fails

WASHINGTON — A rare lapse in a law that allows the United States to gather intelligence abroad appears likely after the House failed on Thursday to temporarily extend the program, in a protest of President Trump ‘s refusal to name a permanent head of the nation’s intelligence agencies.

Trump has doubled down on his temporary pick for director of national intelligence, federal housing finance regulator Bill Pulte, even though Pulte has little experience for the job. Democrats say they won’t support the renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, unless the Republican president withdraws Pulte’s appointment and nominates a permanent replacement.

The House vote collapsed in bipartisan fashion, with some Republicans and nearly all Democrats rejecting the temporary measure, 198-218. The Senate may try its own vote later Thursday, but hopes are dimming to prevent what could be an unprecedented lapse in the surveillance tool. The law expires on Friday at midnight.

The impasse could soon result in limitations on what intelligence the U.S. government can collect abroad just as World Cup games begin in cities around the country and ahead of celebrations for the nation’s 250th anniversary.

“We can’t let them extort us,” Trump said of Democrats.

Trump has stuck with Pulte as the acting head, rebuffing demands from lawmakers for a more qualified nominee. Trump asked Congress for a short-term extension of the law to “provide time for the selection and confirmation” of a permanent director. He said he wants Pulte to begin downsizing intelligence agencies.

The parties leveled blame for the potential interruption in what has been seen as an essential, if long-debated, surveillance program for keeping the country safe.

“We’re going to ask every member here to do the right thing,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. “We cannot allow that to go dark.”

The House Democratic leadership announced its opposition, saying Pulte has no relevant intelligence background, in defiance of the law’s requirement for “extensive” national security experience.

“The apparent motivation for his elevation is the demonstrated willingness of Bill Pulte to search government databases for alleged dirt on President Trump’s chosen political enemies,” Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York and the leadership team said in a joint statement. They said there is a path to reauthorizing FISA, “but it will require enacting meaningful reforms.”

GOP leaders lobby the White House, to no avail

Congressional Republicans have lobbied Trump all week to quickly nominate a permanent replacement. But he said he needs more time to do so.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Republican leaders have “made our views known” to the White House.

Trump has said that he is interviewing five candidates for his pick to lead the agency permanently, after the resignation of Tulsi Gabbard.

Johnson said the president has made it very clear that Pulte will serve a “very short term — a sort of renovation role” to help the Office of the Director of National Intelligence be “renovated and downsized.”

But Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee led by Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut said in a letter to the president that Pulte is a “uniquely poor choice” to serve even in the acting capacity.

Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers skeptical of Pulte have pointed to his lack of intelligence experience and also his record at the Federal Housing Finance Agency. In the position, he has been linked with criminal referrals over allegations of mortgage fraud by public officials Trump sought to punish, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat; Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; and Lisa Cook, a board member of the Federal Reserve.

“He has distinguished himself only as someone who will do or say anything to stay in your good graces,” Himes and the other lawmakers wrote, “qualities that are precisely the opposite of what our nation needs.”

FISA will lapse at midnight Friday

Section 702 of FISA allows agencies such as the CIA, National Security Agency and FBI to collect communications from foreign targets overseas without a warrant.

While members of both parties who cite privacy issues have long wanted to limit the authority, there was broad bipartisan support to renew it, especially after Republicans and Democrats recently worked out a compromise bill.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has worked with Republicans on the compromise legislation to renew the authority. But he called Pulte’s appointment to replace Gabbard “a live hand grenade” disrupting the process.

Warner said the only way he’ll support a short-term extension of the surveillance law is if the principal deputy director of national intelligence, Aaron Lukas, is the acting leader during the duration of that extension.

Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have warned the administration that the spy tool is likely to lapse.

The administration should prepare “for a potential significant gap in foreign intelligence collection,” they wrote in a letter.

Trump doesn’t back down on Pulte

After bipartisan pushback to Pulte’s temporary appointment, Trump said last week that he would not permanently nominate him to the position. But Democrats, and some Republicans, want his appointment pulled immediately and for Trump to nominate a replacement that can be confirmed by the Senate.

On Tuesday, though, Trump announced that Pulte would not only take over as acting director — he’d also start earlier than expected, on June 19.

One of several possible replacements could be Pete Hoekstra, Trump’s ambassador to Canada and a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. The White House has reached out to Hoekstra about the job and conversations are ongoing, according to a person familiar with the outreach who requested anonymity to discuss the private conversations.

Jalonick, Mascaro and Kim write for the Associated Press. AP reporters Joey Cappelletti, Kevin Freking and Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

A congressional panel in the United States has rejected an effort to revoke a provision from the defence budget that would further integrate the US and Israeli militaries.

