Government

The US House of Representatives voted 427 to 1 to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which if enacted will require the Department of Justice to release documents related to sexual offender Jeffrey Epstein. It still needs to pass the Senate and be signed by President Trump into law.

Brazil’s proposal

The issue is set to come to a head next week, as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) holds its 20th meeting.

Heightened restrictions on brazilwood are scheduled to be raised for a vote at the conference.

Since 1998, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified the tree as endangered.

But a proposal authored by the Brazilian government would increase CITES protections for brazilwood, placing it in the highest tier for trade restrictions.

CITES regulates the international trade of endangered species, and it classifies animals and plants in three appendices.

The third is the least restrictive: If a species is endangered in a given country, then export permits are required from that country.

The Appendix II has tighter standards: Export permits are required from wherever the species is extracted. Most endangered species, including brazilwood, fall into this category.

But Brazil hopes to bump brazilwood up to appendix one, a category for species faced with extinction.

Trade of plants and animals in that appendix is largely banned, except for non-commercial use. But even in that case, both import and export licences are required.

In its proposal, Brazil argues the upgraded restrictions are necessary to fight the plant’s extinction.

Only about 10,000 adult brazilwood trees remain. The population has shrunk by 84 percent over the last three generations, and illegal logging has played a dominant role in that decline, according to the proposal.

“Selective extraction of Brazilwood is still active, both inside and outside protected areas,” the proposal explains.

“In all cases recently detected, the destination of these woods is the bow-making industry for musical instruments.”

It adds that “520 years of intense exploitation” have led to the “complete elimination of the species in several regions”.

One operation launched by Brazilian police in October 2018 resulted in 45 companies and bowmakers being fined.

Nearly 292,000 bows and blanks — the unfinished blocks of wood destined to become bows — were seized.

Another investigation, between 2021 and 2022, led police to conclude that an estimated $46m in profits had come from the illegal brazilwood trade.

“The majority of bows and bow blanks sold by Brazilian companies over the past 25 years probably originated from illegal sources,” Brazil wrote in its proposal.

WASHINGTON — Rep. Adam Gray was one of only six House Democrats — and the only one from California — who voted with Republicans in favor of a deal to end the government shutdown, and there was a calculated reason behind that decision.

Gray, a first-term Democrat from the Central Valley, is running for reelection in a majority Latino district that national Republicans are expected to heavily target as they defend their narrow House majority in next fall’s midterm elections. Last year, Gray won his seat by 187 votes, and although redistricting has since made the 13th District more favorable to Democrats, it remains highly competitive.

The Merced Democrat’s vote reflects the political reality of representing one of the nation’s few battleground districts. Gray is positioning himself as an independent-minded Democrat willing to buck leadership on politically divisive issues. The shutdown deal gave him a rare opportunity to put that in practice, even at the risk of frustrating members of his own party.

“I know it is not comfortable, and I know there’s people that are going to be mad at me,” Gray told The Times. “But I am not here to win an argument. I am here to actually help fix problems with people in my community, and I know I did the right thing.”

Democratic representatives and senators for weeks were steadfast in opposing a shutdown deal that did not include language to extend Obamacare tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year, and as a result, leave millions of Americans with higher healthcare costs.

In Gray’s district, more than half of residents rely on Medi-Cal or have coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace, making them vulnerable to rising healthcare costs — a pocketbook issue that is likely to factor into an already competitive congressional race.

Beyond healthcare, nearly 48,000 families in his largely rural district rely on food benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, according to the latest data provided by the Department of Agriculture. Those benefits were put at risk during the shutdown as funding for the federal program commonly called food stamps was caught up in legal disputes.

As the shutdown dragged on without meaningful negotiations on healthcare, Gray said, he grew concerned that Republicans were too comfortable “using vulnerable Americans as political leverage.”

Ultimately, Gray was among just 13 Democrats — six in the House, seven in the Senate — who went against their party to end the shutdown that had dragged on an historic 43 days.

“The government is reopening because Democrats were willing to compromise,” Gray said.

The deal, which was signed by President Trump last week, will fund the government through January 2026 and reinstate federal workers who were laid off during the shutdown. It will also fund SNAP through September 2026, a provision that Gray says he wanted to secure because he worries that partisanship could lead to another shutdown in January.

Republicans attack his position

Although Gray voted with Republicans over the shutdown, national Republican operatives still see his seat as a main target ahead of next year’s election — and there is good reason for that.

The seat has a history of party flipping.

In 2024, Gray won his seat by 187 votes, the slimmest margin of any race in the country. His opponent, Republican John Duarte, who cast himself a centrist in the race, had only held the seat for one term before being beat. (And he defeated Gray two years earlier by just 564 votes.)

President Trump carried the 13th last year by five points, underscoring the competitiveness of the Central Valley district which backed Joe Biden in the first Biden-Trump matchup of 2020.

The passage of Proposition 50 has made the district safer for Democrats as the new congressional map shifts parts of Stockton, Modesto and northern Stanislaus County into the district, while removing more conservative, rural territory west of Fresno. Still, it remains a highly competitive district.

Like Duarte, Gray has positioned himself as a centrist, but that hasn’t stopped Republicans from portraying him as being from the party’s far-left flank.

Christian Martinez, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, is now focusing on Gray’s voting history on the shutdown as a reason to criticize the incumbent. Specifically, how Gray in September abstained from voting on a bill that would have prevented the shutdown.

“Instead of delivering results for Californians, out-of-touch Democrat Adam Gray is too busy appeasing his radical socialist base, and now he’s fully responsible for holding Americans hostage with the longest government shutdown in history,” Martinez said.

Martinez added that “hardworking Californians paid the price for his refusal to vote to keep the government open, and next November, they’ll send him packing.”

Gray is now facing a Republican challenge from former Stockton Mayor Kevin Lincoln. When Lincoln announced his bid on Nov. 6, before the shutdown deal vote, he criticized Gray for not doing enough to prevent the shutdown in the first place.

“Washington politicians like Adam Gray have fallen in line with a failed liberal agenda that’s made life less affordable and less safe,” Lincoln said in a statement.

Moving forward, Gray sees the vote as an opportunity to reset negotiations and find a bipartisan solution before funding runs out again on Jan. 30, 2026.

“I think we’re moving in the right direction,” Gray said. “I hope my colleagues have the courage to do the right thing over the next days.”

Back in his district, Democrats have had a mixed reaction to his vote. As for his congressional colleagues, they have not offered up much criticism, choosing to let Gray explain his vote to the ever-changeable 13th District.

A handful of opposition abstentions allowed Carney and minority Liberals to advance a deficit-boosting budget aimed at countering US tariffs.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s minority government narrowly survived a confidence vote on Monday as Canadian lawmakers endorsed a motion to begin debating his first federal budget – a result that avoids the prospect of a second election in less than a year.

The House of Commons voted 170-168 to advance study of the fiscal plan. While further votes are expected in the coming months, the slim victory signals that the budget is likely to be approved eventually.

Tonight, the House of Commons has voted to pass Budget 2025.

It’s time to work together to deliver on this plan — to protect our communities, empower Canadians with new opportunities, and build Canada strong.

— Mark Carney (@MarkJCarney) November 18, 2025

“It’s time to work together to deliver on this plan – to protect our communities, empower Canadians with new opportunities, and build Canada strong,” Carney said on X, arguing that his spending blueprint would help fortify the economy against escalating United States tariffs.

Carney has repeatedly cast the budget as a “generational” chance to reinforce Canada’s economic resilience and to reduce reliance on trade with the US.

