Donald

BREAKINGBREAKING,

The successful vote means the long-delayed bill will now be passed on to President Trump to sign into law.

The House of Representatives has passed a federal government spending package, clearing the final hurdle and bringing an end to the longest government shutdown in United States history – at least for now.

In a vote held late on Wednesday evening in the Republican-held House, the bill was backed by 222 lawmakers – including six Democrats – while 209 voted against it, including two Republicans.

The long-delayed bill will now be passed on to President Donald Trump to sign into law.

On Monday night, the upper chamber of Congress had approved the spending package by a vote of 60 to 40 to fund the US government through January 30, reinstating pay to hundreds of thousands of federal workers after six gruelling weeks.

All but essential government services had ground to a halt amid the shutdown.

The breakthrough came following negotiations last weekend that saw seven Democrats and one independent agree to back the updated spending package and end the shutdown, which entered its 42nd day on Tuesday.

Crucially, however, the deal has not resolved one of the shutdown’s most central issues – healthcare subsidies for 24 million Americans under the Affordable Care Act, which the Trump administration planned to cut.

For weeks, Democrats repeatedly blocked the bill’s passage in Congress, saying the measure was necessary to force the government to address escalating healthcare costs for low-income Americans.

Shortly before Wednesday’s vote, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson accused his Democratic colleagues of using American citizens as “leverage” in their “political game”, as he denounced them for preventing the resolution’s passage in September.

“Since that time, Senate Democrats have voted 14 times to close the government. Republicans have voted a collective 15 times to open the government for the people, and the Democrats voted that many times to close it,” he said.

As part of the deal breaking the impasse, Senate Republicans agreed to hold a vote on the issue by December, raising fears there could be another shutdown in January.

The agreement had also provoked anger among Democrats, who preferred to keep holding out, including Illinois Governor JB Pritzker – considered a contender for the 2028 presidential election – who called it an “empty promise” earlier this week.

David Smith, an associate professor at the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre, also described the agreement as “just a stopgap arrangement”.

“The deal that they’ve reached means most of the government will shut down again in January if they can’t come to another agreement,” he told Al Jazeera earlier this week.

Democrats who supported the deal were Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin from Illinois, John Fetterman from Pennsylvania, Catherine Cortez Masto and Jackie Rosen from Nevada, Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire, and Tim Kaine from Virginia.

Angus King, an independent from Maine, also backed the deal.

This is a breaking news story. More to follow shortly.

US President Donald Trump called the corruption trial against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a ‘political, unjustified prosecution’ as he requested the country’s president pardon him. However, under Israeli law, such a request can only be made by the person accused of wrongdoing, a legal representative, or a family member.

The House of Representatives will hold a session to vote on legislation to end the longest shutdown in US history.

Decision follows Senate vote to reopen the government, but legal saga has brought uncertainty to millions who need food assistance.

The highest court in the United States has extended a previous order allowing President Donald Trump to withhold food assistance to tens of millions of people in the US amid the government shutdown.

In a ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court extended a previous pause that it had granted the Trump administration after a lower court ordered the government to pay out about $4bn in food benefits for November.

Advocates have said that withholding the funds could have calamitous effects on people who depend on food benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), although the issue could be made moot as the shutdown appears to be drawing to a close.

The Supreme Court decision comes one day after the Senate on Monday approved compromise legislation that would end the longest government shutdown in US history, breaking a weeks-long impasse that has disrupted food benefits for millions, left hundreds of thousands of federal workers unpaid and snarled air traffic as a lack of air traffic controllers forced cancellations.

The battle over SNAP benefits has underlined the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to slash government employment and roll back access to programmes that it had previously criticised under the auspices of the shutdown.

While it is common for some benefits and programmes to face delays or other issues during government shutdowns, food benefits ceased entirely at the start of November for the first time in the programme’s 60-year history.

The decision set off a series of legal challenges and several weeks of back-and-forth rulings that have kept those who rely on food assistance in a state of limbo.

A judge had ruled last week that the government must fully fund benefits for November, a decision the administration challenged. The Supreme Court had paused that order, but the stay was set to expire on Thursday.

US airlines cancel 1,200 flights, marking five days of disruptions caused by the prolonged government shutdown.

Airlines in the United States have cancelled nearly 1,200 flights, marking the fifth consecutive day of mass delays and cancellations sparked by the country’s longest-ever government shutdown.

In addition to cancellations on Tuesday, passengers continued to face long wait times, as more than 1,300 domestic and international flights were delayed in the morning.

New York’s LaGuardia Airport, in particular, is seeing significant hold-ups, with average delays of one hour and 40 minutes, according to FlightAware — a platform that tracks flight disruptions worldwide.

On Monday, there were more than 2,400 cancelled flights to, from and within the US, along with over 9,500 delayed flights, according to the same tracker.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) last week instructed airlines to cut 4 percent of daily flights from Friday at 40 major airports due to air traffic control staffing shortages. Reductions rose to 6 percent on Tuesday, then 8 percent on Thursday, and are expected to reach 10 percent by November 14th.

Airlines and the FAA are in talks over whether these cuts will be eased as a record-setting 42-day government shutdown draws to a close.

An end to the shutdown appears to be in sight. On Monday, the Senate passed a bill to reopen the federal government. It now heads to the House of Representatives and, if approved, will go to President Donald Trump’s desk for signing. Once signed, the bill would reopen the government.

Despite progress on Capitol Hill, the president has urged air traffic controllers across the country to return to work, warning that their pay could be “docked” if they do not comply. He also claimed that those who remained on duty during the shutdown would receive a $10,000 bonus.

On Wall Street, airline stocks are taking a hit amid persistent cancellations. As of 11am in New York (16:00 GMT), Delta Air Lines had fallen 1.26 percent since the market opened on Tuesday. United Airlines was down 1.7 percent, while American Airlines had tumbled more than 1.8 percent.

Budget carriers are also being hit hard. New York-based JetBlue has dropped by more than 2 percent, Dallas-based Southwest by 1.8 percent, and Alaska Airlines is down roughly 2.1 percent.

Over the weekend, United States President Donald Trump promised Americans $2,000 each from the “trillions of dollars” in tariff revenue he said his administration has collected.

During his second term, Trump has imposed tariffs broadly on countries and on specific goods such as drugs, steel and cars.

“People that are against Tariffs are FOOLS!” Trump said in a November 9 Truth Social post. “We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion. Record Investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place. A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”

How seriously should people take his pledge? Experts urged caution.

