Government

Slovenia’s parliament had approved a law in July, allowing assisted dying after a 2024 referendum supported it.

Slovenians have rejected in a referendum a law that allowed terminally ill adults to end their lives, after critics mounted a campaign against the legislation.

About 53 percent of 1.7 million eligible voters voted against the law that proposed legalising assisted dying, according to preliminary results released by the election authorities on Sunday.

The results mean the law’s implementation will be suspended for at least one year. Slovenia’s parliament had approved the law in July, allowing assisted dying after a 2024 referendum supported it.

But the new vote was called after a civil group, backed by the Catholic Church and the conservative parliamentary opposition, gathered more than the 40,000 signatures required for a repeat.

Ales Primc, head of Voice for the Children and the Family, the NGO that organised the no vote campaign, reacted to the results, saying “solidarity and justice” had won.

“We are witnessing a miracle. The culture of life has defeated the cult of death,” Primc said after the vote.

Under the disputed law, terminally ill patients would have had the right to aid in dying if their suffering was unbearable and all treatment options had been exhausted.

It would also have allowed for assisted dying if treatment offers had no reasonable prospect of recovery or improvement in the patient’s condition, but not to end unbearable suffering from mental illness.

Prime Minister Robert Golob had urged citizens to back the law “so that each of us can decide for ourselves how and with what dignity we will end our lives”.

But the Catholic Church has said allowing assisted dying “contradicts the foundations of the Gospel, natural law and human dignity”.

In June 2024, 55 percent had backed the law.

Turnout at Sunday’s referendum was 40.9 percent – just enough for the no vote to meet the threshold.

Several European countries, including Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland, allow terminally ill people to receive medical help to end their lives. However, it remains a crime in others, even in cases of severe suffering.

In May, France’s lower house of parliament approved a right-to-die bill in a first reading. The British parliament is debating similar legislation.

The incoming NYC mayor says he still believes the US president is a fascist, two days after they had a friendly meeting.

New York City’s Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani says he still believes United States President Donald Trump is a fascist, despite a surprisingly warm meeting between the two politically polarised men at the White House this week.

“That’s something that I’ve said in the past; I say it today,” Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, said about the Republican president in an interview aired on NBC News on Sunday.

Mamdani’s comments came two days after he met with Trump, setting aside months of mutual recriminations and promising to cooperate on the city’s future.

Trump, who grew up in New York, called Mamdani a “100% Communist Lunatic” in a social media post following the incoming mayor’s election victory, and Mamdani has said Trump was attacking democracy.

During their meeting, Trump, who had previously suggested the Ugandan-born New Yorker should be deported, even came to his rescue as the two addressed reporters at the White House.

When a journalist asked Mamdani if he continued to view Trump as a fascist, the president stepped in.

“That’s OK. You can just say it. That’s easier,” Trump told Mamdani. “It’s easier than explaining it. I don’t mind.”

Mamdani elaborated his stand further in the NBC interview.

“[What] I appreciated about the conversation that I had with the president was that we were not shy about the places of disagreement, about the politics that have brought us to this moment,” he said.

“I found the meeting that I had with the president a productive one and a meeting that came back again and again to the central themes of the campaign that we ran: the cost of housing, cost of childcare, the cost of groceries, the cost of utilities.”

After threatening to cut federal funding to the US’s biggest city and to send in the US National Guard, Trump praised Mamdani’s historic election win during their meeting, saying he could do a “great job”.

“We’ve just had a great … very productive meeting. We have one thing in common: we want this city of ours that we love to do very well,” he said later. “We are going to be helping him to make everybody’s dream come true: having a strong and very safe New York.”

Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, said on the CNN news programme State of the Union that Trump wants to work with everybody who cares about the future of the American people.

“We’re at times disagreeing about policies,” Hassett said, “but I think that the objective of making life better for everybody is something that a lot of people share on the Democratic and Republican side.”

Postcolonial scholar Mahmood Mamdani says Palestinian rights helped motivate his son Zohran’s run for New York City mayor. He says Zohran didn’t expect to win, but entered the race “to make a point” and trounced his rivals because he refused to compromise on causes “near and dear” to him.

US President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani met in the Oval Office on Friday after weeks of trading barbs. Trump, who described their meetings as “productive,” gave Mamdani a warm welcome, and said he’ll be “cheering for” the 34-year-old incoming mayor.

New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani said Israel is committing genocide in Gaza during an Oval Office meeting with US President Donald Trump on Friday. Trump dodged a question on whether he’d intervene if Mamdani tried to have Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu arrested in New York.

In a wild — but friendly — exchange between US President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, Trump said he didn’t “mind” Mamdani previously calling him a “fascist.” Trump, who once called Mamdani a “communist,” heaped praise on him at their Friday Oval Office meeting.

In early November, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani won the New York City mayoral election in a landslide, a victory that sent shockwaves across United States politics and galvanised the country’s political left.