An amendment to sink the pro-Israel measure, introduced by Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, failed in a voice call on Thursday in the House Armed Services Committee.

That defeat paves the way for the proposal to advance to the floor of the House of Representatives.

Khanna had argued that the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), formally called Section 224, rewards Benjamin Netanyahu at a time when the Israeli prime minister is trying to dictate US policy in the Middle East.

The progressive Democrat cited recent reports that President Donald Trump is angry at Netanyahu over Israel’s escalation in Lebanon.

“Everyone in America — whether you’re a Republican, an independent or a Democrat — says that we need to tell Netanyahu that America calls the shots, not the prime minister of any other country,” Khanna said.

“They want less cooperation and blank checks to Israel, not more. Only the United States Congress would dream up at this moment, ‘Let’s actually do more for Israel.’”

The vote on the amendment was taken by calling on committee members to say aloud either “yes” and “no”, and the “nays” clearly were more numerous. It was not recorded as a roll-call vote, which would require each member’s preference to be logged.

Section 224 would require the Pentagon chief “to designate an executive agent responsible for synchronising cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel”.

That official would be in charge of overseeing several joint initiatives, “including bilateral defence technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration, and industrial cooperation”, the NDAA reads.

Netanyahu’s endorsement

Critics have raised concern that Section 224 may make US military aid to Israel more opaque, concealing the assistance as cooperation rather than a separate expense.

The measure also risks tethering the US military to its Israeli counterpart technologically at a time when the American public is rapidly turning against Israel, according to recent public opinion polls.

“As political pressure builds to reduce US military assistance to Israel, Section 224 provides the framework for continuing — and expanding — US-Israel military ties by entrenching Israeli technology within the US defense supply chain in a way that would shield it from the annual appropriations process,” the nonprofit lobbying group A New Policy said in a brief last week.

“The use of must-pass legislation as the NDAA as a mechanism of integration speaks to the plummeting popularity of continuing unconditional support to Israel.”

The measure comes as Netanyahu pushes to transform US aid to Israel from direct assistance to military “cooperation”.

The Israeli prime minister wrote a letter to Republican Congressman Marlin Stutzman endorsing a bill facilitating that transition.

In the letter, Netanyahu said, “The time has now arrived for us to move from aid recipient to partner.”

He added he supported Stutzman’s plan for a “new framework of joint defense cooperation, codevelopment, coproduction and mutual investment in areas including advanced missile defense, artificial intelligence … and next generation military platforms”.

Referencing the letter on Thursday, Khanna argued that Section 224 “directly” follows Netanyahu’s language.

“I am for Team America. I am for the interests of this country, and I believe that when Donald Trump ran, he ran ‘America First’,” the Democrat said.

“That includes American interests against any foreign country. We should have American sovereignty and make it clear that we strike 224. If we want to give aid to Israel, if we want to sell them weapons, that should be a vote for the entire Congress.”

But both Democrats and Republicans pushed back against his argument, saying that the provision aims to streamline existing cooperative programmes that benefit the US.

Key Democrat backs Section 224

Congressman Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the panel, said he was “very sympathetic” to Khanna’s frustration with Netanyahu.

“Mr Netanyahu insisted on this war with Iran that has strengthened Iran and weakened our position. I do not like his leadership of Israel or where he is going,” Smith said.

But he added that it is in the US’s interests to have deep military ties with Israel, a country accused by leading rights groups and United Nations investigators of committing genocide in Gaza.

“The reason that we have these partnerships with Israel, where we may not have as many developed partnerships with other NATO countries, is because Israel has actually been having to fight,” Smith said.

“They have faced drone attacks and missile attacks. They have had to develop new technologies, technologies that we’ve benefitted from.”

Rights advocates often decry the promotion of Israel’s weapons as “battle-tested” — because they have been tested on the Palestinian and Lebanese communities that they devastated, killing tens of thousands of people along the way.

Earlier on Thursday, Palestinian rights advocates warned against approving Section 224 during a news conference on Capitol Hill.

“It is unfathomable that this is the American response to a country that has, over the past two and a half years, carried out a genocide against Palestinians and started wars in both Iran and Lebanon,” said Margaret DeReus, the executive director at the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU).

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie has promised to introduce an amendment to revoke Section 224 when the NDAA goes to a full House vote.

Foreign ministers from the BRICS nations ended a two day meeting in New Delhi without issuing a joint statement, highlighting deep divisions within the bloc over the ongoing conflict involving Iran, the United States, and Israel.