Tariffs are projected to generate well below “trillions” a year, making it harder to pay each person $2,000. And the administration already said it would use the tariff revenue to either pay for existing tax cuts or to reduce the federal debt.

Trump’s post came days after the US Supreme Court heard arguments about the legality of his tariff policy. The justices are weighing whether Trump has the power to unilaterally impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. If the justices rule against Trump, much of the expected future tariff revenue would not materialise.

What Trump proposed, and who would qualify

The administration has published no plans for the tariff dividends, and in a November 9 ABC News interview, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he had not spoken to Trump about giving Americans a dividend payment.

Details about a potential payment have been limited to Truth Social posts.

Trump said “everyone”, excluding “high income people”, would get the money, but did not explain the criteria for high-income people. He also did not say whether children would receive the payment.

In a November 10 Truth Social post, Trump said his administration would first pay $2,000 to “low and middle income USA Citizens” and then use the remaining tariff revenues to “substantially pay down national debt”.

Trump has not said what form the payments might take. Bessent said the dividend “could come in lots of forms, in lots of ways. You know, it could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president’s agenda. You know, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, deductibility of auto loans. So, you know, those are substantial deductions.”

Analysts said it is a stretch to rebrand an already promised tax cut as a new dividend.

Trump has previously discussed paying Americans with tariff revenue.

“We have so much money coming in, we’re thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,” he told reporters on July 25. “We’re thinking about a rebate.”

Days later, Senator Josh Hawley introduced legislation that would give $600 tariff rebate cheques to each American adult and child. Hawley’s bill has not advanced.

Tariff revenue collected versus cost of ‘dividend’ payment

Trump made the imposition of tariffs one of his signature campaign promises for the 2024 presidential election. Since taking office in January, he has enacted tariffs on a scale not seen in the US in almost a century; the current overall average tariff rate is 18 percent, the highest since 1934, according to Yale Budget Lab.

Through the end of October, the federal government collected $309.2bn in tariff revenue, compared with $165.4bn through the same point in 2024, an increase of $143.8bn.

The centre-right Tax Foundation projects that tariff revenue will continue to increase to more than $200bn a year if the tariffs remain in place.

Erica York, the Tax Foundation’s vice president of federal tax policy, estimated in a November 9 X post that a $2,000 tariff dividend for each person earning less than $100,000 would equal 150 million adult recipients. That would cost nearly $300bn, York calculated, or more if children qualified. That is more than the tariffs have raised so far, she said.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected that Trump’s proposal could cost $600bn, depending on how it is structured.

The administration previously detailed other uses for tariff revenue

The Trump administration already promised to use tariff revenue for other purposes, including reducing the country’s deficit and offsetting the cost of the GOP tax and spending bill Trump signed into law in July.

As Trump announced new tariffs on April 2, he said he would “use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt”.

Bessent has made the same promise, falsely saying in July that tariffs were “going to pay off our deficit”.

The treasury secretary said in August that he and Trump were “laser-focused on paying down the debt”.

“I think we’re going to bring down the deficit-to-GDP,” Bessent said in an August 19 CNBC interview. “We’ll start paying down debt and then, at a point, that can be used as an offset to the American people.”

Tariffs’ current cost to Americans 

Tariffs are already costing Americans money, analysts say. Independent estimates range from about $1,600 to $2,600 a year per household. Given the similarity of these amounts to Trump’s proposed dividend, York said it would be more efficient to remove the tariffs.

Joseph Rosenberg, Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Centre senior fellow, said a $2,000 dividend in the form of a cheque would require congressional approval – and lawmakers have already declined to act on that idea once.

When members of Congress approved the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, “They had the ability to include a tariff dividend, but they didn’t”, Rosenberg said.

Donald Trump has branded the BBC ‘100% fake news’ but Keir Starmer has backed the Corporation for being ‘internationally renowned’ and rejected the accusation that it’s journalists were ‘corrupt’

Donald Trump has threatened to sue the BBC over its editing of his Capitol Hill speech from 2021, as the government yesterday defended the corporation in the wake of the resignations of two top bosses. Amid the fallout from the exits of director general Tim Davie and BBC News boss Deborah Turness, the BBC yesterday confirmed it had received the letter threatening legal action from the US President and would respond in due course.

And Trump’s claim that the BBC has “corrupt journalists” was rejected by Keir Starmer as Downing Street threw its weight behind the BBC, describing it as an “internationally renowned” institution.

The developments came as BBC Chair Samir Shah finally apologised over the BBC Panorama in which two bits of a speech from Trump were edited together in a way which made him appear to support the rioters. This move has allowed Trump’s press secretary to accuse the BBC of being “100% fake news” and brand it a “propoganda machine”.

READ MORE: Strictly Come Dancing in huge show first with Britain’s Got Talent link-upREAD MORE: Alan Carr lined up for two major TV roles after Celebrity Traitors win

Shah’s apology, contained in a letter to culture, media and sport select committee chair Caroline Dinenage, said the BBC regretted its “error of judgement” that resulted in a misleading edit of a Donald Trump speech.

It came after a week of silence from the BBC, which claimed it did not comment on leaked documents. This seemingly prevented it from either defending its journalism or apologising for any mistake made, leaving many supporters baffled.

The row erupted a week ago with the publication of a leaked memo from Michael Prescott, a former political journalist who spent three years as an external adviser to the BBC, in which he made many complaints about issues that he claimed were not being sufficiently dealt with, notably on its coverage of the Gaza conflict and around trans issues.

But in his letter yesterday, Shah insisted that it was “simply not true” to say the BBC had done nothing to tackle the problems raised and he also defended the BBC against claims of systemic bias.

The chairman said the edit had initially been cleared to “convey the message of the speech” made by Trump, so that Panorama viewers would “better understand” how it was received by the president’s supporters, and what was happening on the ground at that time.

The edit, which drew no complaints at the time of broadcast, had been discussed by the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee (EGSC) in both January and May this year. He said that while it was discussed as part of a wider review of the US election coverage, hindsight had shown “it would have been better to take more formal action”.

He said that reports suggesting Prescott had “uncovered” a list of stories and issues that the BBC have sought to “bury” were “simply not true,” explaining: “The issues raised by Mr Prescott are precisely the issues that have been considered by the EGSC and the Board.”

The chairman said it was also misleading to suggest that the BBC has done nothing to tackle these problems.”That is also simply not true,” he wrote. “Over the three years Mr Prescott was an advisor to the EGSC, the BBC has: published corrections where we have got things wrong; changed editorial guidance to make the BBC’s position on issues clearer; made changes to leadership where the problems point to underlying issues; and carried out formal disciplinary measures.”