It was a dramatic turnaround for a campaign that – less than a year earlier – had been polling at 1 percent support.

Among those who were most surprised was Zohran’s own father, Mahmood Mamdani.

“He surprised me and his mother,” Mahmood told Al Jazeera Mushaber reporter Allaa Azzam in an interview this week. “We wouldn’t expect him to become mayor of New York City. We never thought about it.”

But Mahmood, an anthropology professor and postcolonial scholar at Columbia University, framed his son’s electoral success as evidence of a shifting political landscape.

Zohran, for instance, campaigned heavily on questions of affordability and refused to back away from his criticisms of Israel’s abuses against Palestinians, long considered a taboo subject in US politics.

He is the first Muslim person to become mayor of the country’s largest city by population, as well as its first mayor of South Asian descent.

“There were certain things that were near and dear to him,” Mahmood explained. “Social justice was one of them. The rights of Palestinians was another.”

“These two issues he has stuck by. He’s not been willing to trade them, to compromise them, to minimise them.”

Inside the Mamdani family

The son of Mahmood and Indian American director Mira Nair, Zohran first emerged as the frontrunner in the mayoral race in June, when his dark-horse campaign dominated the Democratic Party primary.

He earned 56 percent of the final tally, besting former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

When Cuomo ran as an independent in the November 4 election, Zohran once again beat him by a wide margin, with more than 50 percent of the vote to Cuomo’s 41 percent.

Mahmood told Al Jazeera that, while his son’s sudden political ascent came as a surprise, his resilience did not.

“It didn’t surprise us, with his grit and determination,” he said of the election. “I don’t think he joined the race thinking that he was going to win it. I think he joined the race wanting to make a point.”

He traced back some of Zohran’s electoral finesse to his upbringing. Zohran, Mahmood explained, was not raised in a typical US nuclear family but instead shared his home with three generations of family members.

Living with a diverse age range allowed Zohran to expand his understanding and build his people skills, according to Mahmood.

“He grew up with love and patience. He learned to be very patient with people who are slower, people who were not necessarily what his generation was,” Mahmood said.

“He was very different from the American kids around here who hardly ever see their grandparents.”

A ‘mood of change’

Mahmood also credited his son’s victory to a shifting political landscape, one where voters are fed up with the status quo.

“There’s a mood of change. The young voted like they never voted before,” Mahmood said.

“Sections of the population which had been completely thrown into the sidelines – Muslims, recent immigrants whether Muslim or not – he gave them enormous confidence. They came out and they voted. They mobilised.”

Local media outlets in New York reported that turnout for November’s mayoral race was the highest in more than 50 years. More than two million voters cast a ballot in the closely watched race.

Mahmood cast his son’s upcoming tenure as mayor as a test of whether that voter faith would be rewarded.

“America is marked by low levels of electoral participation, and they’ve always claimed that this is because most people are satisfied with the system,” Mahmood said.

“But now the levels of political participation are increasing. And most people, it’s not just that they are not satisfied, but they no longer believe – or they begin to believe that maybe the electoral system is a way to change things. Zohran’s mayoral term will tell us whether it is or it is not.”

Mahmood was frank that his son faces an uphill battle as mayor. He described politics as a sphere dominated by the influence of moneyed powers.

“ I am not sure he knows that world well,” Mahmood said of his son. “He’s a fast learner, and he will learn it.”

He noted that significant resources were mobilised during the mayoral election to blunt Zohran’s campaign.

“ He’s taking on powerful forces. He’s being opposed by powerful forces. They failed during the campaign,” Mahmood said. That defeat, he added, “exposed the failure of money” as a defining force in the race.

A focus on Palestine

Mahmood also addressed the role of Zohran’s advocacy on the campaign trail.

Though faced with criticism from his mayoral rivals, Mamdani has refused to retreat from his stance that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide.

That position, though widely affirmed by rights groups and experts, including at the United Nations, is relatively rare in mainstream US politics, where opposition to Israel is a political third rail.

Still, voters appear to be shifting on the question of US support for Israel.

A March poll from the Pew Research Center found that the percentage of US respondents with an unfavourable view of Israel has increased from 42 percent in 2022 to 53 percent in 2025.

While unfavourable views were most pronounced among Democratic voters, they have also increased among conservatives, especially those under the age of 50.

Israel’s war on Gaza has killed at least 69,500 Palestinians since its start in October 2023, and there has been continued outrage over widespread Israeli violence in the occupied West Bank as well.

Mahmood said the undeniable human rights abuses are causing a shift in public perception – and not just in the US.

“The real consequence of Gaza is not limited to Gaza. It is global,” said Mahmood. “Gaza has brought us a new phase in world history.”

“There will never be a return to a period when the world believes that what Israel is doing is defending itself.”

US President Donald Trump said on social media that six Democratic lawmakers — all veterans and service members — should be arrested and put to ‘death’ for a video they published urging armed forces members to disobey ‘illegal orders’ from the administration.

