Elections

OAKLAND — Mayor Lionel Wilson, a fixture in this city’s politics for three decades, was fighting off a nasty cold as he took his campaign for reelection to a hall filled with real estate agents recently.

In past years, Wilson could have stayed home to nurse his ailment. He long ago endeared himself to Oakland business leaders by presiding over a boom in downtown building that brought a glistening skyline to the city. As he seeks a fourth term, however, the soft-spoken mayor finds he can take no group for granted.

Concluding his speech to the agents, he pleaded, “Give me a chance to complete the job I started.” But on this day, in a city beset by a continuing drug crisis, crime, a troubled school system and the aftermath of last October’s earthquake, the applause for the mayor was polite, and nothing more.

At 75, Wilson is facing the toughest campaign of his career, challenged by politicians who barely were teen-agers when he began his government career in 1960. The most likely outcome is that no candidate will win more than 50% of the vote in the nonpartisan June 5 election, and the two leading vote-getters will face off in November. But a recent Oakland Tribune-Gallup Poll confirmed what local politicos have been saying for weeks: Wilson may not make it to the runoff.

Only 18% of the likely voters backed Wilson. Assemblyman Elihu Harris, a Democrat who is giving up the legislative seat he has held for 12 years to mount a well-heeled effort to unseat Wilson, led with 32%, the poll showed.

Harris’ closest rival was veteran City Councilman Wilson Riles Jr., liberal son of the former state superintendent of schools, who was supported by 22%. Five other candidates had lesser support. And 22% were undecided.

In a sign of Wilson’s past impact on Oakland, candidates Harris, Riles and City Councilman Leo Bazile all have been labeled his protege in the past. Now, though, they depict him as a figure whom time has passed by.

“It is sad,” Riles said of the sinking political fortunes of the city’s first black mayor. “He was probably the right person to break the color barrier. (But) I don’t know whether he should have gotten a second term, and certainly not a third term. . . . People are saying it is time for a change.”

The campaign has been mean even by Oakland’s fractious standards. Candidate forums routinely are interrupted by demonstrators, and campaign rhetoric frequently has been downright nasty.

At a recent candidates forum, Bazile, a city councilman since 1983, ignored a thoughtful question about the future of downtown and accused Harris of a cavalier attitude toward crack cocaine use because he has broached the prospect of legalizing drugs.

Harris restrained himself, answered the question about downtown, and waited until after the debate to respond. He said he did not advocate that crack be made legal, though he added that in the fight against drugs, “We should not be afraid to discuss all of the options.”

Such asides notwithstanding, the issues in Oakland are considerable. Last October’s earthquake hit the city hard; repairs to city-owned buildings may cost $250 million. Officials must negotiate with Caltrans over a replacement for the collapsed Nimitz Freeway.

Meanwhile, thousands of blue-collar workers could lose their jobs if a federal study recommending closure of Oakland-area Navy bases becomes reality.

Crack use is epidemic, straining the health care system and fueling crime. A city of 360,000 people, Oakland had a record 148 homicides last year. The murder rate was third-highest in the state last year for cities with populations of more than 100,000, and the overall crime rate was second-worst.

Oakland schools, though not the mayor’s responsibility, are a major campaign topic. A state trustee has been appointed to oversee the Oakland Unified School District, and a criminal investigation has led to the arrests of 13 district employees for theft and embezzlement.

“The solutions to those problems are going to have to come at a quickened pace,” said Alameda County Supervisor Don Perata, who is neutral in the race. “Rhetoric won’t get by. You’re going to have to have some very adroit leadership.”

Then, there’s football.

After initial reluctance, Wilson backed an ambitious plan to lure the Los Angeles Raiders back to Oakland with an unprecedented $600-million-plus package of loans, grants, guaranteed profits and a promise to rebuild the Oakland Coliseum, all to suit team owner Al Davis.

Politicians quickly discovered that while Oakland football fans may pine for the Raiders, they don’t miss Davis. This is the man who spurned them by moving the team to Los Angeles after the 1981 football season. The thought that the city would guarantee him profits angered so many that 31,000 residents signed petitions to place the plan to bring the Raiders back on the ballot. The referendum was put on hold after Wilson withdrew his support of the deal; city officials and the Raiders have reopened negotiations.

Wilson conceded that the proposal has been “a negative” for him. He added, “I got caught in the middle.”

Even Councilman Riles, who scored big by opposing the deal, was shocked at the reaction. The deal elicited more angry calls than any municipal issue Riles could recall. “I lucked out,” he said.

Riles, long Wilson’s nemesis, tried to unseat the mayor in 1985. An ally of liberal Rep. Ron Dellums (D-Berkeley), Riles battles the moderate Wilson on such issues as rent control and development. He contends that more should be spent on the city’s poor neighborhoods and less on big downtown projects.

Wilson encouraged interest in his job by strengthening the office. Under a 1988 City Charter change that he engineered, the next mayor will make $80,000 a year, up from the previous $30,000.

He also supported moving local elections to even-numbered years. For the first time, the mayoral campaign is being held in conjunction with major state races. Turnout could hit 50%; in the last two mayoral elections, it was less than 28%.

At the time the changes were being debated, Wilson was leaning against running. He changed his mind last summer, saying he concluded that no other candidate could see through to completion development of a major downtown retail center.

However, as many voters apparently see it, Wilson’s day is over.

Clinton O’Keefe Killian, a 32-year-old lawyer and Harris supporter, talks of Oakland’s “tremendous potential,” but points to opportunities lost under Wilson. He extols the lifestyle in his ethnically diverse city, though he has complaints with faulty city services and frets about sending his children to Oakland schools.

“Oakland could be the town in California where blacks and other minorities can show they bring something to the table,” Killian said. But for all its promise of becoming “Atlanta-West,” Oakland won’t “go any further unless somebody is pushing it.”

Harris has tailored his message to such voters. While Wilson proved to any skeptics that “blacks could run the city,” Harris said, there’s a need now to move “beyond presence and become more aggressive.”

Harris has built his campaign around high-quality public schools. In some ways, it’s an odd issue to champion, given that the mayor has no say over the schools, which are run by an independently elected school board.

Still, Harris made a name for himself last year by pushing state legislation that led to the naming of a trustee to oversee the school district. The bill came after years of poor academic performance by students, studies critical of district management, and, finally, the criminal investigation.

Harris won popular support with the bill, but has taken his share of hits over it. Wilson charged that he pushed it merely to gain needed name identification.

The move also angered members of a black neighborhood group called the People’s Democratic Uhuru Movement. Using a variety of disruptive tactics, Uhuru adherents have been hounding Harris.

Their point: Harris backs “white colonialists” and “the U.S. government’s war against the black community” with his support of the school trustee.

Aug. 8 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate passed a stopgap funding bill Saturday that would fund the government through Dec. 11 to prevent a government shutdown in September.

The bill was put in place to avoid a shutdown before November’s midterm elections. It’s unclear if the bill will pass the House of Representatives. The Senate passed the bill in a bipartisan 90-6 vote, with Sen. Darline Graham , R-S.C., voting present.

The Senate is now on a five-week recess and is scheduled to return Sept. 14.

The House passed a similar bill on July 22.

The Senate bill includes a section that would bar President Donald Trump from transferring funds to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a provision that Democrats demanded.

It would also delay a ban on intoxicating hemp products, which is scheduled to go into effect in November. The ban was made law in November 2025 with a one-year delay. The law redefined hemp and would make most hemp products illegal, including CBD, Delta-9 and others. The new delay would push implementation back until December.

A group of Republican Senators, led by Sen. Ted Budd, R-N.C., tried to block the delay of the law, but failed.

“After three unnecessary lapses in funding during the fiscal year 2026 cycle, putting the possibility of yet another harmful shutdown off the table should be a priority for each and every one of us,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. Collins is the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Democrats lauded the measure to prevent backdoor funding of the Border Patrol.