The proposal includes a near doubling of Canada’s deficit to 78.3 billion Canadian dollars ($55.5bn) with major outlays aimed at countering US trade measures and supporting defence and housing initiatives. The prime minister has insisted that higher deficit spending is essential to cushion the impact of US President Donald Trump’s tariffs. While most bilateral trade remains tariff-free under an existing North American trade agreement, US levies on automobiles, steel and aluminium have struck significant sectors of the Canadian economy.

According to Carney, a former central banker, internal forecasts show that “US tariffs and the associated uncertainty will cost Canadians around 1.8 percent of our GDP [gross domestic product]”.

The Liberals, a few seats short of a majority in the 343-seat House of Commons, relied on abstentions from several opposition members who were reluctant to trigger early elections. Recent polling suggested Carney’s Liberals would remain in power if Canadians were sent back to the polls.

Carney was elected to a full term in April after campaigning on a promise to challenge Washington’s protectionist turn. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party, the official opposition, has been wrestling with internal divisions since its defeat, and leader Pierre Poilievre faces a formal review of his performance early next year.

Poilievre has sharply criticised the government’s spending plans, branding the fiscal package a “credit card budget”.

The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) has also expressed concerns, arguing that the proposal fails to adequately address unemployment, the housing crisis and the cost-of-living pressures faced by many Canadian families.

NDP interim leader Don Davies said the party accepted that blocking the budget would push the country back into an unwanted election cycle, explaining why two of its MPs ultimately abstained.

It was “clear that Canadians do not want an election right now … while we still face an existential threat from the Trump administration”, he said.

“Parliamentarians decided to put Canada first”, Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne said.

Polling before Monday’s vote suggested Canadians broadly shared this view. A November survey by the analytics firm Leger found that one in five respondents supported immediate elections while half said they were satisfied with Carney’s leadership.

A magistrate judge in the United States has issued a stern rebuke to the administration of President Donald Trump, criticising its handling of the indictment against a former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), James Comey.

On Monday, Judge William Fitzpatrick of Alexandria, Virginia, made the unusual decision to order the release of all grand jury materials related to the indictment.

Normally, grand jury materials are kept secret to protect witnesses, defendants and jurors in cases of grave federal crimes.

But in Comey’s case, Fitzpatrick ruled there was “a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law”, and that greater transparency was therefore required.

He cited several irregularities in the case, ranging from how evidence was obtained to alleged misstatements from prosecutors that could have swayed the grand jury.

“The procedural and substantive irregularities that occurred before the grand jury, and the manner in which evidence presented to the grand jury was collected and used, may rise to the level of government misconduct,” Fitzpatrick wrote in his 24-page decision.

Fitzpatrick clarified that his decision does not render the grand jury materials public. But they will be provided to Comey’s defence team, as the former FBI director seeks to have the indictment tossed.

“The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted,” Fitzpatrick wrote, underscoring the unusual nature of the proceedings.

“However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps.”

Scrutiny of US Attorney Halligan

The decision is the latest stumble for interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan, a former personal lawyer to Trump whom he then appointed as a top federal prosecutor.

A specialist in insurance law with no prosecutorial background, Halligan was tapped earlier this year to replace acting US Attorney Erik Siebert in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Trump has indicated he fired Siebert over disagreements about Justice Department investigations.

According to media reports, Siebert had refrained from seeking indictments against prominent Trump critics, such as Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing insufficient evidence.

But that appears to have frustrated the president. Trump went so far as to call for Comey’s and James’s prosecutions on social media, as well as that of Democratic Senator Adam Schiff.

“They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,” Trump wrote in a post addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi. “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility.”

Halligan took up her post as acting US attorney on September 22. By September 25, she had filed her first major indictment, against Comey.

It charged Comey with making a “false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement” to the US Senate, thereby obstructing a congressional inquiry.

A second indictment, against James, was issued on October 9. And a third came on October 16, targeting former national security adviser John Bolton, another prominent Trump critic.

All three individuals have denied wrongdoing and have sought to have their cases dismissed. Each has also accused President Trump of using the legal system for political retribution against perceived adversaries.

Monday’s court ruling is not the first time Halligan’s indictments have come under scrutiny, though.

Just last week, US District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie heard petitions from James and Comey questioning whether Halligan’s appointment as US attorney was legal.

As she weighed the petitions last Thursday, she questioned why there was a gap in the grand jury record for Comey’s indictment, where no court reporter appeared to be present.

Inside Fitzpatrick’s ruling

Fitzpatrick raised the same issue in his ruling on Monday. He questioned whether the transcript and audio recording of the grand jury deliberations were, in fact, complete.

He pointed out that the grand jury in Comey’s case was originally presented with a three-count indictment, which it rejected. Those deliberations started at about 4:28pm local time.

But by 6:40pm, the grand jury had allegedly weighed a second indictment and found that there was probable cause for two of the three counts.

Fitzpatrick said that the span of time between those two points was not “sufficient” to “draft the second indictment, sign the second indictment, present it to the grand jury, provide legal instructions to the grand jury, and give them an opportunity to deliberate”.

Either the court record was incomplete, Fitzpatrick said, or the grand jury weighed an indictment that had not been fully presented in court.

The judge also acknowledged questions about how evidence had been obtained in the Comey case.

The Trump administration was facing a five-year statute of limitations in the Comey case, expiring on September 30. The indictment pertains to statements Comey made before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020.

To quickly find evidence for the indictment, Fitzpatrick said that federal prosecutors appear to have used warrants that were issued for a different case.

Those warrants, however, were limited to an investigation into Daniel Richman, an associate of Comey who was probed for the alleged theft of government property and the unlawful gathering of national security information.

No charges were filed in the Richman case, and the investigation was closed in 2021.

“The Richman materials sat dormant with the FBI until the summer of 2025, when the Bureau chose to rummage through them again,” Fitzpatrick said.

He said the federal government’s use of the warrants could violate the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits the unreasonable search and seizure of evidence. He described the Justice Department’s actions as “cavalier” and asserted that no precautions were taken to protect privileged information.

“Inexplicably, the government elected not to seek a new warrant for the 2025 search, even though the 2025 investigation was focused on a different person, was exploring a fundamentally different legal theory, and was predicated on an entirely different set of criminal offenses,” Fitzpatrick wrote.

He speculated that prosecutors may not have sought a new warrant because the delay would have allowed the statute of limitations to expire on the Comey case.

“The Court recognizes that a failure to seek a new warrant under these circumstances is highly unusual,” he said.

Fitzpatrick also raised concerns that statements federal prosecutors made to the grand jury may have been misleading.

Many of those statements were redacted in Fitzpatrick’s ruling. But he described them as “fundamental misstatements of the law that could compromise the grand jury process”.

One statement, he said, “may have reasonably set an expectation in the minds of the grand jury that rather than the government bear the burden to prove Mr. Comey’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the burden shifts to Mr. Comey to explain away the government’s evidence”.

Another appeared to suggest that the grand jury “did not have to rely only on the record before them to determine probable cause” — and that more evidence would be presented later on.

Calling for the release of the grand jury records on Monday was an “extraordinary remedy” for these issues, Fitzpatrick conceded.

But it was necessary, given “the prospect that government misconduct may have tainted the grand jury proceedings”, he ultimately decided.

SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Department of Justice sued California on Monday to block newly passed laws that prohibit law enforcement officials, including federal immigration agents, from wearing masks and that require them to identify themselves.

The laws, passed by the California Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, came in the wake of the Trump administration’s immigration raids in California, when masked, unidentified federal officers jumped out of vehicles this summer as part of the president’s mass deportation program.

Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said the laws were unconsitutional and endanger federal officers.