The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has announced it will not release inflation information for the month of October, citing the consequences of the recent government shutdown.

On Friday, the bureau updated its website to say that certain October data would not be available, even now that government funding has been restored and normal operations have resumed.

“BLS could not collect October 2025 reference period survey data due to a lapse in appropriations,” it wrote in a statement. “BLS is unable to retroactively collect these data.”

The cancelled data includes the Consumer Price Index (CPI) — a report that is commonly used to calculate inflation by measuring the changing costs of retail items — and the Real Earnings summary, which tracks wages among US workers.

For some of the reports, including the Consumer Price Index, the bureau said it would use “nonsurvey data sources” to make calculations that would be included in a future report for the month of November.

The November Consumer Price Index will also be published later than anticipated, on December 18.

The most recent government shutdown was the longest in US history, spanning nearly 43 days.

It began on October 1, after the US Congress missed a September 30 deadline to pass legislation to keep the government funded.

Republicans had hoped to push through a continuing resolution that made no changes to current spending levels. But Democrats had baulked at the prospect, arguing that recent restrictions to government programmes had put healthcare out of reach for some US citizens.

They also warned that insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act are set to expire by the end of the year. Without an extension to those subsidies, they said that insurance premiums for many Americans will spike.

Republicans rejected the prospect of negotiating the issue until after their continuing resolution was passed. Democrats, meanwhile, feared that, if they passed the continuing resolution without changes, there would be no further opportunity to address healthcare spending before the end of the year.

The two parties hit an impasse as a result. Non-essential government functions were halted during the shutdown, and many federal employees were furloughed.

Only on November 10 did a breakthrough begin to emerge. Late that night, seven Democrats and one independent broke from their caucus to side with Republicans and pass a budget bill to fund the government through January 30.

The bill was then approved by the House of Representatives on November 12, by a vote of 222 to 209. President Donald Trump signed the legislation into law that very same day.

Trump had openly sought to leverage the shutdown to eliminate federal programmes he saw as benefitting Democratic strongholds.

He also attempted to blame the political left for the lapse in government services, though he acknowledged public frustration with Republicans after Democrats won key elections in November.

“If you read the pollsters, the shutdown was a big factor, negative for the Republicans,” he told a breakfast for Republican senators on November 5. “That was a big factor.”

The Trump administration had warned as early as October that the month’s consumer price data would be negatively affected as a result of the shutdown.

In a White House statement, Trump officials touted Trump’s economic record while slamming a potential lapse in the government’s collection of data. Once again, they angled the blame for any slowed economic growth at the Democrats.

“Unfortunately, the Democrat Shutdown risks grinding that progress to a halt,” the statement said.

“Because surveyors cannot deploy to the field, the White House has learned there will likely NOT be an inflation release next month for the first time in history — depriving policymakers and markets of critical data and risking economic calamity.”

September’s Consumer Price Index, the most recent available, showed that inflation across all retail items rose about 3 percent over the previous 12-month period.

For food alone, inflation for that period was estimated at 3.1 percent.

Officials at the climate conference say the fire was contained within six minutes, and 13 attendees were treated for smoke inhalation.

Sao Paulo, Brazil – Attendees have been forced to evacuate the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP30, after a fire broke out at the venue in Belem, Brazil.

There were no injuries in Thursday’s blaze, according to Brazil’s Tourism Minister Celso Sabino. In a news conference afterwards, he downplayed the seriousness of the fire.

“There was a small fire here, which is possible at any large event,” he told journalists. “This small fire could happen anywhere on planet Earth.”

Organisers reported that the evacuation was “fast” and the fire was controlled within six minutes, leaving only minor damage.

Thirteen people were treated for smoke inhalation, according to a joint statement from the UN and COP30 leaders.

The affected area, known as the Blue Zone, is expected to remain closed until 8pm local time (23:00 GMT).

The cause of the fire remains unclear. But Helder Barbalho — the governor of the state of Para, where the summit is taking place — told the Brazilian channel GloboNews that authorities believe a generator failure or short circuit might have sparked the incident.

On social media, Barbalho assured the public that other parts of the COP30 conference zone continued to be in operation.

“We will find out what caused it, whether we can restart work here in the Blue Zone today or not,” he wrote. “The Green Zone is operating normally.”

Reports emerged about 2pm local time (17:00 GMT) of flames in the Blue Zone pavilion, a restricted area for negotiators and accredited media.

Videos on social media showed scenes of panic and security officials ordering attendees to exit the venue.

caralho, fogo na zona azul aqui da COP 30. uma loucura de gente correndo. meu deus! pic.twitter.com/ebXubnHwiR

— ralfer (@ralferr) November 20, 2025

Al Jazeera spoke to Fernando Ralfer Oliveira, an independent journalist who was in the Blue Zone when the fire broke out and shared footage of the flames.

“I was in the big corridor that leads to the meeting rooms when a commotion of people started running. I had my phone in my hand and immediately started recording,” said Ralfer.