He said it was important to remember the thousands of hours of “outstanding journalism” produced by the BBC on TV, radio and digitally, calling for “a sense of perspective” to be maintained.

Speaking to reporters yesterday, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “On the question of is the BBC corrupt? No. The BBC has a vital role in an age of disinformation… where there’s a clear argument for a robust, impartial British news service to deliver, and that case is stronger than ever.”

Asked if Mr Starmer believed the BBC was institutionally biased, the spokesman replied: “No, but it is important that the BBC acts to maintain trust and correct mistakes quickly when they occur, because as I say, for any public service broadcaster, accountability is vital to maintain trust.”

Elsewhere, ex-PM Gordon Brown told Sky News an “immediate” apology from the BBC over the Trump speech could have swerved the need for resignations. “I think the problem that the BBC has had is that this happened a year ago,” he said. “An apology should have been made instantly. If a mistake has been made, you’ve got to apologise instantly.”

As many media commentators and BBC alumni rushed to either defend or denigrate the BBC, there were also claims of a “coup” from within the BBC board.

David Yelland, a former editor of The Sun who now presents a podcast for the BBC, said: “It was a coup and, worse than that, it was an inside job. There were people inside the BBC – very close to the board, on the board – who have systematically undermined Tim Davie and his senior team. This has been going on for a long time. What happened yesterday didn’t happen in isolation.”

He added: “There is a reason that the BBC is the most trusted news organisation in the world – look at who is celebrating this morning, including the president of the United States. This is not a good day and I do think there was a failure of governance.”

Radio 4 presenter Nick Robinson, a former political editor for BBC News, declared that forces were at work to try and bring down the BBC. “It’s clear that there is a genuine concern about editorial standards and mistakes,” he said on Today. “There is also a political campaign by people who want to destroy the organisation. Both things are happening at the same time.”

He said the BBC had appeared “paralysed” for the past week – “unable to agree what to say not just about the editing of Donald Trump’s speech by Panorama but also wider claims of institutional bias”.

Former 5 Live Breakfast Show host Shelagh Fogarty now works in commercial radio but says the BBC needs defending. “We need the BBC as part of a broader economy in news media. I worked there for 25 years and can see its rigour has been eroded. The practice of impartiality is its highest aim. Fix that and state facts.”

But Nigel Farage seized on the crisis, claiming the BBC “has been institutionally biased for decades” as he appeared at a press conference in central London. The Reform leader said: “I actually spoke to the president on Friday. He just said to me: ‘Is this how you treat your best ally?’ It’s quite a powerful comment.”

Former Radio 4 presenter Libby Purves said that she was “glad” to see Turness had been “binned” from her job at the helm of BBC News and claimed the Trump edit should never have happened. “The trans bias is irritating and the Arabic service a problem, but what viscerally distressed us ancient BBC newsfolk was the Trump edit,” she posted on social media. “As a reporter, spent years editing tape and being vv careful NOT to risk traducing even horrible people.”

And Charles Moore, chair of The Spectator, argued that the BBC’s views were “always from a metropolitan left position”. He added: “That means it’s not serving a very large percentage of the licence fee payers. I’m not, of course, saying it should be right wing either, I’m saying it should take impartiality seriously.”

Former Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer said he felt “sad” that Davie had resigned as a result of the latest controversy, describing him as an “outstanding” director general. “I don’t agree that the BBC is systemically biased and that it is basted in a culture which means that its journalism can’t be trusted. I think that’s absolutely wrong,” he said. “The overwhelming majority is excellent and it doesn’t happen by accident. I am here to say that the BBC is an outstanding and excellent exponent of impartial journalism and it needs to be defended.”

Emily Thornberry, chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, agreed: “Across the world, the BBC is recognised as the best source of impartial news reporting. “It’s not perfect, because nothing made by people ever is. However, in these days of deliberate lies, manipulation & populism, it’s a beacon of truth. Britain should be proud of it.”

Caroline Dinenage said that Davie’s decision to quit came down to “editorial failure”, listing other recent mistakes including Bob Vylan at Glastonbury, misconduct by Gregg Wallace on MasterChef, and editorial failings in the doc Gaza: How To Survive a War Zone.

“There seems to be a muscle memory at the BBC as to how to badly respond to any kind of editorial crisis or scandal,” she complained. “The BBC seems to have dropped the ball at every opportunity. That is not a board-level problem, that is an institutional problem.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth says attacks take place in international waters amid mounting criticism against US campaign.

The United States has carried out another set of military strikes against what it says are drug boats in international waters headed to the country.

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said on Monday that the US military targeted two vessels in the eastern Pacific Ocean on Sunday, killing six people.

“These vessels were known by our intelligence to be associated with illicit narcotics smuggling, were carrying narcotics, and were transiting along a known narco-trafficking transit route in the Eastern Pacific,” he wrote in a social media post.

“Both strikes were conducted in international waters, and three male narco-terrorists were aboard each vessel. All six were killed. No US forces were harmed.”

The administration of President Donald Trump has faced mounting criticism over such attacks, including accusations of violating domestic and international law.

But Washington appears to be stepping up the campaign. Sunday’s deadly double attack was the fourth this month. Previous strikes in the Pacific and Caribbean Sea killed at least eight people, according to US authorities.

The Trump administration started targeting boats in the Caribbean in September and later expanded its military push to the Pacific Ocean.

The US has carried out 18 strikes on vessels so far, killing dozens of people.

Last month, United Nations rights chief Volker Turk said the US attacks have no justification under international law.

“These attacks – and their mounting human cost – are unacceptable,” Turk said. “The US must halt such attacks and take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats, whatever the criminal conduct alleged against them.”

The US has described the attacks as “counterterrorism” operations after having designated drug cartels as “terrorists”.

“Under President Trump, we are protecting the homeland and killing these cartel terrorists who wish to harm our country and its people,” Hegseth said on Monday.

Other than grainy footage showing the strikes, the Trump administration has not provided concrete proof that the vessels targeted were carrying drugs.

Trump himself has previously joked that fishermen are now afraid to operate in the Caribbean off the coast of Venezuela.

Critics have questioned why US authorities would not monitor the boats and intercept them when they enter the country’s territorial waters instead of extrajudicially executing the suspects.

The strikes have sparked regional tensions, particularly with Venezuela, with Trump accusing its president, Nicolas Maduro, of links to “narcoterrorists”.