“This is an important step forward to prevent a shutdown no one wants and provide the runway we need to negotiate funding bills in the months ahead as we fight to rein in Trump’s corruption and make life more affordable for families back home,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the committee.

The bill also blocks the Trump administration until the end of the stopgap from finalizing a rule that would put political appointees in charge of approving federal grants.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said this week that he’s going to “fight like hell” in December to ensure Congress doesn’t further block Trump’s grant overhaul.

Collins said she will “continue to oppose” the administration’s plans “because I think they politicize the grants process, and I don’t want that to occur.” Murray said she, too, would “welcome the fight.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, praised the Senate bill for including the grant and immigration enforcement language.

“This bill is a clear improvement over the House Republican continuing resolution, but we are still nearly two months away from the end of the fiscal year and should be working together to pass full-year funding bills,” she said in a statement.

After passing the funding legislation, the Senate narrowly approved the confirmation of Todd Blanche as attorney general early Saturday morning.

An opposition lawmaker threw eggs at acting Prime Minster Albin Kurti during a parliamentary session which was convened to constitute Kosovo’s parliament following a snap election held in June.

A spate of recent polls signals that Democrats are gaining traction in both the races for United States Senate and the governor’s mansion in Texas, turning a reliably Republican state into a battleground ahead of the November midterm elections.

On Friday, the nonpartisan research initiative Texas Pulse, helmed in part by the Texas A&M Bush School of Government and Public Service, released its latest public opinion survey into the state’s midterm races.

It found that James Talarico, the Democratic nominee, is now leading the US Senate race by four points, with 47 percent support. His Republican rival, state Attorney General Ken Paxton, trailed at 43 percent.

Those statistics suggested growing momentum for Talarico, who was tied with Paxton in an earlier Texas Pulse poll from June.

Texas Pulse’s findings echo another poll, released on Thursday, that showed Talarico leading Paxton 48 percent to 45 percent. Another 6 percent of respondents said they were undecided.

That poll, conducted by the research firms YouGov and 254 Labs, suggested that Talarico had a significant advantage among undecided and independent voters in the Lone Star State.

An estimated 57 percent of independent voters preferred the Democratic candidate over his Republican competitor, although 20 percent said they remained undecided.

A Fox News poll from late July similarly found that 68 percent of independents are getting behind Talarico, a 37-year-old state representative.

While polls can vary dramatically in the months leading up to an election, the latest survey results are likely to serve as a bellwether for Democratic odds in November’s midterms.

The left-leaning party is hoping to wrest both chambers of Congress from Republican control.

Should Democrats succeed in doing so, their majorities could serve as a bulwark against President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda during the final two years of his presidency.

But analysts believe the Senate may be more difficult to flip than the House of Representatives. While all 435 seats in the House are up for grabs in November, only a third of the Senate is on the ballot.

That makes every Senate race critical to either party maintaining — or retaking — control of the upper chamber.

Cost of living concerns

Texas has long-established bona fides as a Republican stronghold. No Democrat has held statewide office in Texas in more than three decades.

But the open Senate seat in Texas has created an unusually competitive race for Democrats.

Paxton, the Trump-endorsed candidate, defeated the incumbent Senator John Cornyn in the Republican primary in May.

But the longtime state attorney general has generated concerns among Republicans about his ability to appeal to centrist voters.

Paxton’s career in politics has been riddled with corruption scandals. During his tenure as the state’s attorney general, he has faced allegations of abuse of office and misconduct involving a political donor, the latter of which resulted in his impeachment — though he was not removed from office.

He also faced a separate, nearly decade-long securities fraud case that was dismissed last year. His support for the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and accusations of adultery have also been sources of criticism.

A Texas Public Opinion Research poll, released last week, found Paxton trailing Talarico by five points, 45 percent to 40 percent.

Notably, that poll suggested that the Democrat leads by 34 percentage points among self-described moderates, with 54 percent support to Paxton’s 20 percent.

Experts like Evan Roth Smith, the lead pollster for Texas Public Opinion Research, credit that upward momentum to a solid campaign pitch.

“Talarico is up because he’s running the race every Democrat in this country should be running. When they go on TV, podcasts and talk to reporters, they should focus on affordability. If we can win on affordability, we can win elections,” Smith told Al Jazeera.

Talarico, a former educator with a seminary background, has largely concentrated his campaign on cost-of-living and economic issues, proposing to raise the federal minimum wage.

He also recently unveiled a plan late last month to end tax breaks for tech companies building data centres.

Paxton’s economic agenda, meanwhile, has focused on tax breaks, including a $25,000 tax deduction for out-of-pocket medical expenses and a $50,000 deduction for first-time homebuyers.

But Texas’s Senate contest is not the only statewide race generating attention for its competitiveness this election cycle.

The gubernatorial race is also getting tighter between Democratic state Representative Gina Hinojosa and Republican incumbent Greg Abbott. That race is neck and neck.

Abbott’s lead has shrunk from six points to a single point, with Abbott at 46 percent and Hinojosa at 45 percent, according to Friday’s Texas Pulse poll.

The Texas Public Opinion Research poll has Abbott leading by three points, with 45 percent support compared with 42 percent for Hinojosa. A wild card, however, remains in the 10 percent of respondents who identify as undecided.

Detroit, Michigan – The sighs in the audience were audible as United States Congresswoman Haley Stevens closed in on Abdul El-Sayed’s lead in the Michigan Democratic primary for the US Senate.

El-Sayed, a public health advocate, took the stage after midnight as uncertainty had dampened the once-celebratory mood among supporters in Detroit early on Wednesday.

“I wish I could tell you that I was declaring victory right about now. It turns out it takes a long time to count some votes in Michigan. It’s a big state,” he joked.

The progressive candidate went on to remind the crowd of what his campaign was up against: tens of millions of dollars in campaign spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other special-interest groups.

“I want you to remind them that if we come through this, when we come through this, inshallah [God willing]”, he said, “that we’ll have taken $70m on the chin and kept fighting back.”

Stevens, a four-term congresswoman, continued to shrink El-Sayed’s lead as the votes came in, bringing the margin between them down to less than 1 percent.

The final results arrived later on Wednesday morning, long after the sun had risen on a new day. El-Sayed had won by a razor-thin margin.

He had fended off not just Stevens but also the pro-Israel groups and Democratic power brokers in Michigan, including top officials from the party, like Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who had endorsed his opponent.

The result appeared to stun the US political system, dealing yet another setback to the pro-Israel Democrats and sparking a response from President Donald Trump, who was quick to label El-Sayed as a “Communist loser who hates Jews and Israel”.

But the message from the vote results was clear: Campaign spending and big-name endorsements may no longer be enough to secure victory within the Democratic Party.

‘It’s not just the status quo anymore’

El-Sayed’s supporters say the delayed celebrations and the smaller-than-expected margin of victory should not diminish the significance of the elections.

Democratic state legislator Alabas Farhat said El-Sayed’s victory sends a message that, if candidates run on an anti-war platform and are willing to take on special interest groups like AIPAC, people will vote for them.

“It’s not just the status quo anymore and these establishment politicians who are used to coasting through these elections,” Farhat told Al Jazeera.

“It’s now folks who want to come in and disrupt and deliver big, bold agendas and relief for the working families of Michigan and anywhere else.”

Stevens had overwhelming support from the Democratic Party establishment. She was backed by Whitmer, former Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and retiring Senator Gary Peters, whose seat she was running for.

Defeating Stevens allows El-Sayed to compete in November’s general elections against former Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, who is backed by Trump and will likely receive support from pro-Israel groups.

AIPAC has already indicated it will continue its spending in Michigan to beat El-Sayed in the general election. “Our members remain determined to ensure that voters reject Dr El-Sayed and his radical anti-Israel agenda in November,” the group said in a statement on Wednesday.

The pro-Israel lobby group also downplayed El-Sayed’s victory, highlighting wins by other pro-Israel candidates, including in Missouri, where Congressman Wesley Bell comfortably won against his progressive challenger, former Congresswoman Cori Bush.