“When I got close to the pavilion, someone ran past me shouting, ‘Fire, fire, fire!’ So I ran a little and managed to record that bit of the fire. But at that moment, security was already coming towards us in force, saying ‘Evacuate, evacuate, evacuate.’”

Ralfer and other evacuees were then directed to the COP30’s food court area, located outside the pavilion.

Roughly an hour after the fire broke out, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which organises the conference, sent an email to attendees saying that the local fire service would conduct “full safety checks” at the venue.

They then announced the Blue Zone’s continued closure: “Please note that the premises are now under the authority of the Host Country and are no longer considered a Blue Zone.”

The Blue Zone fire happened a week after Brazil responded to the UN’s concerns around safety at COP30.

On November 13, Simon Stiell, the executive secretary with the UNFCCC, sent a letter to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his government, raising issues ranging from faulty doors to water leaks near light fixtures.

That same day, the Brazilian government published a statement saying that “all UN requests have been met”, including the repositioning and expansion of police forces between the Blue and Green Zones.

The “toxic and chaotic” culture at the centre of the United Kingdom’s government led to a delayed response to the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in about 23,000 more deaths across the nation, a damning report from an inquiry into the government’s handling of the pandemic has found.

The inquiry, which former Prime Minister Boris Johnson ordered in May 2021, delivered a blistering assessment (PDF) on Thursday of his government’s response to COVID-19, criticising his indecisive leadership, lambasting his Downing Street office for breaking their own rules and castigating his top adviser Dominic Cummings. The inquiry was chaired by former judge Heather Hallett.

“The failure to appreciate the scale of the threat, or the urgency of response it demanded, meant that by the time the possibility of a mandatory lockdown was first considered it was already too late and a lockdown had become unavoidable,” the inquiry found. “At the centre of the UK government there was a toxic and chaotic culture.”

The global pandemic, which began in 2020, killed millions of people worldwide, with countries enforcing lockdowns in an attempt to stop the spread of the virus.

The UK went into lockdown on March 23, 2020, at which time it was “too little, too late,” the inquiry found, revealing that if the nation had gone into lockdown just a week earlier, on March 16, the number of deaths in the first wave of the pandemic up to July would have been reduced by about 23,000, or 48 percent.

“Had the UK been better prepared, lives would have been saved, suffering reduced and the economic cost of the pandemic far lower,” the inquiry found.

A failure to act sooner again, as cases rose later in the year, also led to further national lockdowns, Hallett’s inquiry found.

A campaign group for bereaved families said “it is devastating to think of the lives that could have been saved under a different Prime Minister”.

There was no immediate comment from Johnson on the inquiry’s findings.

The UK recorded more than 230,000 deaths from COVID, a similar death rate to the United States and Italy, but higher than elsewhere in western Europe, and it is still recovering from the economic consequences.

“Mr. Johnson should have appreciated sooner that this was an emergency that required prime ministerial leadership to inject urgency into the response,” the inquiry found.

Following the release of the inquiry’s findings, Sir Ed Davey called on Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservative Party, to apologise on behalf of the Conservatives.

“As this report is published, my thoughts and prayers are with all those who lost loved ones during the pandemic, and everyone who suffered,” Davey said. “This report confirms the abject failure of the last Conservative government.”

Ellie Chowns, a Green Party MP for North Herefordshire, said the British people were “let down” by their government.

“Families and communities – especially children – are still living with the consequences. It’s vital to learn from this report, and invest far more seriously in pandemic preparedness, so that Britain can be secure and resilient if – or when – we are again faced with such a challenge.”

The first cases of COVID-19 were detected in Wuhan, China, in late 2019, and information from the country is seen as key to preventing future pandemics. As late as June 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) said it was working to uncover the origin of the pandemic, with its work still incomplete, as critical information has “not been provided”.

“We continue to appeal to China and any other country that has information about the origins of COVID-19 to share that information openly, in the interests of protecting the world from future pandemics,” WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in June.

In 2021, Tedros launched the WHO Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), a panel of 27 independent international experts.

Marietjie Venter, the group’s chair, said earlier this year that most scientific data supports the hypothesis that the new coronavirus jumped to humans from animals.

But she added that after more than three years of work, SAGO was unable to get the necessary data to evaluate whether or not COVID was the result of a lab accident, despite repeated requests for detailed information made to the Chinese government.

United States President Donald Trump has distanced himself from disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, saying the former friends had severed ties more than a decade before his 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges.

But one Democrat is using newly released documents from Epstein’s estate to assert that the two remained friends after Trump first became president in 2016.

Representative Sean Casten, a Democrat from Illinois, highlighted one email exchange and said in a November 12 post on X: “Trump spent his first Thanksgiving after getting elected President with Jeffrey Epstein. 2017.”

