Government

The small constituency of Makerfield in northwest England has found itself in the eye of the storm of British politics with a by-election on Thursday that will not only produce a new member of parliament but could also pave the way for a new prime minister.

The by-election was triggered last month when the previous MP, Josh Simons, stood down to allow Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham to contest the seat. If Burnham wins, he intends to challenge UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer for the leadership of the ruling Labour Party.

Starmer is facing mounting pressure to step aside following dismal council election results last month and this week’s resignation of Secretary of State for Defence John Healey and Armed Forces Minister Al Carns over the United Kingdom’s defence budget.

Seeking to derail Burham’s hopes for the Labour leadership, however, is far-right Reform UK candidate Robert Kenyon, whose campaign has been dogged by controversy over alleged sexist and misogynistic social media posts but who remains within striking distance in the polls. Reform came second at the last election in Makerfield, however, and are seen as presenting a real challenge to Labour, which has held the seat since its creation in 1983.

Here’s a closer look at the race, why it matters and how its consequences could extend far beyond Makerfield.

Why is a by-election happening in Makerfield?

Despite winning the 2024 general election in a landslide, Labour’s popularity has tanked over the past two years as support for the far-right, anti-immigration Reform UK has soared. In council elections last month, Reform swept up hundreds of council seats at Labour’s expense. Overall, Labour lost nearly 1,500 local council seats while Reform surged from 100 to about 1,450 seats.

On the right, Labour’s rhetoric on immigration has failed to stem support for Reform UK, which continues to attract both former Conservative voters and sections of Labour’s traditional working-class base – particularly in the north of England. On the left of the party, many voters who feel aggrieved by Starmer’s stance on Israel and cuts to welfare have shifted towards the Green Party.

Now, according to polling group Ipsos, Starmer is the most unpopular prime minister since it began voter surveys in the late 1970s.

As Labour’s internal tensions have grown as a result, Burnham has consistently emerged as one of the party membership’s preferred alternatives to Starmer. Recent polling suggests Starmer would defeat most potential challengers in a leadership contest, with one notable exception: Burnham.

As Mayor of Manchester, Burnham is not an MP and cannot currently stand for leadership of the Labour Party. Earlier this year, he was blocked from standing for Parliament via another by-election in Gorton and Denton, a seat Labour ultimately lost to the Green Party.

As pressure on the prime minister has mounted, however, Labour’s National Executive Committee has been increasingly unwilling to block Burnham from standing as an MP again.

Announcing his resignation as Makerfield MP following the council elections, Simons said Labour was heading towards a divisive leadership contest with “no hope, no energy that anything would change”. He described Makerfield as “where Andy Burnham has lived for 25 years” and said the mayor was “coming home”.

“Labour needs to change and the whole government needs to change,” Simons added.

Who is standing and what are they campaigning on?

Labour: Andy Burnham

Burnham currently serves as the highly popular Mayor of Greater Manchester, having left Westminster after previously serving in several cabinet positions under former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

As mayor, Burnham has built a reputation as one of Labour’s most recognisable politicians, benefitting from his distance from Westminster while arguing that it could learn from what he calls “Manchesterism” – a blend of pro-business policies designed to attract investment while bringing essential services back under public control.

Known by some supporters as the “King of the North”, Burnham gained national prominence for challenging the Conservative government during the COVID-19 pandemic and for his long-running campaign for justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster.

His appeal to Labour’s working-class base in the north of England has led some party members to view him as Labour’s strongest candidate for winning back the so-called “Red Wall” – former industrial constituencies that have increasingly shifted towards Reform UK in the north of England.

Political commentator and journalist Aaron Bastani told Al Jazeera that Burnham’s personal reputation “makes a difference” and that he represents Labour’s best chance against Reform UK.

“A lot of Reform voters actually like him. Many people have a good word to say about him, and he’s been a politician in the area for 25 years.”