“California’s anti-law enforcement policies discriminate against the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents,” Bondi said in a statement. “These laws cannot stand.”

The governor recently signed Senate Bill 627, which bans federal officers from wearing masks during enforcement duties, and Senate Bill 805, which requires federal officers without a uniform to visibly display their name or badge number during operations. Both measures were introduced as a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that are often conducted by masked agents in plainclothes and unmarked cars.

The lawsuit, which names the state of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta as defendants, asserts the laws are unconstitutional as only the federal government has the authority to control its agents and any requirements about their uniforms. It further argued that federal agents need to conceal their identities at times due to the nature of their work.

“Given the personal threats and violence that agents face, federal law enforcement agencies allow their officers to choose whether to wear masks to protect their identities and provide an extra layer of security,” the lawsuit states. “Denying federal agencies and officers that choice would chill federal law enforcement and deter applicants for law enforcement positions.”

Federal agents will not comply with either law, the lawsuit states.

“The Federal Government would be harmed if forced to comply with either Act, and also faces harm from the real threat of criminal liability for noncompliance,” the lawsuit states. “Accordingly, the challenged laws are invalid under the Supremacy Clause and their application to the Federal Government should be preliminarily and permanently enjoined.”

Newsom previously said it was unacceptable for “secret police” to grab people off the streets, and that the new laws were needed to help the public differentiate between imposters and legitimate federal law officers.

The governor, however, acknowledged the legislation could use more clarifications about safety gear and other exemptions. He directed lawmakers to work on a follow-up bill next year.

In a Monday statement, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced SB 627, said the FBI recently warned that “secret police tactics” are undermining public safety.

“Despite what these would-be authoritarians claim, no one is above the law,” said Wiener. “We’ll see you in court.”

Richardson is the second interim official US President Donald Trump has appointed to lead FEMA since the start of his second term.

David Richardson, the acting head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is stepping down, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Monday’s announcement ends a troubled tenure. It comes just six months after Richardson took the job and while the Atlantic hurricane season is still under way.

Richardson, a former Marine Corps officer, is the second FEMA head to leave or be fired since May. He departs amid criticism that he kept a low profile during the deadly Texas floods in July that killed 130 people and baffled staff in June when he said he was unaware the country had a hurricane season.

A DHS spokesperson gave no reasons for why the FEMA chief was departing. The Washington Post was the first to report that Richardson was leaving.

The DHS spokesperson said in a statement that FEMA chief of staff Karen Evans will replace Richardson, and that FEMA and DHS appreciate Richardson’s service.

Richardson’s predecessor, Cameron Hamilton, was fired in May, after pushing back against efforts under President Donald Trump to dismantle the agency.

President Trump has said he wants to greatly reduce the size of FEMA — the federal agency responsible for preparing for and responding to natural disasters — saying state governments can handle many of its functions.

FEMA plays a central role in the US response to major disasters, including hurricanes. The Atlantic hurricane season is due to end this month.

Richardson kept a low public profile compared with FEMA leaders under previous presidents, appearing rarely in public. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has served as the face of the administration’s response to natural disasters during Trump’s second term.

Richardson’s abrupt departure is an ignominious end for an official who told staff when he first arrived in May that he would “run right over” anyone who resists changes and that all decisions must now go through him.

“I, and I alone in FEMA, speak for FEMA,” he said at the time.

FEMA has lost about 2,500 employees since January through buyouts, firings and other incentives for staff to quit, reducing its overall size to about 23,350, according to a September Government Accountability Office report.

The cuts are part of Trump’s broader push to cut the cost and size of the federal civilian workforce.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Trump administration appeal that argues migrants have no right to seek asylum at the southern border.

Rather, the government says border agents may block asylum seekers from stepping on to U.S. soil and turn away their claims without a hearing.

The new case seeks to clarify the immigration laws and resolve an issue that has divided past administrations and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under federal law, migrants who faces persecution in their home countries may apply for asylum and receive a screening hearing if they are “physically present in the United States” or if such a person “arrives in the United States.”

Since 2016, however, the Obama, Biden and Trump administrations responded to surges at the border by adopting temporary rules which required migrants to wait on the Mexican side before they could apply for asylum.

But in May, a divided 9th Circuit Court ruled those restrictions were illegal if they prevented migrants from applying for asylum.

“To ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” wrote Judge Michelle Friedland, citing a dictionary definition. “A person who presents herself to an official at the border has ‘arrived.’”

She said this interpretation “does not radically expand the right to asylum.” By contrast, the “government’s reading would reflect a radical reconstruction of the right to apply for asylum because it would give the executive branch vast discretion to prevent people from applying by blocking them at the border.”

“We therefore conclude that a non-citizen stopped by U.S. officials at the border is eligible to apply for asylum,” she wrote.

The 2-1 decision upheld a federal judge in San Diego who ruled for migrants who had filed a class-action suit and said they were wrongly denied an asylum hearing.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to review and reverse the appellate ruling, noting 15 judges of the 9th Circuit joined dissents that called the decision “radical” and “clearly wrong.”

In football, a “running back does not ‘arrive in’ the end zone when he is stopped at the one-yard line,” Sauer wrote.

He said federal immigration law “does not grant aliens throughout the world a right to enter the United States so that they can seek asylum.” From abroad, they may “seek admission as refugees,” he said, but the government may enforce its laws by “blocking illegal immigrants from stepping on U.S. soil.”

Immigrants rights lawyers advised the court to turn away the appeal because the government is no longer using the “metering” system that required migrants to wait for a hearing.

Since June 2024, they said the government has restricted inspections and processing of these non-citizens under a different provision of law that authorizes the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of alien” if he believes they would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

The government also routinely sends back migrants who illegally cross the border.

But the solicitor general said the asylum provision should be clarified.

The justices voted to hear the case of Noem vs. Al Otro Lado early next year and decide “whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border ‘arrives in the United States’ within the meaning” of federal immigration law.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s most advanced aircraft carrier arrived in the Caribbean Sea on Sunday in a display of U.S. military power, raising questions about what the new influx of troops and weaponry could signal for the Trump administration’s drug enforcement campaign in South America.

The arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford, announced by the U.S. military in a news release, marks a major moment in what the Trump administration says is an antidrug operation but has been seen as an escalating pressure tactic against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Since early September, U.S. strikes have killed at least 80 people in 20 attacks on small boats accused of transporting drugs in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean.

The Ford rounds off the largest buildup of U.S. firepower in the region in generations, bringing the total number of troops to around 12,000 on nearly a dozen Navy ships in what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has dubbed Operation Southern Spear.

The Ford’s carrier strike group, which includes squadrons of fighter jets and guided-missile destroyers, transited the Anegada Passage near the British Virgin Islands on Sunday morning, the Navy said in a statement.

Rear Adm. Paul Lanzilotta, who commands the Ford’s carrier strike group, said it will bolster an already large force of American warships to “protect our nation’s security and prosperity against narco-terrorism in the Western Hemisphere.”

The administration has maintained that the buildup of warships is focused on stopping the flow of drugs into the U.S., but it has released no evidence to support its assertions that those killed in the boats were “narco-terrorists.” An Associated Press report recently found that those killed included Venezuelan fishermen and other impoverished men earning a few hundred dollars per trip.

President Trump has indicated military action would expand beyond strikes by sea, saying the U.S. would “stop the drugs coming in by land.”

The U.S. has long used aircraft carriers to pressure and deter aggression by other nations because their warplanes can strike targets deep inside another country. Some experts say the Ford is ill-suited to fighting cartels, but it could be an effective instrument of intimidation for Maduro in a push to get him to step down.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the United States does not recognize Maduro, who was widely accused of stealing last year’s election, as Venezuela’s legitimate leader. Rubio has called Venezuela’s government a “transshipment organization” that openly cooperates with those trafficking drugs.