Trump spent his first Thanksgiving after getting elected President with Jeffrey Epstein. 2017. pic.twitter.com/1CU51k8yl4

— Sean Casten (@SeanCasten) November 13, 2025

He attached an image of emails dated November 23, 2017 – Thanksgiving Day – between Epstein and NEXT Management Cofounder Faith Kates, which read:

Epstein: hope today is fun for you.

Kates: Fun!!! When are you back in NYC?

Epstein: all next week

Kates: Ok dylan will want to see you I always want to see you. Where are you having thanksgiving?

Epstein: eva

Faith Kates: That means glenn check out his red hair!!!

Epstein: berries color for holiday

Kates: He’s such a snooze who else is down there?

Epstein: david fizel. hanson. trump

Kates: Have fun!!!

Casten has not responded to a request for comment. “Those emails prove literally nothing,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in an email.

News reports, photos, videos and White House releases show Trump spent that 2017 Thanksgiving in Mar-a-Lago. PolitiFact, however, did not find any proof that he met Epstein that day.

There are different accounts of when Trump and Epstein had their falling out, with periods ranging from 2004 to 2007. The Miami Herald reported that Trump barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago in October 2007, a decade before the Thanksgiving Day in question.

In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges of soliciting prostitution and soliciting prostitution from a minor.

Two of the three people Epstein mentioned in his 2017 email as being “down there” are people who had property in South Florida at the time. It is unclear who he was referring to when he mentioned “Hanson”. It is possible Epstein was not foretelling a specific Thanksgiving Day plan but answering another New Yorker’s question about who among the people in their social circle would also be in the Florida area during that period.

Trump arrived in West Palm Beach, Florida, on November 21, 2017, and stayed there for several days, according to the president’s public schedules documented in Roll Call’s FactBase.

On Thanksgiving morning, he spoke to members of the military via video conference and visited coastguard members at the Lake Worth Inlet Station in Riviera Beach, Florida. The White House published transcripts of Trump’s remarks to both groups. Trump also issued a Thanksgiving message to the country and went to the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach.

Photographers for The Associated Press news agency, The Palm Beach Post and Getty Images, among others, captured photos of Trump’s activities.

A CNN report said Trump held an “opulent” dinner at the Mar-a-Lago members-only club. PolitiFact did not find reports listing who was in attendance, but the White House told CNN the first family would be having “a nice Thanksgiving dinner with all the family”.

Trump was also active on social media. In a November 22, 2017, post on X, then known as Twitter, he said he “will be having meetings and working the phones from the Winter White House in Florida [Mar-a-Lago]”. He did not specify whom he would be meeting. On Thanksgiving morning, he said in part: “HAPPY THANKSGIVING, your Country is starting to do really well.”

HAPPY THANKSGIVING, your Country is starting to do really well. Jobs coming back, highest Stock Market EVER, Military getting really strong, we will build the WALL, V.A. taking care of our Vets, great Supreme Court Justice, RECORD CUT IN REGS, lowest unemployment in 17 years….!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 23, 2017

Trump left Mar-a-Lago and returned to the White House on November 26, 2017, the Sunday after Thanksgiving.

WASHINGTON — National Public Radio will receive approximately $36 million in grant money to operate the nation’s public radio interconnection system under the terms of a court settlement with the federal government’s steward of funding for public broadcasting stations.

The settlement, announced Monday, partially resolves a legal dispute in which NPR accused the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of bowing to pressure from President Trump to cut off its funding.

On March 25, Trump said at a news conference that he would “love to” defund NPR and PBS because he believes they are biased in favor of Democrats.

NPR accused the CPB of violating its 1st Amendment free speech rights when it moved to cut off its access to grant money appropriated by Congress. NPR also claims Trump, a Republican, wants to punish it for the content of its journalism.

On April 2, the CPB’s board initially approved a three-year, roughly $36-million extension of a grant for NPR to operate the “interconnection” satellite system for public radio. NPR has been operating and managing the Public Radio Satellite System since 1985.

But corporation officials reversed course and announced that the federal funds would go to an entity called Public Media Infrastructure. NPR claimed the CPB was under mounting pressure from the Trump administration when the agency redirected the money to PMI, a media coalition that didn’t exist and wasn’t statutorily authorized to receive the funds.

CPB attorneys denied that the agency retaliated against NPR to appease Trump. They had argued that NPR’s claims are factually and legally meritless.

On May 1, Trump issued an executive order that called for federal agencies to stop funding for NPR and PBS. The settlement doesn’t end a lawsuit in which NPR seeks to block any implementation or enforcement of Trump’s executive order. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss is scheduled to preside over another hearing for the case on Dec. 4.

The settlement says NPR and CPB agree that the executive order is unconstitutional and that CPB won’t enforce it unless a court orders it to do so.

NPR, meanwhile, agreed to drop its request for a court order blocking CPB from disbursing funds to PMI under a separate grant agreement.

Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO, said the settlement is “a victory for editorial independence and a step toward upholding the 1st Amendment rights of NPR and the public media system.”

Patricia Harrison, the corporation’s CEO, said CPB is pleased that the litigation is over “and that our investment in the future through PMI marks an exciting new era for public media.”