But he added that, among some voters, he is still tarred by his “association with Labour as the party of government”.

“Many Reform voters see Labour as the party that backed the Iraq war, and there’s a deep sense of disillusionment with the political establishment … What’s interesting is that some Reform voters were making left-wing criticisms of Burnham, such as the cuts to winter fuel payments and broader dissatisfaction with the government’s direction.”

Reform UK: Robert Kenyon

Hoping to spoil Burnham’s chances is Reform’s Kenyon, affectionately referred to by some members of the UK media as “the plucky plumber” in reference to his profession. He represents a party whose rapid rise and anti-immigrant message has transformed Britain’s political landscape.

Reform UK’s rise has largely been driven by Nigel Farage, the architect of Brexit, whose party has capitalised on the collapse of support for the former ruling Conservative Party. Many big names from the Conservatives have defected to Reform in recent months. That has enabled Reform to attract both traditional right-wing voters and some former Labour supporters, largely on a platform that directs local grievances towards migration.

“For many voters, the proliferation of vape shops and takeaways on high streets has become a shorthand for a sense of decline,” Bastani told Al Jazeera.

“It’s often one of the first things people talk about when discussing immigration and changes to their local area. The concern isn’t really about vape shops themselves – they’re seen as visible symbols of a declining economic model, the loss of local identity and a feeling that places are deteriorating.”

Bastani, however, described Kenyon as “unimpressive”. His campaign has been overshadowed by allegations relating to historic social media activity.

Anti-extremism group HOPE not hate published posts attributed to Kenyon that included COVID-19 conspiracy theories, endorsements of sexualised comments about television presenter Carol Vorderman and remarks about female rugby players.

The group also highlighted comments on an online forum in which Kenyon allegedly described himself as sexist and suggested women make false rape allegations to obtain abortions.

Restore Britain: Rebecca Shepherd

Another factor is Restore Britain, a breakaway far-right party founded by former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe, who argues that Reform UK has become too mainstream and is no longer hard enough on combating undocumented immigration.

Lowe, a former Reform member, was suspended by Reform UK in March 2025 after publicly criticising party leader Nigel Farage and was later expelled following a series of workplace bullying allegations and complaints from female staff members, which he denies.

Since launching the new party less than four months ago, Restore Britain claims to have attracted more than 96,000 members and 13 councillors, many of them former Reform figures. Should a significant share of those voters ultimately switch from Reform UK, it could dent Reform’s share of the vote just enough to benefit Labour.

Conservative: Michael Winstanley

Winstanley is the former mayor of Wigan, standing as candidate for the former ruling Conservative Party. He was elected as a councillor for the local ward of Orrell and 2000, and served for 16 years.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called Winstanley “an excellent champion of the area having lived in, worked in and represented the local community for years”.

Observers do not expect any great show of Conservative voters at this election, however. In May’s local elections in Wigan, Labour won 42 seats, Reform 25, and the Conservatives got none. And, in the last general election in Makerfield, the Tories came in third – behind Labour and Reform – with just over 10 percent of the vote.

What do the polls say about the candidates?

Polling suggests the contest is effectively a two-horse race between Labour and Reform UK. The largest survey of the campaign, conducted by Opinium for Forward Democracy, indicates Burnham holds a narrow lead.

Based on a mixed-method survey of 543 local residents, Burnham leads Kenyon by five percentage points among voters most likely to cast a ballot. Among those rating themselves at least seven out of 10 likely to vote, Burnham stands on 46 percent compared with Kenyon’s 41 percent.

However, Kenyon’s share may have been damaged by the 7 percent that Shepherd is expected to win in Restore Britain’s first parliamentary outing. The Conservatives are polling at just 2 percent.

Furthermore, while Labour currently leads in the by-election campaign, the constituency’s longer-term political trajectory may ultimately favour Reform UK. When respondents were asked how they would vote in a future general election, Reform UK led with 42 percent compared with Labour’s 34 percent, suggesting that Burnham’s personal appeal may be helping Labour outperform its own national reputation.