“While disappointed that some of our AIPAC-backed candidates did not prevail, our community is proud to support pro-Israel Democrats and Republicans who stand for our values, and we are encouraged that voters in races across this primary season continue to broadly choose leaders who support a strong US-Israel partnership,” AIPAC said.

Even with polls showing that the general election is up for grabs, analysts are emphasising the historic nature of El-Sayed’s primary victory.

Progressive Senator Bernie Sanders called El-Sayed’s win the “most extraordinary victory” in modern US politics.

“Have you ever heard of a candidate in a major race getting outspent nine to one, taking on the entire establishment and winning?” Sanders said on the Pod Save America podcast.

“I cannot recall somebody having done that.”

Left-wing victories

El-Sayed was not alone in security victories in the state’s primary races. The overall result in Michigan is seen as another major achievement for the progressive left in this election cycle.

In Tuesday’s election, progressive state legislator Donavan McKinney defeated pro-Israel incumbent Shri Thanedar in a US House Democratic primary. In a district north of Detroit, left-wing climate organiser William Lawrence also won a Democratic primary for Congress by 15 points.

Across the US, from California to Colorado to Pennsylvania to New Jersey to New York, progressives have won similar races, ousting several incumbents and claiming open seats in safe Democratic districts.

What makes El-Sayed’s win significant is not only the spending and endorsements he faced, but also that he won a state-wide race in a swing state that voted for Trump less than two years ago. Michigan is home to more than 10 million people.

Progressive Pennsylvania State Representative Chris Rabb, who is on his way to Congress after winning a competitive primary for a heavily Democratic seat in May, said left-wing candidates are prevailing because they are able to engage voters with a compassionate and substantive approach.

He said El-Sayed’s victory sends a message to the Democratic establishment: “They’ve got to take a look at the electoral calculus going forward.”

“The things that used to work are old and are arcane and do not reach the types of people that will come out who won’t vote for normal traditional Democrats,” Rabb said. “But he’s bringing out folks who haven’t come out in a long time or ever.”

He added that El-Sayed’s ability to broaden the Democratic base will help him defeat Rogers in November.

El-Sayed’s campaign slogan is, “Money out of politics. Money in your pockets. Medicare for all.”

His platform is focused on affordability and expanding access to healthcare. But AIPAC’s involvement in the race and the polarisation over Israel made the conflict in the Middle East a key issue in the election.

Russell Ellis, the social media commentator known as Jolly Good Ginger, said voters across the US are showing that they are “fed up” with Israel and AIPAC.

“The amount of voters that are drawing a red line at sending bombs to continue a genocide is much larger than people are accepting that it is. It’s massive,” he told Al Jazeera.

“I think most Americans can agree that we can’t support genocide, and that using American taxpayer dollars and American bombs to commit genocide in Gaza, in Sudan, in Congo, anywhere is unacceptable.”

‘We want to fund healthcare, not warfare’

Despite his criticism of Israel, El-Sayed always brought the political conversation back to Michigan.

The US has spent billions of dollars on military support for Israel, its Middle East ally, and even more on the war with Iran – a conflict that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been seeking for decades.

El-Sayed has argued that the money spent on war should go to help communities across the US and Michigan.

His supporters say the progressive wins in Michigan show that this approach is resonating with voters.

“Today’s historic victories in Michigan prove that Palestine will win at the polls again and again,” Iman Abid, the political director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, said in a statement.

“AIPAC can try dumping millions of dollars into propaganda, but at the end of the day, American voters don’t want our tax dollars to go toward bombing families abroad. We want to fund healthcare, not warfare.”

Sally Howell, a history professor at the University of Michigan-Dearborn who pioneered academic research about the Arab community, said El-Sayed’s win represents “genuine change” for Michigan.

“It tells us that voters are very frustrated with the establishment – the establishment in Washington and the establishment in the Democratic Party,” Howell told Al Jazeera.

“They want leaders who are going to bring change, not more of the same.”

US President Donald Trump attacked Michigan’s Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, repeatedly calling him a ‘hater of Jews’ and ‘a hater of Israel.’ El-Sayed won the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, overcoming millions in campaign spending from pro-Israel lobbying groups.

Presidents of Argentina, Paraguay, Chile and Ecuador, along with Spain’s King Felipe VI, are expected to attend Friday’s ceremony.

Colombia’s outgoing defence minister has warned of a heightened risk of “terrorism” ahead of Friday’s inauguration of President-elect Abelardo de la Espriella.

Minister of Defence Pedro Sanchez told radio station La FM on Wednesday that authorities were tracking a “threat” against Friday’s proceedings. “Most likely, these criminals would attempt to disrupt this democratic event with acts of terrorism,” he said.

The handover of the presidency will take place in the region of Cali in Colombia’s southwest, which has recently seen a series of militia attacks.

De la Espriella, 48, who narrowly won the June presidential run-off, had asked Congress to move the event from the capital, Bogota, to the country’s third-largest city despite its proximity to areas under the control of rebel groups.

Several foreign leaders, including the presidents of Argentina, Paraguay, Chile and Ecuador, along with Spain’s King Felipe VI, are expected to attend the inauguration ceremony.

To secure the event, Colombia’s military is deploying roughly 11,000 troops and has imposed a no-fly zone on drones over Cali and its surroundings. Rebel fighters have previously used drones to drop explosives.

In the department of Cauca, near Cali, a dissident faction of the FARC armed group operates under the command of Ivan Mordisco, the alias of Colombia’s most wanted rebel leader.

The hard-right de la Espriella campaigned on dismantling outgoing President Gustavo Petro’s “Total Peace” negotiation strategy with armed groups.

Petro has disputed the election result and said he will not attend Friday’s ceremony.

New York City’s Mayor Zohran Mamdani congratulated Abdul El-Sayed on winning Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, praising his focus on healthcare and cost of living. He dismissed Republican claims branding El-Sayed a ‘mini Mamdani’, joking, ‘he can lift a lot more than I can’.

The announcement comes as Lula warns of foreign interference and polls show a tightening presidential race.

Brazilian Senator Flavio Bolsonaro has named conservative Congressman Alfredo Gaspar as his running mate, ending weeks of speculation over who would join his presidential ticket in October’s election against incumbent President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

The announcement on Wednesday also highlighted the challenges facing Bolsonaro’s campaign, which has struggled to build alliances beyond his own Liberal Party and failed in an effort to recruit a woman to the ticket in hopes of broadening its appeal.

Gaspar, 55, has represented the northeastern state of Alagoas in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies since 2023 and served as its public security secretary.

Accepting the nomination, he described himself as “a simple person from the northeast” whose life had been defined by “hard work and honour”, saying he would work alongside Bolsonaro “to transform Brazil into a fair and decent place”.

Gaspar led a congressional investigation into Brazil’s National Social Security Institute (INSS), the agency that oversees the country’s public pension and social security system. Fabio Luis Lula da Silva, the president’s son, is under investigation over allegations that he received improper payments linked to an alleged pension fraud scheme involving that agency.

Political analyst Lucas de Aragao, a partner at consultancy Arko Advice, said the choice was surprising but gave Bolsonaro someone well-placed to attack Lula on an issue that has become politically sensitive.

“He has the authority to deal with an issue that is uncomfortable for Lula. He also speaks extensively about public security,” Aragao said.

Gaspar emerged as the Liberal Party’s preferred choice after several higher-profile figures courted by Bolsonaro, including Senator Tereza Cristina of the Progressive Party and former Caixa Economica Federal chief Daniella Marques of the Republicanos, failed to get their own parties to support them in joining the ticket.

Bolsonaro, the son of former far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, has struggled to expand his coalition, with several centre-right parties choosing to either back Lula’s broader coalition or remain neutral in the election in hopes of maximising their representation in Congress and appealing to anti-Bolsonaro voters in the country’s northeast.