Maduro, who faces charges of narco-terrorism in the U.S., has said the government in Washington is “fabricating” a war against him. Venezuela’s government recently touted a “massive” mobilization of troops and civilians to defend against possible U.S. attacks.

Trump has justified the attacks on drug boats by saying the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels while claiming the boats are operated by foreign terrorist organizations.

He has faced skepticism and opposition from leaders in the region, the United Nations human rights chief and U.S. lawmakers, including Republicans, who have pressed for more information on who is being targeted and the legal justification for the boat strikes.

Senate Republicans, however, recently voted to reject legislation that would have put a check on Trump’s ability to launch an attack against Venezuela without congressional authorization.

Experts disagree on whether or not American warplanes may be used to strike land targets inside Venezuela. Either way, the 100,000-ton warship is sending a message.

“This is the anchor of what it means to have U.S. military power once again in Latin America,” said Elizabeth Dickinson, the International Crisis Group’s senior analyst for the Andes region. “And it has raised a lot of anxieties in Venezuela but also throughout the region. I think everyone is watching this with sort of bated breath to see just how willing the U.S. is to really use military force.”

Finley writes for the Associated Press.

The longest U.S. government shutdown in history is over, but the fallout will continue to hit two groups particularly hard for months to come: federally funded defense lawyers and the people they represent.

Thousands of court-appointed lawyers, known as Criminal Justice Act panel attorneys, along with paralegals, investigators, expert witnesses and interpreters, haven’t been paid since June after federal funding for the Defender Services program fell $130 million short of what the judiciary requested and ran out July 3. They had been told they would receive deferred payment once Congress passed a new budget, but as the government shutdown dragged on, many couldn’t move forward with trials or take on new clients.

Nationally, CJA lawyers handle about 40% of cases in which the defendant cannot afford an attorney. As many cases have ground to a halt, defendants’ lives have been put on hold as they wait for their day in court. Meanwhile, the federal government has continued to arrest and charge people.

“The system’s about to break,” Michael Chernis, a CJA panel attorney in Southern California, said during the shutdown. He hasn’t taken new cases since August and had to take out a loan to make payroll for his law firm.

Unpaid defense team members in several states said they had to dip into their retirement savings or turn to gig work, such as driving for Uber, to support their families.

Panel attorneys should begin receiving payment as early as next week. Judge Robert Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, said in a Thursday memo that the resolution Congress passed to fund the government through Jan. 30 provided an extra $114 million for the Defender Services program “to address the backlog of panel attorney payments.”

But the crisis isn’t over. Conrad said a spending bill pending for the 2026 fiscal year is still $196 million short and funding is likely to run out to pay CJA panel attorneys next June.

The problem is particularly severe in the Central District of California, the largest and one of the most complex federal trial courts in the United States. Out of the approximately 100 such lawyers for the district, about 80 have stopped taking on new cases.

Chernis has a client who lives in Sacramento, but neither Chernis nor a court-appointed investigator have been able to cover the cost of travel to meet with him to discuss the case. The expert they need for the trial will also not agree to travel to Los Angeles to work on the case without payment, Chernis said.

In New Mexico, one judge halted a death penalty case, which is costly and labor-intensive to prepare, and at least 40 lawyers have resolved not to take on new cases even after the shutdown ended if the overall funding shortfall is not resolved.

California’s Central District Chief Judge Dolly Gee wrote in an Oct. 30 letter to Sen. Adam Schiff that the situation had become “dire.”

“These attorneys have sought delays in cases when they cannot find investigators and experts who are willing to work without pay, which has added to the court’s backlog of cases, and left defendants languishing in already overcrowded local prison,” Gee said. “Without additional funding, we will soon be unable to appoint counsel for all defendants who are constitutionally entitled to representation.”

She said judges may have to face the prospect of having to dismiss cases for defendants who can’t retain a lawyer.

Just hours before the government shutdown ended, Judge John A. Mendez in the Eastern District of California did, tossing out a criminal case against a man indicted on a charge of distribution of methamphetamine.

“The right to effective assistance of counsel is a bedrock principle of this country and is indisputably necessary for the operation of a fair criminal justice system,” Mendez wrote.

Everyone in the United States has the right to due process — including the right to legal counsel and a fair and speedy trial, guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments.

Critics of the Trump administration have argued that it is chipping away at that right. Immigrant advocacy groups have made the allegation in multiple lawsuits. Most notably, they cite the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran-born man who was living with his family in Maryland when he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador and imprisoned at a notorious prison. He has since returned to the U.S., but he continues to face the threat of deportation as his case moves through the courts.

President Trump has been circumspect about his duties to uphold due process rights laid out in the Constitution, saying in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” in May that he does not know whether U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike deserve that guarantee.

The funding upheaval has delayed Christian Cerna-Camacho’s trial by at least three months. His lawyer said in court filings that one investigator, who has spent hours poring over body-camera recordings, news reports and social media content, was unable to do more work until he is paid.

Cerna-Camacho was arrested in June and is accused of punching a federal officer during a June 7 protest in Paramount against Trump’s immigration raids. He is out on bond but cannot find a construction job while he wears an ankle monitor because it poses a safety risk at the site, his attorney Scott Tenley wrote in a recent court filing.

David Kaloynides, a CJA panel attorney in Los Angeles, couldn’t even communicate with some of his clients during the shutdown because they speak only Spanish, and interpreters were not being paid. His caseload is full to the point where he’s scheduling trials in 2027, while many clients wait in jail, he said.

“We don’t do this appointed work because of the money; we do it because we’re dedicated,” Kaloynides said. “But we also can’t do it for free.”

Ding writes for the Associated Press.

The FBI was secretly listening last year when a high-ranking advisor to Gov. Gavin Newsom unleashed a stream of profanities as she vented about a public records request from an unnamed individual.

“Double f— her!” said Dana Williamson, Newsom’s chief of staff, repeating the f word throughout the conversation. She also called another person an “a—,” according to federal court documents made public this week.

Before Wednesday, few people outside of California’s political bubble likely knew Williamson’s name.

Now she’s engulfed in a scandal involving political consultants and illicit payments that threatens to haunt her former boss, Newsom, as he challenges President Trump and looks toward the 2028 presidential race.

A smart and savvy negotiator who bridged Sacramento’s overlapping worlds of government, business and labor, Williamson is also someone who picked unnecessary fights and launched cruel missives, political consultants and friends said this week.

Federal agents arrested Williamson Wednesday at her home in Carmichael, a Sacramento suburb. Her lawyer, former U.S. Atty. McGregor Scott, was furious about how the arrest was handled, saying she was seriously ill and in need of a liver transplant.

Federal prosecutors allege that she conspired to funnel money out of one of her one-time client’s state campaign accounts for bogus services, and falsified documents related to her COVID loan.

She also is accused of lying on her tax returns about luxury items and services, including a $150,000 birthday trip to Mexico, that she allegedly sought to pass off as business expenses, according to the government.

Williamson, who pleaded not guilty to the charges this week, appeared in a courtroom in Sacramento. She appeared solemn during the hearing, at one point reportedly lifting her cuffed hand to wipe away a tear, and left without talking to reporters.

Court documents filed this week paint an image of both a conniving player and a fragile individual. “I’m scared,” she wrote in a February 2022 text message to a colleague as they discussed the alleged money-laundering scheme, which was allegedly in the early planning stages.