On Aug. 1, CPB announced it would take steps toward closing itself down after being defunded by Congress.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge said Wednesday he plans to move ahead quickly on a contempt investigation of the Trump administration for failing to turn around planes carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador in March.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington said a ruling Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave him the authority to proceed with the inquiry, which will determine whether there is sufficient evidence to refer the matter for prosecution. He asked attorneys to identify witnesses and offer plans for how to conduct the probe by Monday and said he’d like to start any hearings on Dec. 1.

The judge has previously warned he could seek to have officials in the administration prosecuted.

On March 15, Boasberg ordered the aircraft carrying accused gang members to return to the U.S., but they landed instead in El Salvador, where the migrants were held at a notorious prison.

“I am authorized to proceed just as I intended to do in April seven months ago,” the judge said during a hearing Wednesday. He added later, “I certainly intend to find out what happened on that day.”

Boasberg said having witnesses testify under oath appeared to be the best way to conduct the contempt probe, but he also suggested the government could provide written declarations to explain who gave orders to “defy” his ruling. He suggested one witness: a former U.S. Justice Department attorney who filed a whistleblower complaint that claims a top official in the department suggested the Trump administration might have to ignore court orders as it prepared to deport Venezuelan migrants it accused of being gang members.

The Trump administration has denied any violation, saying the judge’s directive to return the planes was made verbally in court but not included in his written order. Justice Department attorney Tiberius Davis told Boasberg the government objected to further contempt proceedings.

Boasberg previously found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt of court. The ruling marked a dramatic battle between the judicial and executive branches of government, but a divided three-judge appeals court panel later sided with the administration and threw out the finding. The two judges in the majority were appointed by President Trump.

On Friday, a larger panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit said the earlier ruling by their colleagues did not bar Boasberg from moving ahead with his contempt probe. Boasberg’s contempt finding was a “measured and essential response,” Judges Cornelia Pillard, Robert Wilkins and Bradley Garcia wrote.

“Obedience to court orders is vital to the ability of the judiciary to fulfill its constitutionally appointed role,” they wrote. “Judicial orders are not suggestions; they are binding commands that the Executive Branch, no less than any other party, must obey.”

The Trump administration invoked an 18th-century wartime law to send the migrants, whom it accused of membership in a Venezuelan gang, to a mega-prison in El Salvador known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. It argued that American courts could not order them freed.

In June, Boasberg ruled the Trump administration must give some of the migrants a chance to challenge their deportations, saying they hadn’t been able to formally contest the removals or allegations that they were members of Tren de Aragua.

The judge wrote that “significant evidence” had surfaced indicating that many of the migrants were not connected to the gang “and thus were languishing in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.”

More than 200 migrants were later released back to Venezuela in a prisoner swap with the U.S.

Their attorneys want Boasberg to issue another order requiring the administration to explain how it will give at least 137 of the men a chance to challenge their gang designation under the Alien Enemies Act.

The men are in danger in Venezuela and fear talking to attorneys, who have been able to contact about 30 of them, but they “overwhelmingly” want to pursue their cases, Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said Wednesday.

Davis said it may be hard to take the men into custody again given tensions between the U.S. and the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Boasberg did not immediately rule on the matter.

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

The United States Department of Justice has acknowledged that the grand jury reviewing the case against James Comey, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), did not receive a copy of the final indictment against him.

That revelation on Wednesday came as lawyers for Comey sought to have the indictment thrown out of court.

At a 90-minute hearing in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, Comey’s lawyers argued that the case should be dismissed outright, not only for the prosecutorial missteps but also due to the interventions of President Donald Trump.

Comey is one of three prominent Trump critics to be indicted between late September and mid-October.

The hearing took place before US District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, and Comey’s defence team alleged that Trump was using the legal system as a tool for political retribution.

“This is an extraordinary case and it merits an extraordinary remedy,” defence lawyer Michael Dreeben said, calling the indictment “a blatant use of criminal justice to achieve political ends”.

The Justice Department, represented by prosecutor Tyler Lemons, maintained that the indictment met the legal threshold to be heard at trial.

But Lemons did admit, under questioning, that the grand jury that approved the indictment had not seen its final draft.

When Judge Nachmanoff asked Lemons if the grand jury had never seen the final version, the prosecutor conceded, “That is my understanding.”

It was the latest stumble in the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute Comey for allegedly obstructing a congressional investigation and lying to senators while under oath.

Comey has pleaded not guilty to the two charges, and his defence team has led a multipronged effort to see the case nixed over its multiple irregularities.

Scrutiny over grand jury proceedings

Questions over the indictment — and what the grand jury had or had not seen — had been brewing since last week.

On November 13, US District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie raised questions about a span of time when it appeared that there appeared to be “no court reporter present” during the grand jury proceedings.

Then, on Tuesday, Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick took the extraordinary step of calling for the grand jury materials to be released to the Comey defence team, citing “a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps”.