The diplomatic gathering brought together representatives from an increasingly diverse and politically complex alliance that now includes both Iran and the United Arab Emirates, two regional rivals currently on opposite sides of the escalating Middle East crisis.

Because member states could not agree on language regarding the war, host country India released only a chair’s statement summarizing discussions rather than a unified declaration endorsed by all participants.

Iran Pushes for Stronger Condemnation

Iran reportedly sought a stronger collective position condemning the United States and Israel for military operations against it.

Tehran also accused the UAE, a close American partner in the Gulf region, of involvement in military activities linked to the conflict.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi stated that one BRICS member blocked sections of the proposed statement, although he did not directly name the UAE.

Araqchi attempted to soften tensions publicly by emphasizing that Iran did not view the UAE itself as a direct target in the conflict. He argued that Iranian strikes had focused only on American military facilities located on Emirati territory.

At the same time, he expressed hope that relations inside BRICS could improve before the leaders’ summit later this year.

India’s Carefully Balanced Position

India’s final chair statement revealed the difficulty of managing competing geopolitical interests within the expanded BRICS bloc.

The document acknowledged that member countries held different perspectives regarding the Middle East crisis. According to the statement, discussions included calls for diplomacy, respect for sovereignty, protection of civilian lives, and the importance of maintaining secure maritime trade routes.

However, the absence of a formal joint declaration demonstrated that BRICS members remain divided on critical geopolitical questions.

India’s approach reflected its broader diplomatic strategy of balancing relations with multiple global powers simultaneously. New Delhi maintains close ties with the United States and Gulf countries while also preserving strategic partnerships with Russia, Iran, and China.

Gaza and Palestine Also Cause Disagreement

Divisions were not limited to the Iran conflict.

The chair statement noted that BRICS ministers reaffirmed support for Palestinian self determination and described Gaza as an inseparable part of the occupied Palestinian territories.

The document also supported efforts to unify Gaza and the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority and backed the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

However, the statement acknowledged that one unnamed member state held reservations regarding aspects of the Gaza section as well.

This further illustrated the challenge of building unified foreign policy positions within a grouping that includes countries with vastly different regional interests and diplomatic alignments.

BRICS and the Global South Narrative

Despite internal disagreements, BRICS members emphasized the importance of cooperation among developing nations.

India’s statement described the Global South as an important force for positive international change during a period marked by rising geopolitical tensions, economic uncertainty, technological disruption, protectionism, and migration pressures.

The expanded BRICS bloc now includes:

• Brazil
• Russia
• India
• China
• South Africa
• Ethiopia
• Egypt
• Iran
• UAE

The expansion of the bloc has increased its global economic and political weight but has also introduced more ideological and strategic divisions.

The Economic Impact on India

The Middle East conflict has had serious economic implications for India.

As one of the world’s largest oil importers, India depends heavily on energy shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The disruption of maritime traffic in the region has increased energy costs and raised concerns about inflation and supply stability.

Indian personnel have reportedly been killed in incidents linked to the regional conflict, while an India flagged vessel was sunk during the recent escalation.

Against this backdrop, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the UAE and publicly condemned attacks targeting the Gulf nation.

Modi praised the UAE’s restraint and described attacks against it as unacceptable, signaling India’s effort to maintain strong ties with key Gulf partners despite its participation alongside Iran in BRICS.

Analysis

The failure of BRICS foreign ministers to produce a joint statement highlights the growing contradictions inside the expanded organization.

Originally conceived as an economic coalition of major emerging powers, BRICS increasingly aspires to become a broader geopolitical platform representing the Global South. However, the inclusion of regional rivals and states with conflicting strategic interests makes unified diplomacy increasingly difficult.

The Iran conflict exposed these tensions clearly. Iran sought solidarity against the United States and Israel, while Gulf states inside the bloc maintain close security relationships with Washington and face direct security threats from Tehran.

India’s cautious wording reflected the reality that BRICS currently functions more as a flexible diplomatic forum than a cohesive political alliance.

The episode also demonstrates a larger shift in global politics. As Western led institutions face criticism from many developing nations, alternative groupings like BRICS are gaining visibility. Yet these organizations must still overcome major internal disagreements if they hope to shape global governance effectively.

For India, the situation illustrates the complexity of its foreign policy position. New Delhi seeks leadership within the Global South while simultaneously maintaining relations with competing regional and global powers.

Ultimately, the Delhi meeting showed both the growing importance and the structural limitations of BRICS. The bloc may continue expanding economically and politically, but achieving consensus on major international crises will remain a significant challenge as geopolitical rivalries deepen across the world.

With information from Reuters.