In May, Labour lost all eight of its local council seats in Makerfield to Reform.

Tom de Grunwald, founder of Forward Democracy and StopReformUK.Vote, said tactical voting could prove decisive. “If you live in Makerfield and you would normally vote Green, Liberal Democrat, or anyone else, and you don’t want Reform UK to win this seat, the maths is clear: Andy Burnham is the only candidate who can stop them,” he said.

However, Bastani said he is sceptical that many Restore Britain supporters will ultimately return to Reform UK. “A lot of those voters now see Farage as part of the establishment,” he said, adding that Restore Britain could outperform expectations on polling day – which could split the far-right vote and benefit Burnham. While he expects Burnham to win, Bastani said the result should not obscure the rise of Reform.

“I’d be surprised if Burnham didn’t win. But if Reform were running a stronger candidate, this could look very different. If Farage somehow managed to win a seat like this against someone with Burnham’s profile, it would rank among the most significant political achievements of his career.”

A panel on the Brazilian Supreme Court has voted to convict Eduardo Bolsonaro of lobbying the United States to interfere in the trial of his father, former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro.

On Tuesday, three of the four justices on the panel voted in favour of conviction, with one remaining justice yet to vote.

They determined that Eduardo Bolsonaro’s actions amounted to coercion against Brazil’s justice system and sentenced him to four years and two months in prison.

“It wasn’t merely an expression of opinion or a political stance, but rather conduct that clearly threatened Brazilian authorities and Brazilian citizens themselves,” Justice Cristiano Zanin said, calling Eduardo Bolsonaro’s actions “illegitimate and criminal”.

The conviction is the latest legal setback for the Bolsonaro family, which remains a dominant force on Brazil’s political right.

Jair Bolsonaro is serving a 27-year prison sentence for his efforts to remain in power after losing the country’s 2022 election.

Prosecutors described his actions as an attempted coup. Bolsonaro and his family have portrayed the trial as a political witch-hunt.

The ex-president’s third son and a member of Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Bolsonaro has been active in his father’s defence.

In March 2025, he pledged that he would move to the US full time to “focus 100 percent” of his energy on “a single cause”: freeing his father.

Prosecutors accused him of mounting an illegal campaign to court US President Donald Trump and use foreign influence to pressure Brazilian officials to drop the case against Jair Bolsonaro.

Trump, an ally of Bolsonaro, had likewise tried to remain in office despite his loss in the 2020 election and has accused Brazilian officials of persecuting right-wing voices like Bolsonaro.

In July 2025, Trump issued a letter announcing 50 percent tariffs on certain Brazilian products, citing Jair Bolsonaro’s trial, specifically, as a reason.

“This Trial should not be taking place,” Trump wrote at the time. “It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY.”

Trump also issued an executive order sanctioning one of the Brazilian Supreme Court justices involved in the Bolsonaro case, Alexandre de Moraes, on the basis that he worked to “target political opponents” and “suppress dissent”.

He called de Moraes a “threat” to the US, and his administration later expanded the sanctions to include the justice’s family members, as well as other Brazilian judicial officials.

Brazil’s current president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has denounced those actions as an attempt to interfere in Brazil’s domestic affairs.

As relations with Lula grew more cordial, the Trump administration relaxed its tariffs against Brazil. In December, it also repealed the sanctions against de Moraes and his family.

Lula, meanwhile, visited the White House in May and praised what he described as a productive meeting with his US counterpart.

But it remains unclear what role Trump may seek to play in Brazil’s upcoming presidential elections.

The left-wing Lula is campaigning for a fourth term, and he is likely to face his stiffest competition from Jair Bolsonaro’s eldest son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro.

A CNT/MDA poll released on Tuesday projected that Lula would receive 49.3 percent of the vote in a run-off election against the senator’s 40.2 percent.