They included misleading statements from prosecutors, the use of search warrants pertaining to a separate case, and the fact that the grand jury likely did not review the final indictment in full.

Separately, in Wednesday’s hearing, Judge Nachmanoff pressed acting US Attorney Lindsey Halligan about who saw the final indictment.

After repeated questions, she, too, admitted that only the foreperson of the grand jury and a second grand juror were present for the returning of the indictment.

Halligan oversaw the three indictments against the Trump critics: Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.

All three have denied wrongdoing, and all three have argued that their prosecution is part of a campaign of political vengeance.

Spotlight on Trump-Comey feud

Wednesday’s hearing focused primarily on establishing that argument, with Comey’s lawyers pointing to statements Trump made pushing for the indictments.

Comey’s defence team pointed to the tense relationship between their client and Trump, stretching back to the president’s decision to fire Comey from his job as FBI director in 2017.

Comey had faced bipartisan criticism for FBI investigations into the 2016 election, which Trump ultimately won.

Trump, for example, accused the ex-FBI leader of going easy on his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, calling him a “slime ball”, a “phony” and “a real nut job”.

“FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds,” Trump wrote on social media in May 2017.

Comey, meanwhile, quickly established himself as a prominent critic of the Trump administration.

“I don’t think he’s medically unfit to be president. I think he’s morally unfit to be president,” Comey told ABC News in 2018.

He added that a president must “embody respect” and adhere to basic values like truth-telling. “This president is not able to do that,” Comey said.

In Wednesday’s hearing, Comey’s defence also pointed to the series of events leading up to the former FBI director’s indictment.

Last September, Trump posted on social media a message to Attorney General Pam Bondi, calling Comey and James “guilty as hell” and encouraging her not to “delay any longer” in seeking their indictments.

That message was “effectively an admission that this is a political prosecution”, according to Dreeben, Comey’s lawyer.

Shortly after the message was posted online, Halligan was appointed as acting US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia

She replaced a prosecutor, Erik Siebert, who had reportedly declined to indict Comey and others for lack of evidence. Trump had denounced him as a “woke RINO”, an acronym that stands for “Republican in name only”.

Dreeben argued that switcheroo also signalled Trump’s vindictive intent and his spearheading of the Comey indictment.

But Lemons, representing the Justice Department, told Judge Nachmanoff that Comey “was not indicted at the direction of the president of the United States or any other government official”.

Published on
19/11/2025 – 13:15 GMT+1

The Netherlands announced on Wednesday that it is suspending state control of Chinese chipmaker Nexperia after “constructive” talks with Chinese authorities.

The decision marks a de-escalation after several weeks of dispute between the Hague and Beijing over the export of chips that play an essential role in the European automotive sector.

“In light of recent developments, I consider it the right moment to take a constructive step by suspending my order under the Goods Availability Act regarding Nexperia,” Dutch Economy minister Vincent Karremans wrote on X.

The dispute began on 30 September when the Dutch government invoked the Goods Availability Act to take control of Nexperia over fears of technology transfers from the company’s Dutch plant to facilities in China.

Beijing retaliated by restricting exports of the Nexperia’s finished chips from China, triggering shortages in the global automotive industry.

The government said on Wednesday that the resumption of exports now appeared to be assured.

“In the past few days we have had constructive meetings with the Chinese authorities,” Karremans said, adding: “We are positive about the measures already taken by the Chinese authorities to ensure the supply of chips to Europe and the rest of the world.”

In a letter sent to the Dutch Parliament on Wednesday, Karremans wrote that “Chinese authorities currently appear to be granting permission to companies from European and other countries to export Nexperia chips.”

However, he also added a note of caution.

“A duty to provide information remains in effect: the company must inform me about the transfer of production resources and knowledge between its facilities.”

Supply crisis eases off

The impasse seemed to ease at the end of October following a meeting between the Chinese and the US in South Korea at which both sides agreed to a truce in their bilateral trade dispute.

After a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping on October 30, China said it would start accepting applications for exports of Nexperia chips from Chinese facilities to ease what was becoming a global shortage.

However, Karremans told the media last week that he had no regrets about his assertive approach to the chipmaker.

EU trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič welcomed the Dutch decision on X saying it was “another key step in stabilising our strategic chip supply chains.”

Last Friday, Šefčovič told Euronews the dispute was a warning that the EU needs to diversify its supply of strategic products since they can now be “weaponised” by third countries.

Ministers implicated in scandal involving misused and stolen funds earmarked for anti-flooding infrastructure.

Two ministers in Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr’s cabinet resigned on Tuesday after being implicated in an ongoing investigation into “ghost” infrastructure and billions of dollars of missing government funds, deepening a crisis facing the country’s government over the corruption scandal.

Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin and Department of Budget and Management Secretary Amenah Pangandaman have both stepped down from their posts, presidential palace press officer Claire Castro said on Tuesday.