The ramped-up US military campaign near Venezuela has raised speculation that Washington may be preparing for conflict in the oil-rich South American country.

This month, Trump suggested that war with Venezuela is unlikely but said Maduro’s days are numbered.

Donald Trump

Former President Donald Trump is pictured in this photo provided by the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office in Atlanta on August 24, 2023. Trump surrendered on a 13-count indictment for efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia. Photo courtesy of Fulton County Sheriff’s Office/UPI | License Photo

Nov. 10 (UPI) — President Donald Trump is pardoning Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and dozens of other allies who have been accused of trying to subvert the 2020 election, according to U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin.

The list of 77 people pardoned by Trump was published late Sunday on Martin’s personal X account.

“No MAGA left behind,” he said.

The proclamation signed by Trump was dated Friday.

“This proclamation ends a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 presidential election and continues the process of national reconciliation,” the document states.

Those pardoned were tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including participation in what has become known as the fake electors scheme. The strategy involved the creation of false slates of pro-Trump electors in every battleground state that he lost to Biden, including Georgia.

Among those pardoned were four of Trump’s 17 co-defendants in a case concerning the effort in Georgia, including Kenneth Chesebro, the alleged architect of the scheme. Powell, Scott Hall and Jenna Ellis were the other three.

Trump, who was among those charged in Georgia, was specifically not granted a pardon.

“This pardon does not apply to the president of the United States,” the document states.

Others granted pardons include Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff during his first term, and former Trump adviser John Eastman.

On his first day of his second term in office in January, Trump issued pardons and commutations of sentences for more than 1,500 people convicted for their participation in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, including those who injured police officers.

He has also issued pardons to former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, convicted on corruption charges, former Hunter Biden business partner Devon Archer and former Las Vegas City Council member Michele Fiore.

Trump promises to defend Hungary’s finances amid Orban-EU tensions and to sign $600m gas deal, says Hungarian leader.

Hungary has struck a deal for what Prime Minister Viktor Orban called a “financial shield” to safeguard its economy from potential attacks following talks with US President Donald Trump.

Orban, a longtime ally of Trump and one of Europe’s most outspoken nationalist leaders, met the US president at the White House on Friday to seek relief from sanctions on Russian oil and gas. Following the meeting, he announced that Hungary had secured a one-year exemption from those measures.

“I have also made an agreement with the US president on a financial shield,” Orban said in a video posted by the Hungarian outlet index.hu on Sunday. “Should there be any external attacks against Hungary or its financial system, the Americans gave their word that in such a case, they would defend Hungary’s financial stability.”

A White House official said the deal also included contracts worth roughly $600m for Hungary to buy US liquefied natural gas. Orban gave no details of how the “shield” would work, but claimed it would ensure Hungary would face “no financing problems”.

“That Hungary or its currency could be attacked, or that the Hungarian budget could be put in a difficult situation, or that the Hungarian economy could be suffocated from the financing side, this should be forgotten,” he said.

The move comes as Orban faces economic stagnation and strained relations with the European Union, which has frozen billions of euros in funding over what Brussels calls Hungary’s democratic backsliding. Critics accuse Orban of using his ties with Washington to sidestep EU pressure and secure new financial lifelines.

Orban said on Friday that Hungary also received an exemption from US sanctions on Russian energy after a meeting with Trump.

Hungary’s economy has struggled since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but its currency, the forint, has shown some recovery this year, supported by high interest rates.

Trump, meanwhile, has extended his support to another far-right leader, Argentina’s Javier Milei, pledging to strengthen the country’s collapsing economy through a $20bn currency swap deal with Argentina’s central bank. Trump said he would also buy Argentinian pesos to “help a great philosophy take over a great country”.

Milei, who has made more than a dozen trips to the US since taking office in December 2023, including to attend Trump’s second inauguration, is battling inflation, debt, and dwindling reserves. Argentinian bond prices plunged in late September as the central bank scrambled to stabilise the peso.

Trump calls it a ‘disgrace’ that South Africa is hosting the G20, reiterates debunked claims of a ‘genocide’ against white farmers.

President Donald Trump has said no United States officials will attend this year’s Group of 20 (G20) summit in South Africa, citing the country’s treatment of white farmers.

Writing on his Truth Social platform on Friday, Trump said it was a “total disgrace that the G20 will be held in South Africa”.

“Afrikaners (People who are descended from Dutch settlers, and also French and German immigrants) are being killed and slaughtered, and their land and farms are being illegally confiscated,” Trump wrote, reiterating claims that have been rejected by authorities in South Africa.

“No US Government Official will attend as long as these Human Rights abuses continue. I look forward to hosting the 2026 G20 in Miami, Florida!” he added.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has repeatedly claimed that white South Africans are being persecuted in the Black-majority country, a claim rejected by South Africa’s government and top Afrikaner officials.

Trump had already said on Wednesday that he would not attend the summit – which will see the heads of states from the world’s leading and emerging economies gather in Johannesburg on November 22 and 23 – as he also called for South Africa to be thrown out of the G20.

US Vice President JD Vance had been expected to attend the meeting in place of the president. But a person familiar with Vance’s plans told The Associated Press news agency that he will no longer travel to South Africa.

Tensions first arose between the US and South Africa after President Cyril Ramaphosa introduced a new law in January seeking to address land ownership disparities, which have left three-quarters of privately owned land in the hands of the white minority more than three decades after the end of apartheid.

The new legislation makes it easier for the state to expropriate land, which Ramaphosa insists does not amount to confiscation, but creates a framework for fair redistribution by allowing authorities to take land without compensation in exceptional circumstances, such as when a site has been abandoned.

Shortly after the introduction of the Expropriation Act, Trump accused South Africa of “confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY”.

“The United States won’t stand for it, we will act,” he said.

In May, Trump granted asylum to 59 white South Africans as part of a resettlement programme that Washington described as giving sanctuary after racial discrimination.

The same month, when Trump met with President Ramaphosa in the White House, he ambushed him with the claim that a “genocide” is taking place against white Afrikaners in his country.

Ramaphosa denied the allegations, telling Trump “if there was Afrikaner farmer genocide, I can bet you, these three gentlemen would not be here”, pointing to three white South African men present – professional golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen, and South Africa’s richest man, Johann Rupert.

South African historian Saul Dubow, professor of Commonwealth history at the University of Cambridge, previously told Al Jazeera that there is no merit to “Trump’s fantasy claims of white genocide”.

Dubow suggested that Trump may be more angry about South Africa’s genocide case filed against Israel in the International Court of Justice over its war on Gaza.