Flavio Bolsonaro has faced his own legal trouble in recent months, with police opening a probe in April into whether he defamed Lula. His connections to a disgraced banker have also raised media scrutiny.

Jair Bolsonaro, meanwhile, faced questions this week about the presence of a firearm in his home in Brasilia, where he is serving three months of his sentence on medical grounds.

Justice de Moraes likewise asked the elder Bolsonaro’s legal team to explain the presence of the weapon, which police discovered during a routine inspection on Monday.

A security guard for Bolsonaro initially said the 9mm Glock pistol was his own, but it was later revealed to be the ex-president’s.

De Moraes gave Bolsonaro’s legal team 24 hours to explain why “the convicted man kept a firearm at home”.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino praised Iran’s players during a World Cup dressing room visit after the team’s 2-2 draw with New Zealand on Monday.

A federal immigration judge has granted asylum to a woman orphaned in Iran in the 1970s and adopted by an American war veteran, whom immigration officials threatened this year with deportation to the country with which the U.S. is now at war.

Judge Andrew Fishkin’s ruling probably ends a months-long ordeal for the California woman, one of thousands adopted from abroad who were never granted citizenship because of bureaucratic loopholes between adoption and immigration law.

The woman has lived in the United States since she was adopted by American parents as a toddler and has no criminal record. The Associated Press is not naming her because she worries her legal situation remains tenuous as the administration has time to appeal. A federal judge has allowed her to use a pseudonym, “Ms. S,” in her challenge to the government’s determination of her immigration status.

The woman received a letter from the Department of Homeland Security in February that ordered her to appear for removal proceedings, saying she is subject to deportation because she overstayed her visa in March 1974 at 4 years old.

The woman, 56, described what came next as a terrifying and humiliating few months.

She grew up in a Christian, military family on a farm in Wisconsin and was taught to be patriotic. But the documents she received from the government described her as an “alien;” some said she did not understand English, which is the only language she speaks.

Immigration officials told her she was being arrested, but was released and tracked with an ankle monitor. She bought new pants to try to hide it and taught herself not to cross her legs in work meetings, terrified it would threaten the corporate job in healthcare she’s held for almost two decades.

They fingerprinted her and took her DNA. She said she was obviously weeping in the mug shot they snapped of her.

She prepared herself to be detained: She put her bills on autopay and gave her friends a key to her home.

Her lawyer, Emily Howe, said the government had the power to agree she is an American citizen.

“Instead they treated her like a terrorist, like she was the worst of the worst criminals,” Howe said. “It felt very Big Brother, very Orwellian.”

The Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the record on an individual case.

The Associated Press profiled the woman in 2024 as part of a story about how many international adoptees were left without citizenship because their American adoptive parents failed to naturalize them.

The woman’s parents were living in Iran, where her father was working for a U.S. government contractor, in the 1970s. He was retired from the Air Force as a lieutenant colonel. He’d been held for years a prisoner of war in Germany during World War II.

The couple found the toddler at an orphanage and returned to the U.S. with her in 1973 and soon completed the adoption. At that time, parents had to separately naturalize adopted children. The woman’s parents have since died.

She didn’t learn she hadn’t been naturalized until she applied for a passport at 38 years old. She still doesn’t know how the oversight happened. She searched her father’s papers and found a letter from a lawyer, dated 1975, that said he was working with immigration officials, “it appears this matter is concluded,” and billed her father for his services.

She filed a federal lawsuit this month trying to prohibit the government from removing her and forcing it to grant her citizenship.

She has long believed she should be considered a U.S. citizen: She has a Social Security card, and a driver’s license and has been legally allowed to work and pay taxes for decades. It’s only the immigration agency that denies she is a citizen. She suspects her paperwork was lost, probably when militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Fishkin seemed to agree: He wrote in his ruling that documents from that embassy are not available to her or to the U.S. government. He declared her a refugee, entitled to work in the U.S. His ruling puts the woman on a pathway to being recognized as a citizen.