A Quaest survey published on Wednesday found Lula leading Bolsonaro 44 percent to 39 percent in a simulated run-off, down from an eight-point lead in mid-July. In a first-round scenario, Lula was on 39 percent support to Bolsonaro’s 30 percent. If no candidate wins more than half the valid votes in the first round, the top two candidates advance to a run-off.

Launching his re-election campaign on Sunday, Lula cast the October vote as a battle to defend Brazil’s sovereignty amid growing concerns over foreign influence.

“Too many people are poking their fingers into our business. Too many people are interfering in our land. And that is going to stop,” he told supporters.

In July, Brazil denied visas to two US State Department officials who Lula said were being sent to “meddle” in the elections.

The diplomatic rift deepened on Tuesday, when the Trump administration said it was temporarily revoking the visa of Brazil’s ambassador to Washington in response to Brasilia withholding approval for Trump’s ambassadorial nominee.

Lula has pointed to those tensions, along with Trump’s public support for Flavio Bolsonaro and US tariffs imposed on Brazilian goods, as evidence that Brazil’s sovereignty is under pressure.

“As long as I’m president, no one from outside will interfere in Brazilian elections,” Lula said on Wednesday.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Progressive advocate overcomes more than $60m in spending to defeat pro-Israel Congresswoman Haley Stevens.

Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive public health advocate, has won the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate, overcoming more than $60m in campaign spending, mostly from pro-Israel groups, NBC has projected.

The result on Tuesday represents an enormous blow to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which led the way in the effort to defeat the pro-Palestinian El-Sayed, backing his opponent, US Congresswoman Haley Stevens, with more than $30m.

El-Sayed will face former Republican Congressman Mike Rogers in November. The race is considered one of a handful of competitive Senate contests in the November midterms and could determine which party controls the chamber for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term.

If El-Sayed – who is of Egyptian descent – wins in November, he would become the first Muslim senator in US history.

Tuesday’s result in Michigan – a swing state that voted for Trump in 2024 – will have major implications for the Democrats’ policies on conflicts in the Middle East.

El-Sayed recognises Israel’s atrocities in Gaza as a genocide and argues that money spent on conflicts that benefit Israel should be invested in local communities in the US to address healthcare, housing and infrastructure problems.

More to come…

The administration of President Donald Trump has cancelled the visa for Brazil’s ambassador in the United States, the latest sign of a deepening diplomatic rift between the two countries.

An anonymous US State Department official briefed reporters on Tuesday that Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti’s visa had been temporarily revoked.

But Ribeiro Viotti was not being expelled from the country, the official added.

“The action was that the visa of a senior diplomat here was revoked or cancelled. That is not the same thing as kicking the person out of the country,” the official said.

The decision to revoke the visa was framed as backlash to Brazil’s decision to withhold approval for Trump’s ambassador to the South American country.

Should that approval be granted, the US official explained, Ribeiro Viotti’s visa would be returned. Until then, the official suggested she could remain in the US.

“It means that they are here but without a visa, and would have their visa restored if the balance is restored by giving agreement to our chosen ambassadorial nominee,” the official said.

The move comes after Washington expressed anger over Brazil’s failure to approve Trump’s choice for ambassador to Brazil, Danny Perez.

Perez is a Florida state representative and a Republican ally of Trump’s hawkish Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. He was nominated to the ambassadorship in June, but has yet to be confirmed by the full US Senate.

Media reports indicate that Trump publicly nominated Perez before reaching out to Brazil.

Sources inside the Brazilian government said this was considered a breach of protocol, and they intend to probe Perez’s nomination before issuing formal approval.

Without such approval, though, Perez will be unable to take up his post in the capital, Brasilia.

The tit-for-tat over the ambassadors is likely to ratchet up long-simmering tensions between Washington and Brazil, the US’s largest South American trading partner.

Last month, Brazil denied visas to officials from the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, after voicing concerns that the delegation intended to undermine the country’s election system. Brazil is set to elect its president in October.

Trump is considered a close ally of the Bolsonaro family, a powerful political dynasty on Brazil’s far right.

The US president’s first term overlapped with the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro, who was nicknamed the “Trump of the Tropics”.

His son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, is on the ballot this election season.

Both Trump and the elder Bolsonaro have used false claims of election fraud to dispute unfavourable election results.

Trump has also sought to boost the prospects of right-wing candidates across Latin America since the start of his second term, even threatening to withhold US funds depending on election outcomes.

With Latin America experiencing a shift rightwards, Brazil remains the largest country to be governed by a left-wing leader: President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. He has emerged as a vocal critic of Trump’s attempts to increase US influence in Latin America.

Lula defeated the elder Bolsonaro in the 2022 presidential elections, and he is seeking a fourth, non-consecutive term this October. Flavio Bolsonaro is his top rival.

Since being voted out of office, Jair Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years in prison for his role in an alleged plot to overthrow the 2022 election results.

Trump vocally rejected Jair Bolsonaro’s prosecution, which was recommended by Brazil’s Federal Police. Last year, the US president placed steep tariffs on Brazil, demanding that prosecutors end their case.

Though the tariffs were lifted, the US announced in July that it would impose 25 percent tariffs, this time accusing Brazil of unfair trade practices.

Brazilian authorities remain wary that the US might seek to influence the outcome of October’s presidential election in favour of Flavio Bolsonaro.

Lula formally launched his campaign bid on Sunday, framing the race as a question of national sovereignty – and the “future of Latin America”.

While FBI poll monitoring is not new, US lawmakers raise alarm amid Trump’s years-long, evidenceless claims of election fraud.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced it has sent federal monitors to polls in four Democratic-leaning cities in Michigan, amid warnings that the administration of United States President Donald Trump could use such monitors for partisan aims.

The DOJ announced the monitors would be present during Michigan’s primary vote on Tuesday as part of an effort to “ensure free and fair elections nationwide”, according to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon.

“The Department of Justice is devoting extensive resources to ensure uniform and nondiscriminatory monitoring,” it said.

While the department has for decades overseen an election monitoring programme to ensure compliance with federal civil rights laws, lawmakers and advocates have raised concerns over how such a programme could be used under the current administration.

Trump has for years alleged, without evidence, that US elections have been marred by widespread fraud. He has never acknowledged his 2020 loss to US President Joe Biden.

Michigan has played a major role in those claims.

In a primetime speech delivered in mid-July, Trump re-upped a previously concluded probe into alleged voter fraud in the city of Muskegon as he called on the FBI to reinvestigate the case. Local officials had already determined that several voter registration forms had been fraudulently filled out in the city by employees of a consulting firm attempting to falsely reach their quotas.

No fraudulent ballots were cast in connection with the fake voter registration forms. State officials have highlighted the situation as proof of the efficacy of their election security practices.

The announcement on Tuesday came weeks after the Department of Justice said it planned to monitor 15 jurisdictions across six states: Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia. The DOJ has said it will expand the use of monitors leading into November.

The department did not give a reason for why the four Michigan cities –  Detroit, Hamtramck, Lansing, and East Lansing – were selected.

Detroit, Lansing and East Lansing are all heavily Democratic leaning. Hamtramck, considered the first Muslim-majority city in the US, has historically leaned Democratic, but has shifted increasingly Republican in recent years.

Residents of the state on Tuesday were casting ballots to determine party nominees in local, state and US Congressional races for the midterm election in November.

Key races include a fierce Democratic Senate race, with progressive Abdul El-Sayed hoping to defeat US Representative Haley Stevens, widely viewed as a weathervane for the party’s future.

Voters will also decide the candidates for the gubernatorial race, with Trump-backed US Representative John James facing off with former presidential candidate Perry Johnson on the Republican side, as Democrat Jocelyn Benson, the current Michigan state secretary, is expected to sail to victory in her party’s primary.

Democrats ask for assurances

In a letter to the Department of Justice dated Monday, 10 Democratic senators asked for assurances that FBI monitors deployed across the country will not “target jurisdictions in a partisan manner; discourage voter participation or interfere with the voting process; or pressure, harass, or interfere with state and local election officials as they do their jobs”.