Castro said the pair chose to resign “after their departments were mentioned in allegations related to the flood control anomaly” and “in recognition of the responsibility to allow the administration to address the matter appropriately,” according to The Philippines Inquirer newspaper.

Bersamin and Pangandaman are the highest-ranking members of the Marcos government to be hit directly by the corruption scandal since it broke in July, according to Aries Arugay, an expert in Philippines politics and a visiting senior fellow at Singapore’s ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.

Marcos himself has managed to stay above the fray – for now – although Arugay said that could change at any time.

“At the moment, the palace is trying to take the president out of this, and this is why you have the ‘resignations’ of the executive secretary, the budget secretary. They’re the ones accepting command responsibility over this,” he told Al Jazeera.

Arugay said Marcos Jr still has a “comfortable” majority in the legislature because many MPs still prefer him to leadership under Vice President Sara Duterte, but “all bets are off” should more evidence emerge.

Earlier this week, politician Zaldy Co – who is currently not in the Philippines – alleged that Marcos directed him to add $1.7bn to the budget for “dubious public works” while he headed an appropriations committee, according to The South China Morning Post, although the claims have not been verified.

Co was among the first group of officials to be charged this week for their role in the corruption scandal following a months-long investigation, according to The Philippines Inquirer.

The scandal has engulfed the Philippines since Marcos Jr revealed in a speech to Congress earlier this year that billions of dollars of public funds for anti-flooding infrastructure had been siphoned off by private contractors to build substandard infrastructure – and in some cases, none at all.

The Philippines is regularly hit by typhoons and other tropical storms, and flooding remains a perennial and often deadly problem.

The corruption scandal has set off mass protests across the Philippines, including a demonstration on Sunday that drew 500,000 people to Manila.

The majority on a federal court in El Paso, Texas, found that the new map used race to redraw congressional districts.

A panel of federal judges has ruled that Texas’s newly redrawn congressional districts cannot be used in next year’s 2026 midterm elections, striking a blow to Republican efforts to tilt races in their favour.

On Tuesday, a two-to-one majority at the US District Court for western Texas blocked the map, on the basis that there was “substantial evidence” to show “that Texas racially gerrymandered” the districts.

Partisan gerrymandering has generally been considered legal under court precedent, but dividing congressional maps along racial lines is considered a violation of the US Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics. To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics,” the court’s majority wrote in the opening of its 160-page opinion.

The ruling marked a major setback to efforts to redraw congressional districts ahead of the critically important midterms, which decide the composition of the US Congress.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives will be up for grabs in that election. With Republicans holding a narrow 219-seat majority, analysts speculate that control of the chamber could potentially switch parties.

Texas, a Republican stronghold, had kicked off a nationwide race to redesign congressional districts in favour of one party or the other.

In June, news reports emerged that the administration of President Donald Trump had reached out to state officials to redraw the red state’s map, in order to gain five additional House seats for Republicans.

Despite hesitations and a walkout by state Democrats, the Texas legislature passed a new, gerrymandered map in August.

That inspired other right-leaning states, notably North Carolina and Missouri, to similarly redraw their districts. North Carolina and Missouri each passed a map that would gain Republicans one additional House seat.

Texas’s actions also sparked a Democratic backlash. California Governor Gavin Newsom spearheaded a ballot campaign in his heavily blue state to pass a proposition in November that would suspend an independent districting commission and instead pass a partisan map, skewed in favour of Democrats.

Voters passed the ballot initiative overwhelmingly in November, teeing up Democrats to gain five extra seats in California next year.

The state redistricting battle has sparked myriad legal challenges, including the one decided in Texas on Tuesday.

In that case, civil rights groups accused the Texas government of attempting to dilute the power of Black and Hispanic voters.

Judges David Guaderrama, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Jeffrey V Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority decision in favour of the plaintiffs.

A third judge — Jerry Smith, appointed under Ronald Reagan — dissented from their decision.

Writing for the majority, Brown said that Trump official Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, made the “legally incorrect assertion” that four congressional districts in the state were “unconstitutional” because they had non-white majorities.

The letter Dhillon sent containing that assertion helped prompt the Texas redistricting fight, Brown argued.

The judge also pointed to statements Texas Governor Greg Abbott made, seeming to reference the racial composition of the districts. If the new map’s aims were purely partisan and not racial, Brown indicated that it was curious no majority-white districts were targeted.

Tuesday’s ruling restores the 2021 map of Texas congressional districts. Currently, the state is represented by 25 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the US House.

Already, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has pledged to appeal the ruling before the US Supreme Court.

“The radical left is once again trying to undermine the will of the people. The Big Beautiful Map was entirely legal and passed for partisan purposes to better represent the political affiliations of Texas,” Paxton wrote in a statement posted to social media.

He expressed optimism about his odds before the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. “I fully expect the Court to uphold Texas’s sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

California’s new congressional map likewise faces a legal challenge, with the Trump administration suing alongside state Republicans.