She’d felt hopeful, she said, when she learned her court date before Fishkin was scheduled for her late father’s birthday. She always felt like she needed to protect not only herself but also her father’s legacy. He was a conscientious military official, she said, who would not have knowingly allowed such a glaring oversight that left his daughter in legal limbo.

Galofaro writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Trump administration appeal and decide if “criminal aliens” may be held indefinitely while they fight deportation.

The case to be heard in the fall could give the administration more power to arrest and hold immigrants, including green card holders, who have criminal records.

The government’s lawyers say immigration laws call for deporting non-citizens with “aggravated felonies” on their records. And in such cases, they say these people may be held for months or even years while their claims are before the immigration courts.

Judges have been split on whether non-citizens fighting deportation have a right to a bond hearing and a chance to go free if they pose no risk to public safety.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled for a pair of green card holders who faced deportation to the Dominican Republic and Jamaica. Both had been convicted of assaults that were characterized as aggravated felonies under the immigration laws.

However, the appeals court said their “prolonged detention” was unconstitutional if they were given no bond hearing and no chance to go free.

They were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, whose lawyers urged the court to turn down the appeal.

“For the first time in this litigation, the government argues that civil detention ‘does not implicate any fundamental rights’ and so the Due Process Clause affords the detained men no protections—substantive or procedural,” they wrote.

In the past, they said the Supreme Court had accepted the “bedrock principle” that detained persons may have a right to seek their release on bond.

One of the two men had left this country and returned to Jamaica, the ACLU lawyers said. But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer urged the court to rule on the issue.

The detained men “have no procedural due-process right to a bond hearing on whether they are a flight risk or danger to the community,” he told the court. “Individualized findings about flight risk and danger are irrelevant” under the immigration laws which called for “mandatory detention based on their aggravated-felony convictions alone.”

The United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal has ruled that the British government was right to proscribe the Palestine Action activist group as a “terrorist” organisation last year.

Palestine Action is a British protest group which was founded six years ago and describes itself as a movement “committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.

On Monday, police made more arrests of protesters demonstrating in support of Palestine Action outside the Court of Appeal in London.

Since the group’s proscription, which also bans support for proscribed groups, about 3,000 people have been arrested.

The Metropolitan Police welcomed the ruling and said it would continue to arrest those who protest in support of the group.

Here is what we know about the ruling:

What has the Court of Appeal ruled?

The judgement released on Monday states: “The proscription of an organisation like Palestine Action is highly controversial. But it is a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism”.

The ruling was made by a five-strong panel, including the two most senior judges in England and Wales.

Palestine Action, which was formally proscribed by the UK last July, is a British protest group founded six years ago. It says it uses “disruptive tactics” to target “corporate enablers” and companies involved in the manufacture of weapons for Israel, such as Israeli group Elbit Systems, Italian aerospace company Leonardo, French multinational Thales and Teledyne from the United States. The group has targeted British facilities linked to those companies.

In all, British police say action by the group has resulted in millions of pounds of criminal damage.

A court in London ruled on June 12 that four Palestine Action members convicted of criminal damage at a British facility owned by Israeli weapons group Elbit Systems near Bristol, west England, would be sentenced on the basis that their actions had a “terrorist connection”.

Why was this case brought?

Following the proscription of Palestine Action last year, the group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, challenged the decision in the High Court. In February, the High Court ruled that the government’s “terror group” ban was unlawful and disproportionate.

The government immediately said it would appeal. “I am disappointed by ⁠the court’s decision ⁠and disagree with the notion that banning ⁠this terrorist organisation ⁠is disproportionate,” ⁠Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood ⁠said.

The judgement on Monday agreed with her. Its ruling states: “The Home Secretary had the institutional competence and the democratic accountability to make the decision. The Proscription Decision was consistent with the Home Secretary’s Proscription Policy and was proportionate. It was not unlawful.”