Public affairs consultant Steven Maviglio has known her since the two worked in President Clinton’s administration — and then later the administration of Gov. Gray Davis. He is now trying to put together a legal defense fund for her.

He described Williamson as a “no nonsense, no BS, get it done” person who was “straight-talking, sometimes to the point of offensive to people.”

She regularly dropped f-bombs, he added.

In another recording captured by the FBI, Williamson joined two colleagues last year in a restaurant near the state Capitol in Sacramento. The government was asking questions about money she received through her COVID loan.

She complained about the “f—” drama and said her Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan got “popped” — before adding another swear word. According to federal officials, she created false contracts in an attempt to show the COVID money was appropriately used.

There is little sympathy from her detractors. Gil Duran, the former press secretary to Gov. Jerry Brown, who worked alongside Williamson, likened her to a “mafia boss” in an interview with CNN. She also has numerous defenders in Sacramento, many of them women, who view her as a tough and inspiring figure.

The details in the federal filings sent shock waves beyond Sacramento and the state Capitol this week.

“I’m stunned about the allegation and find it hard to believe,” said Alison Gaulden, who supervised Williamson when she worked as an associate vice president of public affairs for Planned Parenthood Mar Monte from 2002 to 2004.

Gaulden described her as “incredibly bright and well versed in policy. I’ve admired how she grew in her career.”

Williamson, who grew up in Santa Rosa, moved between the private and public sectors, and was employed by three governors, Davis, Jerry Brown and Newsom.

At Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E), she worked alongside two other women who would be remarkably influential in her life: Nancy McFadden, the late advisor to Brown and Alexis Podesta, a longtime California political insider who also appears in the federal court documents filed this week.

Podesta is the person identified as “Co-Conspirator 2,” but has not been charged and is cooperating with investigators, according to her attorney.

Williamson was hired as a senior advisor for Brown and was later promoted to Cabinet secretary.

While working for Brown, Williamson publicly advocated for children’s health, testifying in favor of legislation that would eliminate the state’s personal-belief exemption for childhood vaccines. She said the issue was meaningful to her because she was a mother of four.

“Usually, staff doesn’t speak on bills, the great thing about the governor is that he respects that we are people first,” Williamson told the San Francisco Chronicle. “This was important to me.”

Business advocates appreciated her direct approach when she worked for Brown.

“She was very straightforward, she was a good person to work with,” said Stuart Waldman, president of Valley Industry and Commerce Assn. He said he hadn’t dealt with her in years.

She flip-flopped between private and government work, drawing criticism from groups like Consumer Watchdog for her “revolving door” career.

In one episode, she was allegedly seen negotiating for her energy clients in Brown’s office as the state hammered out details over a grid deal, drawing outrage from the watchdog group.

She started her own government relations firm, Grace Public Affairs, which handled an array of campaigns, including the online sports betting initiative Proposition 27, which appeared on the 2022 ballot, but failed to pass.

Her clients included California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, and former Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, whose campaign fund was allegedly raided by Williamson, and others.

By 2017, she had a close group of female friends, who had also risen to the top of their professions. But to those who weren’t in her inner circle, she was all elbows, one political insider said this week.

At the California Democratic Party headquarters in downtown Sacramento, a bronze statue of Williamson’s then-5-year-old daughter was installed as part of a campaign to promote female empowerment following Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss.

Those behind the statue included Williamson’s friends Robin Swanson, a Democratic communications consultant, and Angie Tate, then a chief fundraiser for the California Democratic Party.

The installation was intended to mimic the “Fearless Girl” statue at New York’s Wall Street, which shows a 4-foot young woman looking defiantly at the famous charging bull statue.

In 2022, Newsom’s office announced Williamson was joining his office as chief of staff. Though the two weren’t particularly close when she joined, she quickly became part of his inner circle, Politico reported at the time.

Anthony York, Newsom’s former communications director and a former L.A. Times reporter, told Politico at the time that Williamson was not intimidated by the governor’s celebrity status. “She gives zero f—s, which is part of what makes her so great,” York said.

During her time in Newsom’s office, she worked with former Senate leader Darrell Steinberg on the successful passage of Proposition 1, which borrows billions of dollars for mental health services, and was a personal issue for her family.

“I had a particularly tough experience with my husband that I learned a lot from… when the incident happened with him, I learned about all the holes in the system,” she told KQED.

She moved from Elk Grove last year to Carmichael, purchasing a home for $1.695 million, according to property records. The records show her linked to several homes in Elk Grove, including one that went into foreclosure in 2012.

Williamson would send off combative messages, including social media posts or texts, often at night. Among her targets: California Labor Federation President Lorena Gonzalez and U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), whom she called an “entertaining idiot” on X.

She took aim at former Assemblymember Kevin McCarty during his campaign last year for Sacramento mayor. She called him a “devil” on X and urged others not to vote for him, before her comment was taken down a few days later.

Newsom placed Williamson on leave when she informed him last year she was under criminal investigation. Her last day in office was in November 2024. At the time, the governor said in a statement that “her insight, tenacity, and big heart will be missed.”

This week, a spokesperson for the governor struck a different tone: “Ms. Williamson no longer serves in this administration. While we are still learning details of the allegations, the Governor expects all public servants to uphold the highest standards of integrity.”

United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer has sought to distance himself from an unofficial briefing to the media by unnamed “allies” that he intends to fight off a leadership contest which, they say, could come just 18 months into his premiership.

On Tuesday evening, unnamed sources were cited in The Guardian newspaper saying Health Secretary Wes Streeting has gathered significant backing to supplant Starmer.

But on Wednesday morning, Streeting denied this, telling journalists that he was “not challenging the prime minister”.

“I’m not doing any of the things some silly briefer said overnight,” he stated.

Asked if those responsible for the briefing should be sacked, Streeting said, “Yes. But he’s [Starmer] got to find them first, and I wouldn’t expect him to waste loads of time on this.”

“There are people around the prime minister who do not follow his model and style of leadership,” he said.

In response to the ensuing media storm, Starmer, whose premiership since last year has been marred by poor polling, told reporters in north Wales on Thursday that briefings against ministers are “completely unacceptable”.

“I have been talking to my team today. I have been assured that no briefing against ministers was done from Number 10, but I have made it clear that I find it absolutely unacceptable,” he said.

The current internal party strife has shone a light on the prime minister’s standing as leader of the Labour Party.

In its most recent poll on Tuesday, pollster YouGov said of 4,989 people polled, only 27 percent thought he should continue as Labour Party leader.

Here’s what we know about the rumours of a leadership plot:

What are the rumours about a leadership challenge?

On Tuesday evening, unnamed senior Starmer aides told The Guardian newspaper that any attempt to remove the prime minister would be “reckless” and “dangerous”. According to the aides, deposing Starmer so early in his term as prime minister would undermine financial markets and reverberate on the stock market, the party and its international relationships.

“The party would not recover for a generation,” one of the unnamed sources told The Guardian.

Number 10 sources also told The Guardian they are concerned about rumours that Streeting could be planning a “coup” and is just one of several Labour ministers who are “on manoeuvres” to take the leadership if the opportunity arises. However, none of them were likely to move against the prime minister right now.

They said the most likely moment for a leadership challenge would be after the autumn budget – the government’s tax-and-spending review, due in parliament on November 26 – if higher taxes are announced, or after May elections next year if the Labour party performs poorly.

“Keir will not stand aside at this point, for Wes or anybody else,” one source told The Guardian.

On Friday, the UK’s Financial Times cited an unnamed minister who claimed that support for the health secretary was growing following the news of the unsanctioned “briefing”.