They noted the wider context in which the monitors are being deployed, including efforts by the Trump administration to obtain state voter rolls. On Tuesday, a judge ruled the administration could not access Colorado’s voter data, the latest in a string of similar rulings.

Trump has also called for Republicans to “nationalise” elections. Under the US Constitution, state governments administer elections, in a system of decentralisation that advocates have long argued protects against wholesale interference.

The senators said that the DOJ has characterised the monitors as “routine” and “non-partisan”.

“However, it would be remiss not to acknowledge concerns that monitors are being deployed disproportionately to jurisdictions in states governed by Democratic leaders or with Democratic chief election officials,” they wrote.

“Moreover, election monitors are being deployed in the context of President Trump’s ongoing threats to nationalise, militarise, and otherwise interfere with the conduct of free and fair elections.”

Dearborn, Michigan – Yemeni-American activist Samraa Luqman has no regrets about voting for President Donald Trump in 2024.

While the United States president has been a disappointment to Arab Americans in Michigan with his pro-war and anti-immigration policies, she stressed that it was untenable for the community to vote for Democrats as Israel’s genocide unfolded in Gaza.

“There had to be accountability for the genocide. We’re OK with what we voted for,” Luqman told Al Jazeera.

“I said from the beginning, I’m willing to live through another four years of Trump, that we expected him to be bad on our issues, but it was a pill we were willing to swallow in order to hold the Democratic Party accountable.”

Luqman is not alone.

Despite Trump’s staunchly pro-Israel policies and unpopular war on Iran, many say supporting Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in 2024 was out of the question, and it was the right choice for the community to break with the Democratic Party.

“I could not – with a good heart, good conscience – tell someone to vote for Kamala Harris or Donald Trump”, but the approach of “lesser of two evils” no longer works to sway Arab voters, Hussein Dabajeh, a prominent political strategist in the Detroit area, home to large Arab and Muslim communities, told Al Jazeera.

Democrats’ popularity amongst Arab Americans nosedived in 2024 as President Joe Biden ignored calls to compel a ceasefire in Gaza and continued to provide Israel with weapons and military aid as it killed tens of thousands in Palestine and Lebanon.

Then, Vice President Harris refused even to consider an arms embargo against Israel.

As a result of these policies, many Arab Americans, who had been reliable Democratic voters for years, ditched the party and refused to support Harris in her presidential bid.

Trump swept in, presented himself as a “peace” candidate, and his campaign forged ties with Arab community advocates.

Trump’s policies

At a rally in Michigan ahead of the 2024 vote, Trump brought local Muslim imams to the stage and praised the community.

The Republican leader also visited the predominantly Arab and Muslim Detroit suburb of Dearborn ahead of the election.

Trump ended up winning Michigan as many Arab voters in the Dearborn area refused to back Harris. Some voted for him, while others voted for a third party, left the top of the ticket blank, or skipped the election altogether.

According to an Al Jazeera analysis of election results in heavily Arab precincts in east Dearborn, about 45 percent of the votes went to Trump, 29 percent to Green Party candidate Jill Stein, and 16 percent to Harris.

As president, Trump allowed Israel to continue its attacks on Gaza and Lebanon and launched an unprovoked war against Iran that has sent petrol prices soaring.

He has also intensified the crackdown on Palestinian rights advocacy at home with a campaign to deport noncitizen student activists critical of Israel.

In February, he also terminated immigration protections for Yemeni nationals, sowing fear and uncertainty in a community where many leaders had endorsed him in 2024.

Asked how Arab Americans feel about Trump now, Dabajeh said: “They hate him. There’s no other way of putting it. I don’t think there is a single person I know that voted for Trump from the Arab and Muslim community specifically that looks at what Trump is doing and is happy with what he’s doing, or what he’s done.”

‘The genocide matured us’

Many Arab Americans stress that withholding support for Harris in 2024 was not out of love for Trump.

“No one understands the horrors of Trump’s policy more than us. We were his first victims in 2017,” said Amer Zahr, a comedian and Dearborn Board of Education trustee.

Shortly after starting his first term in 2017, Trump implemented a travel ban on several Muslim-majority countries.

“No one is more aware of the harm that Trump can cause than we are,” Zahr added. “But the genocide matured us in a way that we finally got to the point where we were willing to tell politicians ‘no’.”

As the election season returns to Michigan, Arab Americans once again find themselves at a political crossroads.

The community is rallying behind Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed – who had previously endorsed Harris – but some are keeping their political options open.

Luqman, the Yemeni activist, said she will certainly vote for El-Sayed and Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib – who are outspoken critics of Israel – in the Democratic primary on Tuesday and in the general elections in November.

Luqman said Democratic voters’ support for progressive candidates will help the party regain credibility with Arab voters.

“Those are things that do bring the Democratic Party a little bit of relevance and credibility within our community,” Luqman told Al Jazeera.

“It has kind of brought the community back to centre, whereas they were kind of swinging to the right by a large margin.”

Palestine or bust

While some political commentators have been questioning why US support for Israel has become a decisive issue in US politics, particularly Democratic primaries, the answer in the Arab community is clear.

Advocates say domestic policy takes a backseat when their loved ones are being killed, and their hometowns are being wiped out by their own tax dollars via military aid to Israel.

“Gaza and Palestine and Middle Eastern issues have now become the forefront, the top of everybody’s issues, and it’s become a red line for my community,” Luqman said.

“So if you’re a Republican or Democrat and you hate AIPAC and you value Palestinians’ rights to self-determination, then you’re going to be getting our vote, regardless of what party you’re in,” she said, referencing the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby group.

Zahr echoed that message.

“People want us not to be single-issue voters. In other words, they want us to forgo our main issue, get screwed on it, watch our families die because Trump’s bad, and accept all that,” he said.

“Well, we said ‘no’. The blood of the children of Gaza had to mean something.”

Zahr emphasised that Arab Americans are not alone in centring Palestine in their electoral choices, pointing to the defeats that pro-Israel incumbents have suffered across the map in this primary season.

“You’ve gotten to a point where if somebody says, ‘Stop bombing hospitals’, everyone knows you’re talking about Israel. That’s because of Israel. That’s not because of us. That’s because of what Israel did,” he told Al Jazeera.

“And so, people are keying into the truth. And when you learn the truth, something that comes along with that is you learn that you’ve been lied to, and you get angry. A lot of righteous anger is pushing a lot of this.”

Dabajeh, the political strategist, said that while Arab voters care about the economy, affordability and infrastructure – like all Americans – they cannot overlook US policy on Israel.

“Are we supposed to call our family members overseas and be like, ‘Listen, khalto [auntie], this guy over here that’s running for office might kill some of your neighbours, might kill some of your kids, but don’t worry about it, he’s going to take care of the flooding in our homes’?”

“It’s not going to work. We can’t do that.”

Islamophobia and racism

Republicans tried to court Arab and Muslim voters in 2024 and capitalise on the discontent over Gaza policies, but now, many conservatives have returned to demonising the community as an electoral strategy.

Weeks after he was elected, Trump endorsed Randy Fine, a Florida politician with a history of anti-Muslim statements, for Congress. Fine would go on to win and call for the “destruction” of all Muslims.

Meanwhile, Republican governors in Florida and Texas have designated the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a “terrorist” group.

In Michigan, Republican Congressman John James, who is running for governor, has also pledged to blacklist the group.

Luqman said James had spoken to community members and promised to engage voters in Dearborn before that announcement.

“There was a really big opportunity for the Republican Party to solidify the swing of the pendulum, if you will, and they lost that option. They really missed that opportunity,” she said.

Israelis head to the polls in October for the country’s first election since the war on Gaza began. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces mounting pressure over the October 7 attacks, corruption charges, international isolation, and divisions within his coalition.