FORMER glamour model Katie Price has taken a fresh swipe at “missing” Lee as it seems they weren’t on the same page when he failed to show up in the UK.

Earlier this week poor Katie was left “embarrassed” after Lee, 43, failed to board a flight to the UK again, leaving her alone on the sofa of their scheduled GMB interview.

Katie was left fuming with the Dubai-based “businessman,” who she married in January, and has even issued him an ultimatum.

But now, Katie has continued to fuel rumours their marriage is on the rocks as she posted a clip of her podcast with her sister Sophie to Instagram.

She took a brutal swipe at Lee, writing in text across the video: “Where’s Wal-Lee?”

The mum-of-three made a calculated joke about her husband playing on the words Where’s Wally – a series of search and find books.

EX’S WARNING

Lee Andrews’ ex shares post hinting at downfall & sends message to Katie Price

LAST CHANCE

Katie Price rages ‘time is running out’ for husband Lee

It seems Katie is beginning to question her man as she bantered that he was hard to track down.

In the video, she said: “I just want him here, just to visit here and shut everyone up that he can get here.

“So next week when we do the pod we’ll find out whether he’s come to England or not and we’ll see what he’s said.”

Lee has claimed he was going to fly into the country multiple times but is yet to show up.

It raised questions again about his alleged travel ban which stops him from leaving Dubai, which he denies exists.

With Lee still mooching about the UAE, Katie admitted today that she has started to question her husband.

She captioned a post on social media: “Time is running out for Lee and he needs to give a good reason as to why he can’t get back because I am not going back to Dubai.”

During her podcast, The Katie Price Show, she admitted to confronting Lee over the situation.

She said: “It’s the fact you keep saying you’re coming and then don’t come.

“Of course, everyone is going to flag up. Even I’ve flagged it up to him. Big time I’ve flagged it up now. I said, ‘Don’t do that to me again. Me having to go on live TV without you and make me look stupid and a d***”.

“No wonder everyone’s saying, ‘You’re this, you’re that’, because they’ve got a reason to say it. I agree, I agree with everyone.”

Lee, dubbed a “Walter Mitty,” was caught in yet another lie as documented his journey to the UK on Instagram.

He claimed to be flying from Muscat in Oman, but it was clear from the clips that Lee was in Dubai airport, near where he lives.

KATIE Price has issued husband Lee Andrews a new ultimatum after he failed to fly to the UK AGAIN – ditching their first joint TV interview in the process.

The former glamour model, 47, spoke out about the latest debacle surrounding the self-styled businessman in a chat on Good Morning Britain.

The couple, who tied the knot in January, were due to appear on the ITV daytime series together on Tuesday.

In the chat, Katie defended her man and his absence, and said he had been delayed by business duties – and he has since taken to his Instagram page to double down on her claims.

She refuted claims he had been detained in the United Arab Emirates though the mum of five – whose kids haven’t yet met her hubby – did lay down an ultimatum.

Katie said that although Lee “pays for” her flights to Dubai, she needs him to be more present in the UK.

HEALTH WOES

Katie Price reveals terminally ill mum Amy is ‘really not well’

‘i’m not wanted’

Katie Price’s hubby hits back at claim he was ‘detained’ after GMB no-show

She told GMB: “I’ve been in Dubai, I came back on Friday.

“But because I can’t keep going to Dubai, because obviously I’ve got work and my kids here,” before host Susanna Reid quipped: “And it’s expensive”.

Katie replied: “Well, he pays for it anyway.

“But I can’t keep going to Dubai”.

Who is Katie Price’s husband Lee Andrews?

KATIE Price tied the knot with Lee Andrews in January 2026. Yet who is he?

• Katie Price has married businessman fiancé Lee Andrews in a whirlwind wedding
• It is the fourth time Katie, 47, has been a bride. She has also been married to Peter Andre, Alex Reid and Kieran Hayler
• Katie and Lee met just after being introduced on social media
• Lee claimed he is a billionaire in a failed clip from his acting career
• He now claims to be a Dubai-based businessman
• Yet The Sun has unmasked him as a fantasist who faked celebrity links using AI-generated photos and recently talked about marrying two other women
• Failed actor is just another title to add to Lee’s questionable CV, after he claimed to have once worked as the Director of Philanthropy at The Prince’s Trust (now The King’s Trust)
• Lee also shared images – since proven to be AI – of him working with Elon Musk and Kim Kardashian
• It’s been revealed shameless Lee told former girlfriends that he had studied at Cambridge University, and has a PhD in biotechnology science
• But The Sun has seen a response from the university explaining it could not find a record of Lee being registered as a student with a date of birth they had provided
• His LinkedIn profile says Lee has been a Member of the Board of Advisors to the Labour Party since 2015
• Lee was also mocked for repeating the exact same wedding proposal on Katie – that he did for another woman just four months ago.