Streeting was not the only name mentioned as a potential leadership contender. Both Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Energy Secretary and a former leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband were named as possible contenders, the sources said.

Who briefed the press?

The British press is speculating that the unofficial briefing may have been organised by Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, as a tactic designed to put off any ministers thinking about challenging him.

McSweeney, who has been widely credited with helping Starmer to win the July 2024 election, is now facing calls to resign from unnamed members of parliament, according to reports.

However, Starmer appeared not to support such a move on Thursday when he reiterated that he “of course” has complete confidence in his chief of staff.

What do opposition parties say?

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch was quick to respond, accusing Starmer of losing control of his party during Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Question Time.

Badenoch called Starmer a “weak prime minister at war with his own cabinet”.

“Two weeks before the budget, isn’t it the case that this prime minister has lost control of government, he’s lost control of his party and lost the trust of the British people,” she said.

Earlier in the debate, Badenoch referred to an interview Streeting gave to the BBC in which he accused Downing Street of having a “toxic culture”, and asked Starmer if his minister was correct.

“Any attack on any member of my cabinet is completely unacceptable,” Starmer said in response.

Meanwhile, the far-right Reform UK party’s head of policy, Zia Yusuf, wrote on X on Thursday that the “terrifying thing about the coup against Starmer is that Labour members will choose his replacement”.

“Their favourite Labour minister is Ed Miliband. Some of the most unhinged people in the country will choose the next Prime Minister,” he added.

Reform’s popularity has risen hugely in the UK since last year’s election.

How does the autumn budget fit into this, and how is Labour polling?

The briefing came just two weeks before Starmer and his chancellor of the exchequer, Rachel Reeves, announce the autumn budget on November 26.

The budget, which outlines the government’s tax-and-spending plans for the next year, has been the subject of intense speculation in recent weeks, as it was widely expected to break one of Labour’s main election pledges: not to increase income taxes.

However, the Financial Times reported on Friday morning that Reeves is now ruling out any rise in income tax amid concerns that it could seriously anger voters and backbench legislators.

Why else is Starmer losing popularity in the UK?

Since winning the election in 2024, the prime minister has received backlash from across the political spectrum, including from Labour voters, over several issues.

According to a YouGov poll in September, if an election were to be called now, the far-right Reform UK would win, leaving the Labour Party as the second-largest party and the former governing party, the Conservatives, in third place.

Here are some of the main areas of domestic policy which are causing the popularity of Starmer’s Labour Party to wane.

Migration

The opposition Reform UK party has risen in popularity largely on the back of its calls for stricter migrant control. The key issue is the rapid rise in the numbers of people arriving in small boats across the English Channel from France, particularly in the past year.

In September, Starmer struck a “one-in-one-out” migrant exchange deal with France in an effort to deter people from attempting the Channel crossing. Under the deal, France will accept the return of asylum seekers who crossed to the UK but cannot prove a family connection to the UK.

For each migrant France takes back, the UK will grant asylum to one person who has arrived from France through official channels and who can prove they have family connections in the UK.

But only a handful of migrants have been deported under the scheme so far. Furthermore, on Monday, the Home Office reported that a second migrant had re-entered the UK after being deported to France.

Rise of the far-right

Starmer has faced criticism for his lukewarm response to the rising number of far-right protests across the country.

In September, at least 11,000 people joined a “Unite the Kingdom” march, displaying the St George flag in London.

While Starmer denounced violence against police officers during the protests and argued that the US was “built on diversity”, the antifascist group, Hope Not Hate, and several MPs have urged the government to take stronger action against the rise of far-right groups.

Critics also say Starmer has not done enough to appeal to people who support Reform, or to address their concerns about migration.

Accidental prison releases

In a major blunder, HMP Wandsworth prison in London wrongly released two offenders in early November, including an Algerian sex offender.

Both men were eventually returned to prison but, in the case of the Algerian offender, only after the man handed himself in. Conservative Party shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said the mistake revealed “the incompetence of this government”.

Economy

Starmer has been grappling with a low-growth economy since the start of his term in government.

According to new figures from the Office for National Statistics on Thursday, between July and September, the UK’s gross domestic product (GDP) increased by just 0.1 percent in comparison with growth of 0.3 percent between April and July.

Meanwhile, inflation remained stuck at 3.8 percent in September 2025 – unchanged from July and August. This is the highest it has been since the start of 2024.

The National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is heading for a sweep in the legislative assembly elections in the eastern state of Bihar.

The election in India’s third-most populous state, with 74 million registered voters across 243 assembly constituencies, has been viewed as a key test of Modi’s popularity, especially among Gen Z: Bihar is India’s youngest state.

Vote counting concluded on Friday after two phases of voting on November 6 and November 11.

Here is more about the election results and what they mean.

What was the result of the Bihar election?

As of 5:30pm (1200 GMT) on Friday, the NDA had won two seats and was leading in 204 out of 243, while the opposition Mahagathabandhan, or the Grand Alliance, with the Indian National Congress and the regional Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) as the main parties, was leading in just 33 seats, according to the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), which is currently not part of either alliance, was leading in one seat. The All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), another party that does not belong in either major alliance, had won or was leading in the remaining five seats.

BJP and allies

• Within the NDA, the BJP had won or was leading in 93 seats with a 20.5 percent overall vote share. 
• The regional Janata Dal (United) or JD(U), a key NDA constituent, had won or was leading  in 83 seats, with 19 percent votes overall.
• Another local NDA ally, the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) or LJPRV, had won or was ahead in 19 seats.
• The Rashtriya Lok Morcha (RSHTLKM) was leading in four seats.
• The Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular), or HAMS, had won or was leading in five seats.

Opposition alliance

• The Congress, India’s main opposition party, had won or was leading in five seats with 8.7 percent of the overall vote.
• The Grand Alliance’s biggest party, RJD, had or was leading in 26 seats with 22.8 percent of the vote.
• The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation), or CPI(ML)(L), was leading in one seat.
• The Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI(M), was ahead in one seat.

How are Tejashwi Yadav and Maithili Thakur doing?

As votes were being counted, two of the most watched constituencies were Raghopur and Alinagar.

Raghopur has long been an RJD stronghold. But for some time during counting, Tejashwi Yadav, the son of RJD leader Lalu Prasad Yadav and the party’s de facto chief now, was trailing behind BJP candidate Satish Kumar in the Yadav family bastion. This had switched to a 13,000 vote lead for Yadav by 1200 GMT, with most votes counted. If Yadav were to still lose, it will be a historic defeat for what was, many years, the first family of Bihar. He previously won the seat in 2015 and 2020. His father has also won from Raghopur twice in the past, while his mother, Rabri Devi, has won it three times.

Popular folk singer, Maithili Thakur, representing the BJP, was leading in the Alinagar seat, with the RJD’s Binod Mishra trailing by 8,588 votes — another close contest.

What is driving the results?

Female voters

Political analysts attribute the gains for the key governing party in this election to the appeals Modi’s party has made to female voters.

In September, the BJP transferred about $880m to 7.5 million women – with 10,000 rupees ($112.70) paid directly into their bank accounts – under a seed investment programme called the Chief Minister’s Women Employment Scheme. Modi’s office said: “The assistance can be utilised in areas of the choice of the beneficiary, including agriculture, animal husbandry, handicrafts, tailoring, weaving, and other small-scale enterprises.”

Women make up nearly half of all eligible voters in Bihar, where women’s political participation is on the rise. Female representation in the state has historically been low. But in 2006, Bihar reserved 50 percent of seats on local bodies for women, which has boosted their political representation.

Female voter turnout in the state has often surpassed that of men since 2010. The turnout among women this time was 71.6 percent, compared with 62.8 percent for men.