Nonetheless, the Trump administration has maintained its claim of widespread persecution. On October 30, the White House indicated that most new refugees admitted to the US will be white South Africans, as it slashed the number of people it will admit annually to just 7,500.

“The admissions numbers shall primarily be allocated among Afrikaners from South Africa pursuant to Executive Order 14204 and other victims of illegal or unjust discrimination in their respective homelands,” the White House said.

US district judge blocks Donald Trump’s use of military force to tackle protests against immigration officers.

United States President Donald Trump unlawfully ordered National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, a federal judge has ruled, marking a legal setback for the president’s use of the military for policing duties in US cities.

The ruling on Friday by US District Judge Karin Immergut is the first to permanently block Trump’s use of military forces to quell protests against immigration authorities.

Immergut, a Trump appointee, rejected the administration’s claim that protesters at an immigration detention facility were waging a rebellion that legally justified sending troops to Portland.

Democrats have said Trump is abusing military powers meant for genuine emergencies such as an invasion or an armed rebellion.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield described the ruling as a “huge victory” and the “decision confirms that the President cannot send the Guard into Oregon without a legal basis for doing so”.

“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Rayfield said in a post on social media.

BREAKING NEWS: We just secured a final court order blocking National Guard deployment!

Today’s ruling is a huge victory for Oregon. The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law. pic.twitter.com/ffzgj0zCjM

— Attorney General Dan Rayfield (@AGDanRayfield) November 8, 2025

Portland’s Mayor Keith Wilson also applauded the decision, saying it “vindicates Portland’s position while reaffirming the rule of law that protects our community”.

“As I have said from the beginning, the number of federal troops needed in our city is zero,” Wilson said, according to local media reports.

The City of Portland and the Oregon Attorney General’s Office sued in September, alleging that the Trump administration was exaggerating occasional violence to justify sending in troops under a law permitting presidents to do so in cases of rebellion.

Echoing Trump’s description of Portland as “war-ravaged”, lawyers from the Department of Justice had described a violent siege overwhelming federal agents in the city.

But lawyers for Oregon and Portland said violence has been rare, isolated and contained by local police.

“This case is about whether we are a nation of constitutional law or martial law,” Portland’s lawyer Caroline Turco had said.

The Trump administration is likely to appeal Friday’s ruling, and the case could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court.

A review by the Reuters news agency of court records found that at least 32 people were charged with federal crimes stemming from the Portland protests since they began in June. Of the 32 charged, 11 pleaded guilty to misdemeanours, and those who have been sentenced received probation.

About half the defendants were charged with assaulting federal officers, including 14 felonies and seven misdemeanours.

Prosecutors dismissed two cases.

Charging documents describe protesters kicking and shoving officers, usually while resisting arrest.

Three judges, including Immergut, have now issued preliminary rulings that Trump’s National Guard deployments are not allowed under the emergency legal authority cited by his administration.

United States Senate Majority Leader John Thune has promptly swatted down a Democratic offer to reopen the US government and extend expiring healthcare subsidies for a year, calling it a “nonstarter” as the partisan impasse over the shutdown continued into its 38th day.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer made the offer to reopen the government on Friday as Republicans have refused to negotiate on their demands to extend healthcare subsidies. It was a much narrower version of a broad proposal Democrats laid out a month ago to make the health tax credits permanent and reverse Medicaid cuts that Republicans enacted earlier this year.

Schumer offered Republicans simultaneous votes to end the government shutdown and extend the expiring healthcare subsidies, along with a bipartisan committee to address Republican demands for changes to the Affordable Care Act.

“All Republicans have to do is say yes,” Schumer said.

But Republicans quickly said no, and Thune reiterated that they would not trade offers on healthcare until the government is reopened. “That’s what we’re going to negotiate once the government opens up,” Thune said after Schumer made his proposal on the floor.

Thune said he thinks the offer is an indication that Democrats are “feeling the heat”.

“I guess you could characterise that as progress,” he said. “But I just don’t think it gets anywhere close to what we need to do here.”

It was unclear what might happen next. Thune has suggested a weekend Senate session was possible. US President Donald Trump called on the Senate to stay in town “until they have a Deal to end the Democrat Shutdown”.

Despite the impasse, lawmakers in both parties were feeling increased urgency to alleviate the growing crisis at airports, pay government workers and restore delayed food aid to millions of people. Thune pleaded with Democrats as he opened the Senate on Friday to “end these weeks of misery”.

Moderates continue to negotiate

As leaders of the two parties disagreed, a small group of Democrats led by New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen continued to negotiate among themselves and with rank-and-file Republicans on a deal that would end the shutdown.

The group has been discussing for weeks a vote for a group of bills that would pay for parts of government – food aid, veterans programmes and the legislative branch, among other things – and extend funding for everything else until December or January. The three annual spending bills that would likely be included are the product of bipartisan negotiations that have continued through the shutdown.

But the contours of that agreement would only come with the promise of a future healthcare vote, rather than a guarantee that Affordable Care Act subsidies are extended by the end of the year. Many Democrats have said that this is unacceptable.

Still, Republican leaders only need five additional votes to fund the government, and the group involved in the talks has ranged from 10 to 12 Democratic senators.

Republicans eye new package of bills

Trump urged Republicans at a White House breakfast on Wednesday to end the shutdown quickly and scrap the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 Senate votes for most legislation, so that they bypass Democrats altogether and fund the government.

“I am totally in favour of terminating the filibuster, and we would be back to work within 10 minutes after that vote took place,” Trump said on Friday.

Republicans have emphatically rejected Trump’s call, and Thune has instead been eyeing a bipartisan package that mirrors the proposal the moderate Democrats have been sketching out. But it is unclear what Thune, who has refused to negotiate, would promise on healthcare.

The package would replace the House-passed legislation that the Democrats have now rejected 14 times. That bill would only extend government funding until November 21, a date that is rapidly approaching after six weeks of inaction.

A choice for Democrats

A test vote on new legislation could come in the next few days if Thune decides to move forward.

Then Democrats would have a crucial choice to make: Do they keep fighting for a meaningful deal on extending the subsidies that expire in January, while prolonging the pain of the shutdown? Or do they vote to reopen the government and hope for the best as Republicans promise an eventual healthcare vote, but not a guaranteed outcome?

After a caucus meeting on Thursday, most Democrats suggested they would continue to hold out for Trump and Republican leaders to agree to negotiations.