Deadly clashes reported in Pakistan-administered Kashmir amid first round of voting for regional elections on July 27.

Watchdogs have raised concerns over mounting reports of deadly clashes during regional elections in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, where a banned activist group has boycotted the vote and staged protests.

The clashes between police and protesters earlier this week killed more than 30 people in the region, according to the leaders of the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC).

In a video statement on Wednesday shared by Arab News Pakistan, JAAC committee member Sardar Umar Nazir claimed 20 of the group’s supporters had been killed during a march on Monday, when the first round of voting took place.

He listed reports of at least 10 other protesters being killed the following day in the towns of Rawalakot, Mirpur and elsewhere, including during sit-ins.

“Our demand was peaceful, it was peaceful, we tried to keep it non-violent and bullets were fired at it,” said Nazir in the video statement.

Pakistani authorities said a member of the security personnel was killed and five more were injured in clashes on Monday.

Rights group Amnesty International called the reports of lethal force against protesters in the area “disturbing” and urged an investigation.

Pear Pandya, a senior analyst at conflict monitor ACLED, said the violence in Pakistan-administered Kashmir “is bound to overshadow the legitimacy of the entire electoral exercise”.

Monday’s first-round vote – covering the districts of Mirpur, Kotli and Bhimber – will be followed by two more rounds on August 2 and August 10.

Pakistan’s primary governing party, ⁠the PML-N, won nine out of the 13 seats that were up for election on Monday.

No justification to ‘mete out violence’

JAAC was banned by the local government under “anti-terrorism laws” in June, causing deadly protests to erupt in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Banking, roads and internet services have largely been disrupted since then, hindering the flow of information.

Pakistani officials have justified the crackdown by alleging that armed and India-backed fighters joined the Kashmiri protesters. India has rejected similar accusations in the past.

Amnesty has called the ban on JAAC unlawful and said it does not provide justification for authorities to “mete out deadly violence against protesters”.

The rights group has also urged Pakistani authorities to ”restore all communications access and allow media and independent observers into the area”, its acting regional director for South Asia, Isabelle Lassee, said.

‘Controversial’ seats

One of JAAC’s central demands regarding the regional elections is the abolition of 12 assembly seats reserved for Kashmiri refugees.

JAAC supporters say the seats are used by major Pakistani political parties to tip the composition of the local parliament in their favour with those who mostly live outside the region.

To form a regional government, the PML-N would likely need the support of some of the 12 representatives, said Hasan Askari, ‌a political analyst.

“But when their government is dependent on those 12 controversial seats, how would it be able to find a solution for this issue?” Askari told the Reuters news agency.

Even among the candidates that did not boycott the vote on Monday, the results were contested. Parties accused each other of ballot ‌box ‌stealing and vote rigging.

Israel will head to national elections on October 27, marking the country’s first vote since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack that triggered the Gaza war and later expanded into conflicts with Lebanon and Iran. The election is widely seen as a defining moment for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose political future faces its toughest test in years.

Although opinion polls suggest Netanyahu is heading toward defeat, Israel’s fragmented parliamentary system means election outcomes often depend on coalition negotiations rather than outright victories, leaving several possible paths to power.

Polls Signal Trouble for Netanyahu

Recent surveys indicate declining public confidence in Netanyahu, whose long standing reputation as Israel’s security leader suffered after the October 7 attack.

While many Israelis have supported military operations against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, dissatisfaction has grown over the government’s handling of domestic issues, including the relationship between religion and the state.

Despite the unfavorable polling, Netanyahu remains one of Israel’s most experienced political figures and has repeatedly returned to power after seemingly insurmountable political setbacks.

Who Are Netanyahu’s Main Challengers?

Several political figures are seeking to capitalize on Netanyahu’s weakened position.

Former military chief Gadi Eisenkot has emerged as one of the strongest contenders. Having lost his son during the Gaza conflict, Eisenkot has built a reputation as a respected security figure while portraying himself as an honest alternative to the current leadership.

Former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid have reunited politically after previously forming the coalition that briefly removed Netanyahu from office in 2021. Their earlier government brought together parties from across Israel’s political spectrum, although it lasted only 18 months.

Another challenger is former Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, once a close Netanyahu ally. Lieberman later became one of his fiercest critics, accusing him of failing to adopt a sufficiently tough security policy.

How Israel’s Election System Works

Israel elects its 120 member Knesset through a nationwide system of proportional representation.

Rather than voting directly for a prime minister, citizens vote for political parties. Seats are distributed according to each party’s share of the national vote, provided they receive at least 3.25 percent, the equivalent of four parliamentary seats.

Because no party has ever secured an outright majority, governments are always formed through coalition negotiations among multiple parties.

This coalition system gives smaller parties significant influence over government formation and policymaking, often making them decisive kingmakers after elections.

Why Coalition Politics Matter

Coalition governments have become a defining feature of Israeli politics.

Since 2019, repeated political deadlock produced multiple elections before Netanyahu returned to power in 2022 with the country’s most right wing coalition to date.

His governing alliance has relied heavily on ultra Orthodox Jewish parties, whose demands, particularly regarding exemptions from compulsory military service, have generated growing public controversy during wartime.

Following disagreements, some coalition partners have already left the government, although they have continued providing parliamentary support on key votes.

The Main Parties in the Election

Netanyahu’s coalition includes:

• Likud
• Religious Zionism
• Jewish Power

The opposition currently consists of:

• Yashar, led by Gadi Eisenkot
• Together, the alliance between Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid
• Israel Our Home, led by Avigdor Lieberman
• Arab parties including Hadash, Taal, Raam, and Balad
• The left wing Democrats, headed by former general Yair Golan

The political landscape could still change before candidate registration closes, as parties may merge, split, or withdraw from the race.

Why This Election Matters

The October election will shape Israel’s political direction at a time when the country remains engaged in multiple regional conflicts and faces mounting domestic challenges. While polls currently favor opposition forces, Israel’s coalition based electoral system means the final outcome will depend less on which party wins the most votes and more on which leader can assemble a governing majority in parliament.

Analysis

The 2026 Israeli election is not simply a referendum on Benjamin Netanyahu but a broader test of whether Israeli voters want continuity or political renewal after years of conflict and instability. Netanyahu enters the race weakened by security failures linked to the October 7 attacks and growing public frustration over domestic governance, yet his long record of coalition building means he cannot be discounted. Even if his Likud party falls short, post election negotiations could still determine his political survival.

For the opposition, electoral success alone may not be enough. Parties ranging from centrists to left wing and Arab factions must overcome ideological divisions to build a stable coalition, a challenge that has repeatedly undermined previous governments. The election therefore highlights a recurring feature of Israeli politics: governments are decided not only at the ballot box but also through complex coalition bargaining that can reshape leadership long after votes are counted.

With information from Reuters.

Democratic socialists face mixed understanding, with 49 percent of Americans saying they grasp their policies, poll shows.

Leftist candidates in the United States aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) movement have been defeating centrist Democrats in primary elections this year. However, large swaths of the country still don’t know what ⁠the movement stands for, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Members of the DSA, an activist organisation whose stated mission is to support workers gaining power through democratic means, feature prominent politicians such as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Other Democratic Party DSA members have also won in recent political races across the US.

The three-day Reuters/Ipsos poll, which concluded on Sunday, found that 49 percent ‌of Americans say they understand democratic socialist policies while 47 percent say they do not, underscoring the challenges ahead for America’s anti-establishment left.

Asked if democratic socialists have good ideas or not, some 27 percent of respondents said they have at least some, while 51 percent said there were few, if any, and 20 percent said they weren’t sure.

People have a similar assessment of the ideas of MAGA Republicans, President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” political base. Some 27 percent of poll respondents said MAGA Republicans have at least some good ideas, while 57 percent saw few or no good ideas from ⁠MAGA and 13 percent weren’t sure.

Prominent DSA member Mamdani, who was elected in 2025, endorsed other DSA members in New York City who went on to win their respective primaries in June. Other wins by DSA members include races in Colorado and in California.