Laying down her ultimatum she added: “So he is now shifting to here, so he is going to spend a lot of time here now.

“Because I said ‘look I keep flying to you, you’ve got to come to England now’.

“So that’s what he is going to do”.

There is ongoing speculation that her husband Lee, 43, is unable to leave the United Arab Emirates city after allegedly forging his ex-girlfriend Dina Taji’s signature to secure a £200,000 loan – something he’s strongly denied.

On today’s GMB, presenters Susanna and her co-host Ed Balls told how they had approached the Foreign Office to see if Lee had a travel ban.

They said they had been informed they had “supported a British man detained in the United Arab Emirates”.

When the pair quizzed Katie as to whether this was Lee, she said he had denied it in a voice note and added laughing Emoji icons to his message.

Explaining the reason for his no-show Katie, who wore a pink shirt and gold hoop earrings for her chat, said: “He just didn’t make the flight.

“He’s coming here to spend quite a few months now.

He’s been sorting out my visa, my international driving licence.

“He’s flying from Muscat and he had things to do, he didn’t make the flight but he’s at the airport now”.

She then clarified: “Because of his business he had some things he had to do last minute.

“He is at airport now he is on his way”.

Lee reinforced her words as he took to his social media page from the departures lounge.

He praised Katie’s appearance on GMB and said: “Hello everyone.

“Yes I am at the airport and flying to my wife, who did very well on GMB today.

“And I am on my way to her.

“I had a couple of things that I had to do last minute, I couldn’t make the show, I was hoping to get on there with the ZOOM link but they carried on with Kate, and she did really really well”.

Mum of three Susanna mused: “I wonder if he’s telling you everything, do you trust him?” to which Katie said yes.

Ed then quizzed if “the Foreign Office were right and Lee was arrested ayt the airport?”

He then asked if Lee was normally unreliable, and she replied: “Not with me”.

It isn’t the first time Lee has reneged on his vow to travel to Katie’s home turf.

Back in March he vowed to visit – yet again pulled out of the trip.

Initially, The Sun exclusively reported how he made a wild claim he had visited Katie in the UK secretly – but Katie’s rep said the suggestions were not true.

The ruling Democratic Party’s (DP) push to put a constitutional change to a national vote in the upcoming local elections fell through Friday as the main opposition People Power Party (PPP) continued to boycott a parliamentary vote on the proposal.

Shortly after Friday’s plenary session opened, National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik announced that he will not put the amendment bill to a vote as the PPP warned it would launch a filibuster to block the proposal.

“I convened the plenary session again today in an effort to prevent the first constitutional amendment vote in 39 years from falling through,” Woo said. “But I believe further proceedings would be meaningless, seeing the (PPP) responding with a filibuster.”

The PPP boycotted a vote on the bill Thursday, leaving the unicameral parliament short of a quorum.

Cheong Wa Dae expressed regret over the National Assembly’s failure to pass the bill due to opposition from PPP lawmakers.

“The public will find it difficult to understand why they opposed even minimal constitutional changes aimed at safeguarding national security and democracy,” presidential spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said in a written briefing, noting that there had been broad public consensus on the need to “reflect the lessons” of former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s Dec. 3, 2024, martial law attempt in the Constitution.

“We urge the National Assembly to continue the discussions on the constitutional amendment with a greater sense of responsibility during the second half and to keep the promise it made to the people,” she added.

President Lee Jae Myung earlier highlighted the need to amend the constitution in “phases” if necessary, saying the Constitution, which has remained unchanged for nearly 40 years since 1987, may now be outdated.

The proposed bill aimed to tighten the rules for declaring martial law, requiring the president to obtain parliamentary approval without delay and stipulating that if the National Assembly rejects the declaration or fails to approve it within 48 hours, the martial law will be immediately nullified.

It also sought to include the 1980 pro-democracy uprising in Gwangju and the 1979 Busan-Masan pro-democracy protests in the preamble. It currently states that the country inherits the spirit of the April 19 revolution in 1960, which overthrew South Korea’s first president, Rhee Syng-man, over election fraud.

The bill was jointly proposed by 187 lawmakers from the DP and five minor parties.

A constitutional amendment requires two thirds of votes from sitting lawmakers to be put to a national referendum for final approval by a majority of ballots cast.

South Korea is set to hold its quadrennial local elections on June 3.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.