Voter ID checks

The opposition has also accused the ECI of deliberately revising the official voter list to benefit the BJP via a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls over the past few months. Registered voters were required to present documents proving they were Indian nationals and legal residents of the constituency in which they voted.

As Al Jazeera reported in July, however, many of the poorest people in Bihar do not hold any of the several documents that the ECI listed as proof of identity.

The opposition argues, therefore, that this new requirement could disenfranchise poor and vulnerable groups, including disadvantaged castes and Muslims, who typically vote for the RJD-Congress alliance.

In September, the ECI removed 4.7 million names from Bihar’s rolls, leaving 74.2 million voters. In Seemanchal, a Muslim-majority area, voter removals exceeded the state average.

What is the significance of these results?

Bihar is India’s third most populous state, home to 130 million people. It sends the fifth-highest number of legislators to parliament.

The latest vote has been viewed as a key popularity test for Modi, who was sworn in for his third premiership after he won the national elections in June 2024.

But the BJP failed to secure a majority in the national election on its own, forcing it to rely on regional allies such as the JD(U) to form the government.

Since the national election, the BJP has won most major state elections, and the streak seems to be continuing in Bihar.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan has codified the most ambitious restructure of its military and judiciary in decades after President Asif Ali Zardari signed his assent to ratify the country’s 27th Constitutional Amendment on Thursday.

The amendment, which passed in both houses of parliament earlier in the week amid opposition protests and criticism from a range of civil society activists and sitting judges, makes major changes to Pakistan’s higher judiciary.

But many analysts believe that its most consequential feature is a sweeping overhaul of Article 243, the constitutional clause defining the relationship between Pakistan’s civilian government and the military.

The changes grant lifetime immunity from criminal prosecution to the country’s top military leaders, significantly reshape the military’s command structure, and further tilt the balance of the tri-services – the army, navy and air force – heavily in the army’s favour.

Analysts warn that this contentious reform risks colliding with entrenched institutional cultures and could rock the country’s fragile civilian–military equilibrium.

Al Jazeera has sought comment from the military’s media wing on the changes and the debate over them, but has received no response.

A new command structure

The revised Article 243 establishes a new post, the Chief of Defence Forces (CDF), to be held concurrently by the Chief of Army Staff (COAS). This effectively gives the army chief command authority over the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and Pakistan Navy (PN).

The incumbent COAS is Field Marshal Asim Munir, who assumed command in November 2022 and was elevated to a five-star rank on May 20 this year, just 10 days after Pakistan ended its four-day conflict with India.

Munir became only the second Pakistani military officer – after Field Marshal Ayub Khan in the 1960s – to receive the five-star designation. The air force and navy have never had a five-star official so far.

The amendment also abolishes the office of Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) at the end of this month. The role is currently held by four-star General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, who retires on November 27. Another major change is the creation of the Commander of the National Strategic Command (CNSC), a post overseeing Pakistan’s nuclear command. The position will be limited to only an army officer, appointed in consultation with the CDF, with a three-year term extendable by another three years.

The amendment effectively transforms five-star titles from what were honorary recognitions into constitutionally recognised offices with expansive privileges.

Under the new arrangement, five-star officers will enjoy lifetime immunity from criminal prosecution and will “retain rank, privileges and remain in uniform for life.”

Removing a five-star officer will require a two-thirds parliamentary majority, whereas an elected government can be dismissed by a simple majority.

“While government spokespersons refer to these titles as ‘honorary’, given to ‘national heroes’ to celebrate their services,” Reema Omer, a constitutional law expert, said, the amendment “implies actual power, not just honorary significance”.

Omer told Al Jazeera that lifelong immunity from criminal proceedings was “concerning from a rule of law perspective”.

A former three-star general, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the changes appeared to be “meant to consolidate” the army chief’s power.

Hours after the president’s ratification on Thursday evening, Pakistan’s government brought amendments to the laws governing the three services.

Under the revised Army Act, the clock on the tenure of the army chief will now restart from the date of his notification as CDF.

Last year, parliament had increased the tenure of the service chiefs from three to five years, which meant Munir’s term would run until 2027. Following the new changes, it will now extend even further. Once the revised rules take effect at the end of this month, Munir will hold both posts – COAS and CDF – at least until November 2030.

Military dominance – and the role of the India conflict

Since independence in 1947, Pakistan’s military, especially the army, has been the most powerful institution in national life.

Four coups and decades of direct rule have been accompanied by significant influence, even when civilian governments have been in power. The army chief has long been widely viewed as the country’s most powerful figure.

No prime minister has ever completed a full five-year term, while three of four military rulers have governed for more than nine years each.

General Qamar Javed Bajwa, Munir’s predecessor, acknowledged this history in his farewell address in November 2022, conceding that the military had interfered in politics for decades, and promising to break with that legacy.

But three years later, rights groups and opposition parties allege that little has changed, and some claim that the military has further strengthened its grip over state institutions.

The military restructure under the 27th Amendment also comes six months after Pakistan’s brief conflict with India in May, raising questions over whether the reforms were linked to that fight.

Aqil Shah, professor of international affairs at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, argued that the confrontation with India created the opening for this “unprecedented role expansion” for the army chief.

The changes “formalise the army’s de facto hegemony over the other two wings of armed forces in the guise of the ‘unity of command’ as a necessity for war fighting,” Shah told Al Jazeera.

But supporters of the amendment disagree. Aqeel Malik, state minister for law and justice, said that the amendment aims to “plug holes” in Pakistan’s national security architecture.

“The amendment granted constitutional cover to defence integration and improved coordination. We have also provided a constitutional cover to the honour bestowed upon our national heroes and have addressed a long overdue cohesive and better coordination within the forces for a swift response,” Malik said.

Ahmed Saeed, a former vice admiral, similarly described the reform as a “forward-looking institutional change”.

He said the conflict with India exposed that Pakistan’s command model was rooted in a 1970s framework, unsuitable for “multi-domain, hybrid warfare of the 21st century”.

“The amendment is not about ‘fixing what is broken’ but about modernising what is functioning to ensure sustained effectiveness in future contingencies,” Saeed told Al Jazeera.

Fears of imbalance

Other critics, including former senior officials and security analysts, believe the amendment is less about modernisation and more about institutional consolidation.

They argue that creating the CDF post cements the army’s dominance over the other branches.

Many question why the command structure should be overhauled when, by the government’s own narrative, the existing system delivered what Pakistan claims was an “outright victory” against India.

A retired three-star general who served in senior roles before retiring in 2019 said the abolished CJCSC role, despite being largely symbolic, provided a mechanism for balancing perspectives across the army, navy and air force.

“The PAF and PN may lose autonomy in strategic planning and most probably senior promotions, which has the potential to breed resentment,” he said.

“These risks institutional imbalance, undermining the very cohesion the amendment claims to enhance,” the former general added.

The CJCSC – a four-star post and the principal military adviser to the prime minister – can theoretically be filled by any service, but the last non-army officer to hold the position was Air Chief Marshal Feroz Khan in 1997.

Security analyst Majid Nizami said that while the amendment aims to codify five-star ranks, it may create challenges for “cohesion and synergy” among the services.

If the goal was to modernise warfare strategy, he argued, there should have been a dedicated officer focused solely on integration, not the army chief assuming dual authority.

“There is a lack of clarity on rules and terms of reference for the CDF,” Nizami said.

Shah, the Georgetown academic and author of The Army and Democracy, said the amendment “formalises the de facto power” of the COAS over the other branches.

Saeed, the former navy official who retired in 2022, however, disagreed with critics, arguing that the amendment simply clarifies the CDF’s strategic coordination role.