“That’s what leaders do,” said Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat from New Mexico. “You have the gavel, you have the majority, you have to bring people together.”

Hawaii Democrat Senator Brian Schatz said Democrats are “obviously not unanimous”, but “without something on healthcare, the vote is very unlikely to succeed”.

Johnson delivers setback to bipartisan talks

Democrats are facing pressure from unions eager for the shutdown to end and from allied groups that want them to hold firm. Many Democrats have argued that the wins for Democrats on Election Day show voters want them to continue the fight until Republicans yield and agree to extend the health tax credits.

A vote on the healthcare subsidies “has got to mean something”, said Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. “That means a commitment by the speaker of the House, that he will support the legislation, that the president will sign.”

But Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, made clear he will not make any commitments. “I’m not promising anybody anything,” Johnson said on Thursday when asked if he could promise a vote on a healthcare bill.

“It’s an historic moment for the Congress. It’s an historic moment for the women of America. It is a moment for which we have waited over 200 years,” said United States Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi in January 2007, upon becoming the speaker of the US House of Representatives.

“For our daughters and our granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling,” she added, addressing an applauding audience at the House in Washington, DC.

Pelosi, 85, who has served as the Democratic representative for California’s 11th Congressional District since 1987, made history when she was elected as the 52nd speaker of the House of Representatives – as the first-ever woman – and served from 2007 to 2011. She later served again from 2019 to 2023.

On Thursday this week, she announced her retirement from Congress as of January next year.

Paying tribute to her home city of San Francisco, she announced her decision in a video message, telling and citizens of the city: “It was the faith that you had placed in me and the latitude that you have given me that enabled me to shatter the marble ceiling and be the first woman speaker of the House, whose voice would certainly be heard.

“I want you, my fellow San Franciscans, to be the first to know I will not be seeking re-election to Congress,” Pelosi, 85, added.

“With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative.”

Seen as one of the most powerful figures in the modern Democratic Party and one of the most powerful women in US politics, Pelosi was re-elected as speaker of the House in 2019 and served until 2023.

At the end of her second tenure, she stepped down from House leadership for the Democratic Party but retained the honorary title of speaker emerita of the House.

Here’s what we know:

Who is Nancy Pelosi?

Nancy Patricia Pelosi was born on March 26, 1940, in Baltimore, Maryland, and is the only daughter and youngest of six siblings.

She comes from a family with political lineage. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr, was a congressman who served as mayor of Baltimore for 12 years. Her older brother, Thomas D’Alesandro III, also served as mayor of Baltimore.

After graduating with a bachelor’s degree in political science from Trinity College in Washington, DC in the 1960s, Pelosi started an internship with the Maryland senator at the time, Daniel Brewster.

In 1963, she married Paul Pelosi, an American businessman and San Francisco native, and the couple moved to the city six years later, with their six children.

In the 1980s, Pelosi began working with the Democratic National Committee in the state of California. Starting as a fundraiser, she progressed to become the chair of both the California Democratic Party between 1981 and 1983 and the host committee for the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco.

How long has Pelosi been in Congress?

In 1987, Pelosi was elected to Congress as a Democratic representative – a seat she campaigned for, promising action against AIDS, which was badly affecting people, especially from the LGBTQ+ community, in her city of San Francisco.

A national law addressing the epidemic emerged in the 1990s in the form of the Ryan White Care Act, and Pelosi, who was in Congress at the time, celebrated the moment. That law provided the largest funding programme for people with AIDS.

As a congresswoman for nearly 40 years, Pelosi has climbed through the ranks and, in 2001, became the first woman to hold the post of the House minority whip for the Democratic Party. In this post, it was her duty to advance the policies of her party.

In 2002, she became the House minority leader and, in 2007, she was elected speaker of the House when Republican George W Bush was in power.

“In this House, we may be different parties, but we serve one country,” she told the House while accepting the post in January 2007.

What does the House Speaker do?

According to the US Congress website, the Speaker of the House is elected either at the start of a Congress, which lasts for two years, or if there is a vacancy due to death or resignation.

The election takes place by “roll call vote, during which Members state aloud the name of their preferred candidate. If no candidate receives a majority of votes cast, balloting continues.” A speaker remains in office as long as he or she holds the House’s majority vote.

The speaker of the House symbolises “the power and authority of the House” and is tasked with maintaining decorum in the House, allowing members to speak, overseeing debates, and undertaking non-legislative tasks like controlling the Hall of the House.

The Speaker is also responsible for “defending the majority party’s legislative agenda” and also has a role of serving as a member of the House.

But the speaker cannot debate or vote on topics discussed in the House or sit on any standing committee in the House. These committees handle specific issues like overseeing government departments or analysing various financial issues.

What policies has Pelosi championed?

As a congresswoman and speaker of the House twice during her tenure, Pelosi has pursued left-of-centre policies and has been instrumental in passing several important laws and policies.

Climate

When she first took the gavel in 2007 as speaker of the House, she focused on climate policies and set up the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which held many hearings.

In 2015, she supported former US President Barack Obama in joining the Paris Climate Agreement.

In 2017, President Donald Trump ceased US participation, but when President Joe Biden came to power in 2021, climate was once again on the agenda.

As speaker of the House, Pelosi oversaw the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, which also included policies to address climate change.

Women’s rights

As the first woman to hold the position of speaker of the House in the US, Pelosi has been seen as instrumental in advancing women’s rights.

When Obama came to power in 2008, with Pelosi as speaker, she ensured that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which addressed equal wages for men and women, was passed.

She also supported women’s reproductive rights, despite being a Catholic, and fought for Roe v Wade – a US law which established that women had a constitutional right to an abortion – when it was overturned during President Donald Trump’s first term.

Healthcare

During President Obama’s tenure, Pelosi was instrumental in ensuring his Affordable Care Act became a law in 2010.

The law lists guidelines to ensure federal subsidies to ensure every person in the US has access to medical care and services.

The law was initially unpopular in the House, but Pelosi held hearings and spoke to Democrats and Republicans to ensure the smooth passage of the bill.

Between 2021 and 2023, Pelosi was also able to help Democrats pass major bills to propel Biden’s agenda, which included a huge COVID-19 relief package.

Foreign policy

As a Congress member in 2003, she opposed the US’s war in Iraq. She has also voiced strong opposition to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

However, when it comes to Israel’s war in Gaza, Pelosi is a staunch supporter of Israel and has defended the US stance towards the war.

In 2024, however, she called on Biden to halt the transfer of arms to Israel.

Pelosi has also been hawkish towards China and triggered a controversy when she visited Taiwan in 2022.