Trump has ‌seized on the movement’s rise to try to falsely paint all Democrats – including those unaffiliated with the democratic socialist movement – as “hardcore, godless communists”. The administration released a 100-page report earlier this month tying left-wing advocacy groups in the US to Cuba – often relying on circumstantial and ideological links, rather than direct connections.

Democratic socialists advocate pursuing progressive policies through elections. In contrast, communism seeks to abolish private ownership of property ‌and ‌create a classless society – ideas that the democratic socialists seeking election reject.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, which was conducted online, surveyed 1,248 US adults nationwide and had a margin of error of three percentage points.

A lower court blocked the mail-in ballot restrictions, ruling Trump lacked authority to change state election rules.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow it to move ahead with sweeping restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of November’s midterm elections, as it continues its push to reshape how federal elections are run.

In an emergency filing on Monday, the Justice Department asked the country’s highest court to pause a lower court ruling that blocked parts of Trump’s March executive order in 23 Democratic-led states and Washington, DC. The pause would remain in effect as the legal challenges play out, per the request.

The executive order directed federal agencies to help create state lists of eligible voters and required the US Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. It also instructed the Justice Department to prioritise investigations into election officials accused of issuing ballots to ineligible voters.

US District Judge Indira Talwani blocked the order in June, ruling that Trump lacked the authority to unilaterally change how states administer federal elections. She noted that under the Constitution, states oversee voter-eligibility requirements.

Over the weekend, the First US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause that ruling, prompting the administration to take the issue to the Supreme Court.

In its request to the top court, the administration argued that the order amounted to “general policy guidance” rather than a directive dictating how states should administer elections.

Solicitor General John Sauer wrote: “The injunction is especially indefensible because the agencies are still deliberating over how (if at all) to implement the Order, yet the district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful.”

He urged the Supreme Court to act quickly as the new policy would have to be in place by August to be effective by the midterm election in November.

Trump has long claimed, without evidence, that widespread voter fraud undermined the 2020 presidential election and has repeatedly questioned the security of mail-in voting, despite studies showing that such fraud is rare.

He has promised to end the widespread use of mail ballots before the midterms, which will determine which party takes control of the US House of Representatives and Senate.

Voting rights advocates say restricting mail-in voting could disproportionately affect Democratic voters, who have historically been more likely than Republicans to cast their ballots by mail.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan-administered Kashmir, formally known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), has spent the summer under an unofficial state of emergency.

Since early June, nearly 40 people have been killed in clashes between protesters and security forces, with sit-ins and road blockades regular features in the region over this period.

Banks remained shut for two weeks. Mobile and internet services remain suspended across most of the territory. Poonch division, which borders India and has been the epicentre of the unrest, was effectively sealed off for weeks, disrupting the supply of flour and other essentials to a region that depends heavily on them.

The Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), the movement behind the protests, was banned by the local government on June 5, days before a planned demonstration.

Its leadership has since been arrested, has gone underground or has continued organising from sit-in camps in Rawalakot, the administrative headquarters of Poonch division.

Its demands, once centred on subsidised flour and cheaper electricity, have expanded to 38 points, chief among them the abolition of 12 assembly seats reserved for Kashmiri refugees.

All of this is unfolding as the region prepares to vote. Elections for the 45-seat Legislative Assembly, originally scheduled for July 27, have been split across three dates.

Mirpur division votes as planned, Muzaffarabad division and the 12 seats reserved for Kashmiri refugees follow on August 2, while Poonch division, where tensions remain highest, goes to the polls on August 10.

JAAC’s leadership is not on the ballot and has urged supporters to boycott the vote.

Of all the movement’s demands, one issue has proved impossible to resolve: the 12 refugee seats. The government says they cannot be touched without a constitutional amendment. JAAC wants them abolished outright.

Between those two positions lies a legal argument stretching back nearly a century, and a more fundamental question: who gets to decide who governs Muzaffarabad?

A dozen seats, one dispute

Of the AJK Legislative Assembly’s 45 elected seats, 33 are filled from constituencies within the territory.

The remaining 12 are reserved for refugees from Indian-administered Kashmir who now live in different parts of Pakistan.

The arrangement traces its roots to electoral arrangements introduced in 1960, reinforced through laws in 1964 and 1970, before being formalised in AJK’s 1974 Interim Constitution and reaffirmed by the constitution’s 13th Amendment in 2018.

Chaudhry Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, a former chief justice of the AJK Supreme Court, said the basis for the seats goes back further still, to the AJK government’s founding declaration of October 24, 1947, which he said reflected “the collective will of the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir”.

Refugee representation, he told Al Jazeera, has “a firm historical basis” rooted in that document. He rejects any suggestion that the seats are unconstitutional.

“They have both historical grounding and constitutional support,” he said. “These seats cannot be described as unconstitutional.”

Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s electorate has grown from 3.2 million voters in 2021 to more than 3.8 million this year, according to Election Commission figures.

Within that, the 12 refugee constituencies account for roughly 439,000 registered voters, scattered across cities including Lahore, Rawalpindi and Sialkot, rather than concentrated in a single geographical area like AJK’s territorial constituencies.

And that’s a problem, says Kashif Abbasi, a JAAC committee member.

“This election is meant for people who actually live in AJK,” he told Al Jazeera. “These 12 seats sit outside AJK’s jurisdiction. This doesn’t happen anywhere else.”

From flour to the assembly floor

JAAC’s demands were not always centred on the refugee seats. Its original charter was almost entirely economic, focusing on subsidised flour, electricity at cost price, and a share in the benefits from the Mangla and Neelum-Jhelum hydropower projects.

The refugee seats first appeared in the group’s expanded charter, submitted in October 2025.

Even then, JAAC did not initially seek their outright abolition. In written proposals submitted on May 30 this year, the group offered two alternatives.

It proposed retaining symbolic refugee representation until the Kashmir dispute is permanently resolved or replacing the 12 assembly seats with four seats in the AJK Council, the Islamabad-chaired body that exercises legislative authority over AJK’s federal-facing affairs.

The 14-member council, chaired by Pakistan’s prime minister, oversees subjects including electricity, banking and parts of taxation, areas that largely fall outside the AJK assembly’s authority. The territory has no representation in Pakistan’s national parliament.

“Our suggestion was that these seat-holders should instead be given representation on the Kashmir Council, and that their assembly seats be eliminated, with that money used elsewhere in the territory,” Khawaja Mehran, a member of JAAC’s core committee, told Al Jazeera recently.

Both proposals were rejected at an All-Parties Conference in Muzaffarabad on June 3.

Constitutional barrier

In June, the AJK Supreme Court addressed the issue directly.

The court held that the seats are protected under AJK’s constitution and can only be abolished through a formal constitutional amendment. They cannot be removed through executive action or public pressure.

A constitutional amendment, the judges wrote, is “a solemn constitutional act, not a concession to be wrested from a government under duress”.

Zia, the former AJK chief justice, said the opinion changed little about the existing legal position.

“These seats simply cannot be abolished without a proper constitutional process,” he told Al Jazeera, adding that, with the outgoing assembly’s term having ended, no such process is possible until a new legislature is elected.

The government’s account

Abdul Majid Khan, AJK’s former finance minister and himself from a refugee family, rejects the idea that the seat holders form an unaccountable political bloc.

He points instead to the size of the territory’s budget. AJK’s roughly 310 billion rupees (about $1.1bn) budget last year, he said, far exceeds the development funds allocated to the 12 refugee constituencies – nowhere near enough, in his view, to make them the powerful bloc JAAC describes.

“These are people who migrated for a larger cause,” Khan told Al Jazeera, referring to Kashmiris who fled Jammu, across the border, during the violence of 1947 following the partition of the subcontinent and settled across Pakistan in the decades that followed.

Refugee representation, he said, has existed since AJK’s first parliamentary election in 1975, when the territory’s first prime minister was himself from a refugee family.

