his threat meant.

Source link

As California primary nears, even Sanders supporters are uniting behind Clinton and against a common enemy: Trump

Most of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ supporters in California say they expect that come November, Hillary Clinton will be elected president — and, by and large, they’re OK with that.

While both Democratic camps prepare for a final battle in the state’s June 7 primary, the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times statewide poll found that just over half of Sanders’ supporters said they expected Clinton to be the next president. About a third of Sanders’ backers said they expected the Vermont senator to emerge the winner, and 12% said they thought Donald Trump would prevail.

Close to 8 in 10 Sanders supporters said in the survey that they would vote for Clinton in a race against Trump, although many said they would do so reluctantly.

Those findings show the reality underlying the still-heated rhetoric of the Democratic primaries: By contrast with the civil war that divides Republicans, Democrats in the country’s largest state have begun to coalesce behind their front-runner.

In the primary race, Clinton holds a modest lead over Sanders, 45% to 37%, among all Democrats and independent voters eligible to vote. Her lead is slightly larger, 47% to 36%, among those most likely to vote. Either way, that’s a significant problem for Sanders.

The poll was conducted before Sanders’ sweep of three Western states — Alaska, Hawaii and Washington — on Saturday, but those victories don’t change the electoral math much. Sanders would need not just a win in California, but something close to a landslide to overcome Clinton’s large lead in delegates before the party’s nominating convention in July.

Something else hasn’t changed: If there’s one blemish in the picture for Clinton, it’s the persistently high percentage of voters who have an unfavorable image of her, 45% in the new poll.

Clinton’s image in heavily Democratic California is more positive than it is in more Republican parts of the country; 52% of the state’s surveyed voters see her favorably. She fares far better than Trump, her most likely opponent in November, who is viewed negatively by almost three-fourths of California voters.

A Democratic voter at a Washington state caucus on Saturday. In the California primary race, Hillary Clinton holds a modest lead over Bernie Sanders, 45% to 37%, among all Democrats and independent voters eligible to vote.

A Democratic voter at a Washington state caucus on Saturday. In the California primary race, Hillary Clinton holds a modest lead over Bernie Sanders, 45% to 37%, among all Democrats and independent voters eligible to vote.

(Elaine Thompson / Associated Press)

But her image with the public lags significantly behind other leading Democrats. That includes President Obama, whose popularity has risen, both statewide and nationally, in recent weeks. He is now seen favorably by 65% of the state’s voters, the highest level since early in his tenure. Gov. Jerry Brown is viewed favorably by 57%. Both men are viewed negatively by about one-third of voters.

The large share of voters who have a negative view of her does not put Clinton in danger of losing California in a general election: She would defeat any of the Republican candidates handily in the state, which has formed the cornerstone of Democratic victories nationally ever since her husband’s win in 1992. Against Trump, in particular, Clinton would win overwhelmingly, the poll indicated, carrying the state 59% to 28%.

But the negative impressions of so many Californians point toward the deeper problem she faces in the country and also to the likely tone of the fall campaign. A Clinton-Trump race, more than any other in recent decades, would feature two candidates who would start the campaign with large parts of the electorate deeply disenchanted with them. Given that, each side is likely to try to focus voters’ attention on the other’s flaws.

“Clinton’s challenge is not one of persuasion, it’s one of motivation,” said Dan Schnur, director of USC’s Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics. “She’s not going to get Sanders supporters to fall in love with her,” he added, but “the other way to motivate your base is to frighten them about the alternative. Against Donald Trump, that should be very doable.”

That’s certainly the case for Gretta Whalen, a 32-year-old freelance writer and communications consultant from Los Angeles, who leans toward Sanders. Clinton, she said, “has been around for so long, and we know so much about her, and not all of it is positive.” Sanders, by contrast, seems attractive, and his ideas feel new, even if “some of them are very pie in the sky and would be very difficult to get the rest of the country on board with.”

But, she added, as she paused from feeding her newborn son, the contest is different “now that we’re looking at a likely race against Donald Trump.” She and her friends, most of whom back Sanders, “are all so shocked that we’re in this place where Donald Trump is a serious contender for president,” she said. Compared with past elections, this campaign “feels a little more surreal.”