Why did the UK proscribe Palestine Action?

On June 20, 2025, Palestine Action activists broke into the Royal Air Force base at Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and sprayed two military aircraft with red paint.

Days after the Brize Norton attack, members of parliament voted in favour of proscribing the group. That classified Palestine Action as a “terrorist” organisation, bringing it into the same category as armed groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS).

Critics decried the vote, arguing that while members of the group have caused damage to property, they have not committed violent acts that amount to terrorism. More than 130 high-profile public figures have spoken out against the proscription.

Other previous actions the group has taken include:

• In 2021, members protested for six days on the roof of Elbit Systems’ subsidiary, UAV Tactical Systems in Leicester, until some were arrested by police.
• In 2022, the group broke into a Thales equipment factory in Glasgow, causing damage to weapons worth more than a million pounds ($1.3m).
• In 2024, 10 months into Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Palestine Action activists broke into an Elbit Systems UK facility near Bristol in southwest England, causing another million pounds of damage.

How has Palestine Action responded to the ruling?

In a statement read by a representative following the ruling, Palestine Action’s Ammori said the group will challenge the judgement in the UK’s Supreme Court.

“We will fight this all the way. We will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and, if need be, take this to the European Court of Human Rights,” Ammori said.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), established by the Council of Europe, allows individuals to hold member states accountable for rights violations through a dedicated court. When the ECHR finds a violation, its judgements are legally binding on the state concerned under the European Convention on Human Rights.

“We will not stop fighting to overturn one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history,” Ammori added.

“This unprecedented abuse of power has devastated the lives of thousands of people while silencing dissent over Israel’s slaughter of the Palestinian people during the genocide, when that dissent could not be more urgent.”

How have others reacted to the ruling?

Anas Mustapha, Head of Public Advocacy at CAGE International, said: “This ruling tells us exactly what these powers are for. They are not safeguards against violence, they are authoritarian tools for crushing dissent.”

Mustapha added: “No ruling from any court is going to convince people that their conscience is wrong, and no amount of legislation will make support for Palestine disappear. The only sustainable outcome is the abolition of these laws in their entirety.”

Thomas Bell, acting UK Director of Human Rights Watch, said: “This disastrous decision further cements the UK’s place among countries that are backsliding on human rights by classifying acts of protest as terrorism.”

“When Palestine Action members have committed criminal damage, that should be dealt with under normal criminal laws, not by misusing overbroad and poorly defined terrorism powers. Defining a protest group as terrorists has created an absurd situation where thousands of people peacefully holding up signs have been arrested,” Bell added.

Adrian Vestea nominated as prime minister after previous choice, Eugen Tomac, withdraws.

Romanian President Nicusor Dan has nominated Adrian Vestea, a National Liberal Party member and former mayor, as prime minister to form a new government after the previous choice for the post withdrew.

“Eugen Tomac withdrew his mandate this morning and as such ‌I nominate Adrian Vestea as prime minister,” Dan, a centrist, said in a post on X on Sunday.

Vestea, 52, ⁠is the county council president of the central Romanian county of Brasov. Eugen Tomac had ⁠been seeking to lead a government of technocrats but lacked support from the parties in parliament.

Vestea, who served as a development minister from 2023 to 2024, said in a statement that he wants a “political government that will undertake real reforms and keep Romania on a pro-Western path”.

“We are the sixth largest country in Europe, and we need to put a major emphasis on development. Which I will do from day one,” he said.

Dan’s two nominations for the prime ministerial role this month come after a no-confidence vote toppled former Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan in May. A general election is not scheduled until 2028.

Dan said Vestea was suitable for the role because he had “gone through all the administrative stages” throughout his political career.

“He was a successful mayor, a successful county council president, a successful minister, and he attracted European funds, being focused on development, for example the Brasov airport, which is a success,” Dan said.