What is her role now?

She currently serves as the Representative for California’s 11th Congressional District, which includes San Francisco, from where she focuses on employment rights.

After her second tenure as Speaker of the House ended in November 2023, Pelosi announced she would step down from the House’s leadership to make way for young members to take up the role.

The end of her tenure made headlines, and interviews with her focusing on her diet – which involved having “her daily hot dog” – also caught the media’s attention. Pelosi has often told reporters that she enjoys a hot dog with mustard for lunch every day, plenty of Ghirardelli chocolates, and a breakfast that generally includes ice cream.

After stepping down as speaker, Pelosi retained the title of Speaker Emerita of the House.

She is also renowned as a brilliant fundraiser for political campaigns. “I had to raise like a million dollars a day – well, at least five days a week,” she once told reporters.

Why is she retiring now?

Pelosi has not given the precise reason for her decision to retire now. But, according to US media reports, it was widely expected after close to 38 years of service.

“I say to my colleagues in the House all of the time, no matter what title they had bestowed upon me – speaker, leader, whip – there has been no greater honour for me than to stand on the House floor and say, ‘I speak for the people of San Francisco,’” she said in her video message announcing her retirement on Thursday.

How did Trump react to news of her resignation?

President Trump, who has clashed with Pelosi on numerous occasions, called her an “evil woman” following the news.

“I think she did the country a great service by retiring. I think she was a tremendous liability for the country,” he told reporters.

Pelosi and Trump are often referred to as adversaries by political commentators and US media outlets, due to their disagreements over policy.

In 2019, during Trump’s first term, Pelosi, Democrat Chuck Schumer – who is currently minority leader of the Senate – and Trump got into a heated argument over building a wall along the US border with Mexico. Trump threatened to shut down the government during the squabble, which was broadcast on television channels around the world.

That same year, Trump and Pelosi discussed the war in Syria, but their disagreements were made public by Trump himself, who tweeted a picture of Pelosi pointing a finger at him.

“Nervous Nancy’s unhinged meltdown!” he said.

Nervous Nancy’s unhinged meltdown! pic.twitter.com/RDeUI7sfe7

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2019

In 2020, their rocky relationship once again made headlines when Pelosi tore up a copy of Trump’s State of the Union speech, calling it a “lie”. Trump said her actions were illegal since it was a government document, but, in fact, it was her own copy of the speech – not the official document.

Trump supporters who stormed into the Capitol on January 6, 2021, to protest the 2020 presidential election results that Biden won, barged into Pelosi’s office looking for her but couldn’t find her.

In 2022, an assailant broke into Pelosi’s home in San Francisco and assaulted her husband with a hammer, fracturing his skull. The former House speaker was not at the house during the attack. Prosecutors believe the act was politically motivated.

In January 2023, Trump mocked her husband’s attack while addressing a California Republican party convention as he prepared to stand for the presidential race for a second time.

“We’ll stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi, who ruined San Francisco – how’s her husband doing, anybody know?” Trump said.

“And she’s against building a wall at our border, even though she has a wall around her house – which obviously didn’t do a very good job,” he added.

How have others reacted?

Many American politicians paid tribute to Pelosi on social media platforms this week.

Former Representative Democrat Gabby Giffords (Democrat-Arizona), who was shot in the head in 2011 by a gunman who also killed six others during a constituent event in Tucson in 2011, said in a press statement:  “As the first woman Speaker of the House, she inspired me and and at my bedside following the shooting that turned my life upside-down, she uplifted me.”

Former President Obama said on X: “For almost four decades, Nancy Pelosi has served the American people and worked to make our country better. No one was more skilled at bringing people together and getting legislation passed – and I will always be grateful for her support of the Affordable Care Act.”

Former President Biden called Pelosi “the best Speaker of the House in American history” and said it was the reason why he awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the US’s highest honour, in 2024.

“When I was President, we worked together to grow our economy, create millions of jobs, and make historic investments in our nation’s future. She has devoted much of her life to this country, and America will always be grateful,” he said on X.

Right-wing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene also lauded Pelosi’s leadership. “She had an incredible career. I served under her speakership in my first term of Congress. And I’m very impressed at her ability to get things done. I wish we could get things done for our party,” she told CNN.

Which internet controversies has Pelosi been part of?

According to the Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact, while Pelosi has been lauded for her political achievements, she has also been mocked.

Some posts on the internet said she was removed from the House for being drunk many times. This is untrue.

A few other posts said she associated with Mexican drug lord El Chapo in 2016, when in reality she was at a meeting to discuss US-Mexico trade and security in the Pacific with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and Representative Henry Cuellar from Texas, who internet users mistakenly identified as El Chapo.

Polls find large majorities of people in the US oppose military action against Venezuela, where Trump has ramped up military pressure.

Republicans in the United States Senate have voted down legislation that would have required US President Donald Trump to obtain congressional approval for any military attacks on Venezuela.

Two Republicans had crossed the political aisle and joined Democrats to vote in favour of the legislation on Thursday, but their support was not enough to secure passage, and the bill failed to pass by 51 to 49 votes.

“We should not be going to war without a vote of Congress,” Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said during a speech.

The vote comes amid a US military build-up off South America and a series of military strikes targeting vessels in international waters off Venezuela and Colombia that have killed at least 65 people.

The US has alleged, without presenting evidence, that the boats it bombed were transporting drugs, but Latin American leaders, some members of Congress, international law experts and family members of the deceased have described the US attacks as extrajudicial killings, claiming most of those killed were fishermen.

Fears are now growing that Trump will use the military deployment in the region – which includes thousands of US troops, a nuclear submarine and a group of warships accompanying the USS Gerald R Ford, the US Navy’s most sophisticated aircraft carrier – to launch an attack on Venezuela in a bid to oust President Nicolas Maduro.

Washington has accused Maduro of drug trafficking, and Trump has hinted at carrying out attacks on Venezuelan soil.

Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, referencing Trump’s military posturing towards Venezuela, said on Thursday: “It’s really an open secret that this is much more about potential regime change.”

“If that’s where the administration is headed, if that’s what we’re risking – involvement in a war – then Congress needs to be heard on this,” he said.

Earlier on Thursday, a pair of US B-52 bombers flew over the Caribbean Sea along the coast of Venezuela, flight tracking data showed.

Data from tracking website Flightradar24 showed the two bombers flying parallel to the Venezuelan coast, then circling northeast of Caracas before heading back along the coast and turning north and flying further out to sea.