“I was much more excited about Bernie” earlier in the campaign season, she added. “We love him as a candidate. We also recognize that he’s not the most realistic winner.”

Just under 1 in 4 voters in the state have a negative image of both of the likely contestants. That group would hold its nose and side with Clinton over Trump, 38% to 23%, with a significant share of them saying they would not vote at all, the poll found.

Sercan Ersoy, a 33-year-old substitute teacher in Oakland, has much more negative feelings about Clinton than does Whalen. A former member of the Green Party who changed his registration in order to vote for Sanders in the primary, Ersoy feels Clinton is “too much of a war hawk” in addition to having too many ties to Wall Street. “I don’t want to vote for her,” he said.

But “if you ask me in late October,” he added, “and there’s a real possibility of a President Trump, I might say, ‘OK. I’ll vote for Hillary.’”

This USC/L.A. Times poll was conducted March 16-23 by telephone, both cellphone and landline, among 1,503 registered voters in California, including 832 Democrats and non-party voters eligible to take part in the June primary. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points for the full sample and 3.7 percentage points for the Democratic primary sample. It was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a Democratic polling firm, and the Republican company American Viewpoint.

The poll found the race between Clinton and Sanders dividing along lines that have become familiar during nearly two months of primaries: Sanders overwhelmingly wins voters younger than 30; Clinton does better with older voters. She leads among women by 11 percentage points, among men by 5 points.

Clinton leads narrowly among white voters but has a much larger edge among blacks and Latinos. In a surprise, given her family’s long-standing popularity with Asian voters, Clinton appears to be trailing Sanders with that group, although his edge, 43% to 35%, is within the poll’s margin of error for such a subgroup.

Clinton’s lead among minority voters is “much more muted” than her edge in previous contests in Texas and across the South, said pollster Anna Greenberg. That’s largely a result of a generational divide, with Sanders leading among younger Latinos, much as he does among young white voters. The other minority groups are too small to allow a detailed breakdown by age.

The other significant division in the primary is by party. California’s Democratic primary is open to registered Democrats as well as voters who decline to state a party. Clinton leads Sanders by 14 percentage points among registered Democrats; Sanders leads by 9 percentage points among the nonpartisan voters — again a pattern seen repeatedly in other states.

Among Sanders voters, 80% polled said they would vote for Clinton in November, although the share saying they would do so “reluctantly,” 45%, outnumbers those who would do so “enthusiastically,” 35%.

About 1 in 8 Democratic primary voters surveyed said they would refuse to vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. That’s half the level of rejection that Trump faces among Republican primary voters.

Among the Democratic primary voters most resistant to backing her in the fall are white men 65 and older, according to the poll. By contrast, only 4% of people who identified themselves as students said they would refuse to vote for Clinton — another indication that Sanders’ core supporters are unlikely to reject her candidacy.

By 72% to 21%, Democratic primary voters said in the survey that they are excited about the prospect of voting for the first female president.

Sanders has centered his campaign around the belief that the U.S. economy is unfairly rigged by Wall Street and big corporations. Not surprisingly, a large majority of his voters share that view.

The poll asked people if they thought that in today’s economy “everyone has a fair chance to get ahead in the long run if they work hard” or if “it’s mainly just a few people at the top who have a chance to get ahead.” By more than 2 to 1, Sanders’ voters said that only those at the top could get ahead.

Clinton’s supporters were more evenly divided, with 52% saying that everyone had a fair chance and 42% saying that only those at the top could get ahead. That reflected, in part, the feelings of Latinos, who are more likely than other Americans to say that hard work still pays off in the long run.

Those who backed Clinton were also more likely than Sanders’ backers to say that “when it comes to good jobs for American workers, our best years are ahead of us.” More than 6 in 10 of Clinton’s voters agreed with that statement, compared with just under half of Sanders’.

Neither group of Democratic voters was as pessimistic as Trump’s supporters, however. A majority of them said that when it comes to good jobs, “America’s best years are behind us.”

david.lauter@latimes.com

For more on Campaign 2016, follow @davidlauter

Sign up for the Essential Politics newsletter

ALSO:

Trump leads Republican primary field

California’s June primary just became crucial in the race for the White House

Full coverage of the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll

Full poll results and detailed crosstabs

Updates on California politics

Live coverage from the campaign trail



Source link