At the June 3 conference that rejected JAAC’s proposals, AJK Prime Minister Faisal Mumtaz Rathore said any decision on the seats “can only be taken by the elected representatives in the House”, adding that most of JAAC’s other demands had already been met.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif told the National Assembly on June 11 that the future of the 12 refugee seats should be decided by voters, not under pressure from street protests.

He urged JAAC to contest the issue in the election rather than demand its resolution beforehand, asking: “How could you exclude them from the electoral process?”

A senior government official in Poonch, whose division has witnessed the worst of the unrest, took an even harder line.

“This is no longer a rights movement,” the official told Al Jazeera, requesting anonymity since he was not allowed to speak to the media, adding that the protesters were not only “challenging the authority of the state”, but also provoking the public through “inflammatory speeches and actions”.

Who holds power?

In mid-July, JAAC leader Umar Nazir Kashmiri told supporters at a sit-in in Rawalakot, Poonch division, that the group had written directly to army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir after concluding that its concerns were not reaching him “through official channels”.

He thanked Munir by name for “understanding the grievances of the people of Kashmir”.

Shaheen was more direct. “We believe real authority currently sits with Rawalpindi,” he told Al Jazeera, referring to Pakistan’s military establishment rather than the civilian government. “That’s why we’re forced to negotiate through that channel, since nobody else actually holds the authority.”

Ershad Mahmud, a Canada-based researcher on Kashmiri displacement and politics, said that “Islamabad’s bureaucracy, military and intelligence establishment have reduced AJK’s elected leadership to a largely symbolic role”.

The current crisis, he told Al Jazeera, has once again shown that the local leadership “lacks the authority to negotiate a political settlement with its own people”.

Unmet promise?

The dispute over the refugee seats is unfolding within a framework that predates Pakistan-administered Kashmir itself.

Under a United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolution adopted on January 5, 1949, and endorsed by the UN Security Council, Kashmir’s final status was to be determined “through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite”.

Nearly 80 years later, that has yet to happen on either side of the Line of Control.

Mahmud, who is also the author of Poonch: Identity, Politics and Resistance, argues the refugee seats endure partly because they continue to serve Islamabad’s interests.

“They let Pakistan maintain its position that AJK represents the entire former State of Jammu and Kashmir, not merely the territory it administers,” he told Al Jazeera. “And allows Pakistan-based political parties to influence government formation in Muzaffarabad.”

Islamabad, he said, treats the seats “as an instrument of its Kashmir policy and political influence”.

Hassan Kamal Wattoo, a Lahore-based constitutional lawyer, argues that giving greater autonomy to AJK “strengthens Pakistan’s case on the international stage”.

“There is no tension between real autonomy for AJK and an eventual plebiscite,” he told Al Jazeera.

Anam Zakaria, a historian and author of Between the Great Divide: A Journey into Pakistan-Administered Kashmir, however, argued that there was a deeper contradiction within AJK’s constitutional framework.

On the one hand lies India’s “longstanding and ongoing systemic violence and human rights abuses in [Indian-administered] Kashmir”, she said, arguing that nothing Pakistan has done or does in the part of Kashmir it administers can be compared with what’s happened in Indian-administered Kashmir, where tens of thousands of people have been killed in violence involving armed rebels and security forces since 1989.

At the same time, she pointed out, candidates seeking public office in Pakistan-administered Kashmir must first swear allegiance to AJK’s accession to Pakistan.

That requirement, she told Al Jazeera, also “in itself contradicts the right to self-determination” and sidelines Kashmiris who hold a different vision for the region’s future.

Flavio Bolsonaro, son of disgraced former Brazilian President Jair, has launched his bid to unseat President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Flavio is vowing to carry forward his father’s legacy and has won right wing support from Argentina’s President Milei.

Right-wing candidate Flavio Bolsonaro attracts foreign support, but struggles in polls ahead of matchup with President Lula.

Flavio Bolsonaro has inaugurated the official beginning of his Brazilian presidential campaign, touting support from right-wing figures such as Argentinian President Javier Milei and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Bolsonaro, son of former president Jair Bolsonaro and long considered the presumptive candidate of Brazil’s political right, launched his formal bid challenging President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Saturday.

“This is more than a party convention,” Bolsonaro said in remarks to his father’s Liberal Party.

“This is the beginning of the toughest battles of our life. A fight between good and evil.”

Recent polls have shown Bolsonaro trailing the left-wing Lula, as his bid for the presidency struggles to right itself after a number of setbacks and scandals.

While Saturday’s event included endorsement remarks from right-wing heavyweights such as Milei and Netanyahu, few prominent Brazilian politicians were in attendance.

Centre-right parties have largely kept their distance, and Flavio’s father – currently serving a 27-year prison sentence for a coup attempt following his loss to Lula in 2022 – was present at the convention only in the form of a video made with AI.

Milei delivered ‌a fiery speech criticising Lula and declaring that Bolsonaro can “save” Brazil from socialism.

The Argentinian president flew to Brazil the night before the event and met on Saturday with Sao Paulo Governor Tarcisio de Freitas.

“We will continue offering our testimony everywhere against the lies of socialism,” Milei said.

Netanyahu offered support via a short video message.

“Flavio, my friend, I want to congratulate you on the official launching of your campaign,” Netanyahu said in the recording, according to the Brazilian outlet Metropoles. “You’re a great champion of Brazil, you’re a great champion of the friendship between our peoples.”

Lula’s Workers Party is set to hold its own convention on August 2, confirming the 80-year-old president’s re-election bid.

Bolsonaro and his allies have also suffered from criticisms that they have tried to use their ties to the administration of US President Donald Trump to boost his campaign, inviting US intervention in a variety of issues that many Brazilians see as a form of foreign meddling.

Like his father, Flavio has also raised alarm by repeating false claims about the reliability of Brazil’s election infrastructure, seen as a pretext for possible efforts to deny the legitimacy of the voting process in the event of a loss to Lula.

The AFP news agency reported on Saturday that Brazil had denied visas to a pair of Trump administration officials who sought to meet with the country’s election authorities to discuss “freedom of expression related to the elections”.

UN rights chief condemns worsening repression in Nicaragua, urging the restoration of freedoms and the rule of law.

The United Nations human rights chief has condemned Nicaragua’s escalating crackdown on civil and political rights, days after President Daniel Ortega announced a plan to block elections and shut out the opposition.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said on Wednesday that the “latest developments further deepen the severe restrictions on fundamental freedoms, the dismantling of civic space, and the steady erosion of the rule of law” in the Central American country.

Ortega, a former leftist fighter who has ruled Nicaragua for almost two decades alongside his wife, Vice President Rosario Murillo, said on Sunday that “there won’t be elections” in the country, a move that would remove any prospect of a challenge to the couple’s rule.

General elections were due in November, but constitutional reforms passed 18 months ago extended the presidential term from 5 to 6 years, pushing the vote back to 2027.

Turk said power in Nicaragua was increasingly being concentrated “under the co-presidency”, with the ruling Sandinista party already holding full control over parliament, all municipalities and the regional councils on the North and South Caribbean Coast.

He called on the authorities to “reopen civic space, and restore the rule of law”, warning that “independent expression of thought or opinion is systematically suppressed”, urging that “people of all political viewpoints must be allowed to vote and run for office, in line with the State’s international human rights obligations”.

The statement also cited the government’s abrupt revocation of several lawyers’ credentials earlier this month, which it said had no legal justification, and noted that at least 46 people remain arbitrarily detained on political grounds.

Turk further raised concern over the treatment of religious groups, pointing to the unclear whereabouts of Bishop Abelardo Mata Guevara, 80, who was detained on June 29, and urged Managua to release all those held arbitrarily “with humanity and dignity”.

Since a deadly crackdown on protests in 2018 – in which more than 300 people were killed, according to UN figures – Ortega and Murillo have tightened their grip on Nicaraguan society.