“The amendment retains the PAF and PN’s distinct command structures within their domains of responsibility, and the CDF’s function is limited to integration at the strategic level, not administrative control or operational interference,” he said.

He added that claims of “army dominance” stem from “legacy perceptions, not from constitutional reality.”

Control of nuclear command

The amendment also codifies the army’s control of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, including research, development and deployment, responsibilities that fall under the strategic command structure.

The former three-star general who spoke to Al Jazeera said the new system’s operational details remain unclear. Under the current model, the Strategic Plans Division (SPD) manages Pakistan’s ballistic and cruise missile programmes and nuclear assets.

Nizami said that although the CJCSC nominally oversaw the SPD, operational authority has long rested with the army. The amendment now formalises this reality.

Saeed, however, countered by arguing that in effect, even with the changes, “the entire nuclear enterprise operates under civilian-led oversight with constitutional clarity”.

Political fallout

Critics have described the amendment as a “constitutional surrender” by political parties to the military, and an attempt to institutionalise the “supremacy of the uniform over the ballot”.

It also comes at a time when Field Marshal Munir’s public profile has risen significantly. He has undertaken multiple foreign trips, including several to the United States, and has been described by President Donald Trump as his “favourite field marshal”.

Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Imran Khan, jailed for the past two years, accuses Munir of orchestrating the crackdown on him and his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), since their ouster in 2022 through a no-confidence vote – a charge that the military has rejected outright.

In Pakistan’s February 2024 election, the PTI was barred from contesting as a party. But its candidates, contesting independently, secured the most seats even though they failed to secure a majority. Instead, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif formed the government with allies. The government and military rejected widespread accusations of election rigging.

Shah argued that the political class supported the amendment out of necessity.

“Lacking democratic legitimacy and faced with the political challenge posed by the PTI and Khan, the ruling PML-N government sees Munir as the key guarantor of their power and political interests,” he said.

Nizami, the Lahore-based analyst, meanwhile, said that separate appointments to the posts of the CDF and the army chief would have made more sense if the intent was to strengthen the military structure and balance. The amendment, he warned, could lead to “institutional imbalance instead of institutional synergy”.

Israeli settler violence targeting Palestinians in the occupied West Bank is at its highest level on record, according to the UN. Settlers are destroying mosques, dairy facilities, and attacking olive farmers in hundreds of attacks that are terrifying families and disrupting everyday life.

The poll also shows 44 percent of Democrats were ‘very enthusiastic’ about voting in the 2026 midterm elections.

The approval rating for United States President Donald Trump remains at its lowest level since he began his second term in January, according to a new poll.

But Thursday’s survey, conducted by the news agency Reuters and the research firm Ipsos, found a jump in the share of respondents who said they disapproved of his performance.

His disapproval rating increased from 52 percent in mid-May to 58 percent in November. His approval rating, meanwhile, stayed at approximately 40 percent, roughly the same as it was in May.

The online poll, conducted over six days this month, surveyed 1,200 US adults nationwide about their opinions on top political figures and who they planned to vote for in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections.

It found that Democrats appeared to be more enthusiastic about next year’s midterms than their Republican counterparts, a result perhaps influenced by key Democratic victories this month.

Approximately 44 percent of registered voters who called themselves Democrats said they were “very enthusiastic” about voting in the 2026 elections, compared with 26 percent of Republicans.

Some 79 percent of Democrats said they would regret it if they did not vote in the midterm races, compared with 68 percent of Republicans.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives will be up for grabs next year, as will 35 seats in the 100-member Senate. Republicans currently control both chambers of Congress.

But Democrats have recently been buoyed by wins on November 4, during the off-year elections.

The party won resounding victories in governor’s races for Virginia and New Jersey, and in New York City, a closely watched race mayoral race saw Zohran Mamdani sweep to victory over his centrist and right-wing competitors.

Voters in California also passed a ballot measure that will redraw its congressional districts to favour the Democrats, in response to Trump-inspired gerrymandering in Republican states.

The Reuters-Ipsos poll closed on Wednesday, just before Congress voted to end the longest government shutdown in US history.

The new spending bill, which extends federal funding until January 30, passed in the House of Representatives by a margin of 222 to 209, with six Democrats joining the Republican majority to reopen the government.

Trump signed a federal government spending bill late on Wednesday, ending the 43-day shutdown, which caused tumult for federal workers, families in need and air travel.

The bill had previously passed the Senate on Monday, after seven Democrats and one independent agreed to support it.

While Democrats appeared more “enthusiastic” than Republicans in the Reuters-Ipsos poll, the survey noted that the two parties appeared to be evenly matched in voter intention moving forward.

When poll respondents were asked whom they would vote for if congressional elections were held today, 41 percent of registered voters said they’d pick the Democratic candidate, while 40 percent chose the Republican candidate.

The narrow difference in those results fell well within the poll’s 3-percentage-point margin of error.

US President Donald Trump signed a funding bill in Washington DC to end a 43-day government shutdown, the longest on record. The deal followed a partisan standoff over healthcare that left nearly a million workers unpaid.

Jack Miller, an associate professor of political science at Portland State University, discusses how the narratives from both major political parties are likely to shift following the end of the US government shutdown.

Getty Images

‘Ripped off’

Getty Images

Oanaminthe, Haiti – It’s a Monday afternoon at the Foi et Joie school in rural northeast Haiti, and the grounds are a swirl of khaki and blue uniforms, as hundreds of children run around after lunch.

In front of the headmaster’s office, a tall man in a baseball cap stands in the shade of a mango tree.

Antoine Nelson, 43, is the father of five children in the school. He’s also one of the small-scale farmers growing the beans, plantains, okra, papaya and other produce served for lunch here, and he has arrived to help deliver food.

“I sell what the school serves,” Nelson explained. “It’s an advantage for me as a parent.”

Nelson is among the more than 32,000 farmers across Haiti whose produce goes to the World Food Programme, a United Nations agency, for distribution to local schools.

Together, the farmers feed an estimated 600,000 students each day.

Their work is part of a shift in how the World Food Programme operates in Haiti, the most impoverished country in the Western Hemisphere.

Rather than solely importing food to crisis-ravaged regions, the UN organisation has also worked to increase its collaborations with local farmers around the world.

But in Haiti, this change has been particularly swift. Over the last decade, the World Food Programme went from sourcing no school meals from within Haiti to procuring approximately 72 percent locally. It aims to reach 100 percent by 2030.

The organisation’s local procurement of emergency food aid also increased significantly during the same period.

This year, however, has brought new hurdles. In the first months of President Donald Trump’s second term, the United States has slashed funding for the World Food Programme.

The agency announced in October it faces a financial shortfall of $44m in Haiti alone over the next six months.

And the need for assistance continues to grow. Gang violence has shuttered public services, choked off roadways, and displaced more than a million people.

A record 5.7 million Haitians are facing “acute levels of hunger” as of October — more than the World Food Programme is able to reach.

“Needs continue to outpace resources,” Wanja Kaaria, the programme’s director in Haiti, said in a recent statement. “We simply don’t have the resources to meet all the growing needs.”

But for Nelson, outreach efforts like the school lunch programme have been a lifeline.

Before his involvement, he remembers days when he could not afford to feed his children breakfast or give them lunch money for school.

“They wouldn’t take in what the teacher was saying because they were hungry,” he said. “But now, when the school gives food, they retain whatever the teacher says. It helps the children advance in school.”

Now, experts warn some food assistance programmes could disappear if funding continues to dwindle — potentially turning back the clock on efforts to empower Haitian farmers.