The presence of the US bombers off Venezuela was at least the fourth time that US military aircraft have flown near the country’s borders since mid-October, with B-52s having done so on one previous occasion, and B-1B bombers on two other occasions.

Little public support in US for attack on Venezuela

A recent poll found that only 18 percent of people in the US support even limited use of military force to overthrow Maduro’s government.

Research by YouGov also found that 74 percent of people in the US believe that the president should not be able to carry out military strikes abroad without congressional approval, in line with the requirements of the US Constitution.

Republican lawmakers, however, have embraced the recent strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, adopting the Trump administration’s framing of its efforts to cut off the flow of narcotics to the US.

Questions of the legality of such attacks, either under US or international law, do not appear to be of great concern to many Republicans.

“President Trump has taken decisive action to protect thousands of Americans from lethal narcotics,” Senator Jim Risch, the Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in remarks declaring his support for the strikes.

While only two Republicans – Senators Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski – defected to join Democrats in supporting the legislation to limit Trump’s ability to wage war unilaterally on Thursday, some conservatives have expressed frustration with a possible war on Venezuela.

Trump had campaigned for president on the promise of withdrawing the US from foreign military entanglements.

In recent years, Congress has made occasional efforts to reassert itself and impose restraints on foreign military engagements through the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which reaffirmed that Congress alone has the power to declare war.

New York’s new Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani won amid Islamophobic attacks, and is set to become the city’s first Muslim mayor. He pledged to serve all communities and to challenge United States President Trump’s policies. His win is being compared to that of London’s Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan, a counterweight to then-United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Are city mayors the new resistance to right-wing governments?

US President Donald Trump labelled New York mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani ‘a communist’ and claimed New Yorkers would flee the city when he becomes mayor. In his election victory speech, Mamdani called Trump ‘a despot’ and said he had ‘betrayed the country’.

Nov. 6 (UPI) — The Trump administration has moved to end deportation protections for those from South Sudan as the United Nations warns the country is on the brink of war.

Amid President Donald Trump‘s crackdown on immigration, the Department of Homeland Security has targeted countries that have been given Temporary Protected Status, which is granted to countries facing ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters or other extraordinary conditions.

TPS enables eligible nationals from the designated countries to live and work in the United States legally, without fear of deportation.

DHS announced it was ending TPS for South Sudan on Wednesday with the filing of a Federal Register notice.

The termination will be in effect Jan. 5.

“After conferring with interagency partners, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem determined that conditions in South Sudan no longer meet the TPS statutory requirements,” DHS said in a statement, which explained the decision was based on a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services review of the conditions in South Sudan and in consultation with the Department of State.

South Sudan was first designated for TPS in November 2011 amid violent post-independence instability in the country, and the designation has been repeatedly renewed since.

The Trump administration has sought to end TPS designations for a total seven countries: Afghanistan, Cameroon, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal, Venezuela and now South Sudan. Court challenges have followed, with decisions staying, at least for now, the terminations for all of the countries except for Afghanistan and Cameroon, which ended July 12 and Aug. 4, respectively.

The move to terminate TPS for South Sudan is also expected to be challenged in court.

The announcement comes a little more than a week after the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan warned the General Assembly that the African nation is experiencing escalating armed conflict and political crisis, and that international intervention is needed to halt mounting human rights violations.

A civil war erupted in South Sudan in December 2013, just two years after the country gained independence — a conflict that came to an end with a cease-fire in 2018.

Barney Afako, a member of the human rights commission in South Sudan, said Oct. 29 that the political transition spearheaded by the cease-fire agreement was “falling apart.”

“The cease-fire is not holding, political detentions have become a tool of repression, the peace agreement’s key provisions are being systematically violated and the government forces are using aerial bombardments in civilian areas,” he said.

“All indicators point to a slide back toward another deadly war.”

The DHS is urging South Sudanese in the United States under TPS to voluntarily leave the country using the U.S. Customs and Border Protection smartphone application. If they do, they can secure a complimentary plane ticket, a $1,000 “exit bonus” and potential future opportunities for legal immigration.

There have already been numerous flight delays as the FAA slows down or stops traffic when it is short of controllers.

United States Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has said that there could be chaos in the skies next week if the government shutdown drags on and air traffic controllers miss a second paycheck.

Duffy made his comments on Tuesday as the US government shutdown dragged into its 35th day, matching the shutdown in US President Donald Trump’s first term as president and which was the longest at the time.

There have already been numerous delays at airports across the country — sometimes hours long — because the Federal Aviation Administration slows down or stops traffic temporarily anytime it is short on controllers. Last weekend saw some of the worst staff shortages, and on Sunday, flights at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey were delayed for several hours.

Duffy and the head of the air traffic controllers union have both warned that the situation will only get worse the longer the shutdown continues and the financial pressure continues to grow on people who are forced to work without pay. FAA employees already missed one paycheck on October 28. Their next payday is scheduled for next Tuesday.

“Many of the controllers said, ‘A lot of us can navigate missing one paycheck. Not everybody, but a lot of us can. None of us can manage missing two paychecks,’” Duffy said. “So if you bring us to a week from today, Democrats, you will see mass chaos. You will see mass flight delays. You’ll see mass cancellations, and you may see us close certain parts of the airspace, because we just cannot manage it, because we don’t have air traffic controllers.”

Most of the flight disruptions so far during the shutdown have been isolated and temporary. But if delays become more widespread and start to ripple throughout the system, the pressure will mount on US Congress to reach an agreement to end the shutdown.

Normally, airlines strive to have at least 80 percent of their flights depart and arrive within 15 minutes of when they are scheduled. Aviation analytics firm Cirium said that since the shutdown began on October 1, the total number of delays overall has not fallen significantly below that goal because most of the disruptions so far have been no worse than what happens when a major thunderstorm moves across an airport.

But on Sunday, only about 56 percent of Newark’s departures were on time, and the Orlando airport reported that only about 70 percent of its flights were on time, according to Cirium.

As of midday Tuesday, there have been 1,932 flight delays reported across the US, according to www.FlightAware.com. That is lower than what is typical, although the FAA did say that flights in Phoenix were being delayed on Tuesday morning because of staffing shortages. Strong winds are also causing delays at the Newark and LaGuardia airports on Tuesday.

Independent New York City mayoral candidate Andrew Cuomo said President Donald Trump would cut through Democratic rival Zohran Mamdani “like a hot knife through butter” after voting in Manhattan on Tuesday. Cuomo, trailing in polls, warned of a “civil war” in the Democratic Party.