Parliamentary parties have previously said a minority government, whose members do not hold a ⁠majority of the seats in parliament, would be better ⁠than a government of technocrats.

Vestea will ⁠have 10 days to form ⁠a government and must win a parliamentary vote of confidence to take up his new post.

Romania has one of the highest budget deficits in the European Union and suffers from rampant inflation and a technical recession.

When a coalition government came to power in June 2025, it made reducing the budget deficit a priority. Bolojan was sworn in with the aim of ending one of Romania’s worst political crises in its post-communist history, but his government lasted less than a year.

United States President Donald Trump has said an initial agreement to end the US-Israeli war with Iran is “scheduled to get signed tomorrow”.

But that announcement, made on Trump’s Truth Social account on Saturday, contradicts an earlier statement by Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei.

In remarks carried by Iran’s IRNA news agency, Baghaei said a memorandum of understanding would not be signed on Sunday and that negotiators are not planning to travel immediately to Geneva, Switzerland, in preparation for such an event.

According to Baghaei, a signing could happen “in the coming days”.

Hours later, Trump wrote, “The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL.” Sunday marks Trump’s 80th birthday.

In recent days, Iran and the US have repeatedly contradicted each other when describing the details of the anticipated agreement, even as both sides have broadly signalled that a deal was closer than ever before.

Still, no terms have been officially released, with US and Iranian officials on Friday stressing that the agreement had not been finalised.

Beyond opening the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said in Saturday’s post that the agreement would be a “A WALL TO NO NUCLEAR WEAPON!” and that “no money would exchange hands”.

Trump also maintained that “at the appropriate time, when all is calm, we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust”, referring to Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium.

But speaking on Iran’s Press TV on Friday, Iranian ⁠⁠Foreign ⁠⁠Minister Abbas Araghchi said the initial memorandum of understanding would only be a launch point for negotiations about the future of Iran’s nuclear programme.

He added that the signing would result in an immediate pause in fighting, but that Iran and Oman would continue to administer the Strait of Hormuz.

The issue of lifting foreign sanctions against Iran and unfreezing the country’s assets would be discussed following the signing of the memorandum of understanding, Araghchi said.

From threats to diplomacy

The latest flurry of diplomacy came after the US and Iran traded strikes for two days this week, threatening to end a pause in fighting that has persisted since April 8.

The US and Israel launched the war on Iran on February 28, amid ongoing indirect talks on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme.

The US and Israel had also launched a 12-day war on Iran in 2025, during another round of nuclear talks.

Iranian officials have said that deep distrust towards the US has slowed the progress towards creating a lasting agreement to bring the current war to an end.

Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly pledged to reach a deal that would surpass the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), struck under his Democratic rival, former President Barack Obama.

That agreement, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018, saw Tehran agree to limit its nuclear programme and allow for international inspections in exchange for sanctions relief.

For years, Iran has maintained that it is building a nuclear programme for civilian use only and is not seeking a nuclear weapon.

In his post on Truth Social, Trump again pledged that any deal reached would be more stringent than the JCPOA.

“Our relationship with Iran is a much different and better one than previous Administrations have had,” he said.

“Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly,” he added.

“If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!” he wrote, without elaborating on what his threat meant.

Henry Ensher, a former US ambassador, says the US–Iran agreement is not a final settlement but only the start of a process, with many ways it could still go wrong.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge agreed on Friday to extend a court-ordered block on the Trump administration’s creation and operation of a $1.8 billion settlement fund for compensating people who claim to be victims of a weaponized government.

Earlier this month, acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche told Congress that the government is scrapping its plans for the fund in the face of a fierce bipartisan backlash. Government attorneys have argued that lawsuits challenging the fund are now moot, but plaintiffs’ attorneys aren’t satisfied by Blanche’s assurances that the fund won’t move forward.

Neither was U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who ruled that the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” will remain blocked until further notice from the court.

“The (government’s) mootness argument, in my view, doesn’t go anywhere,” the judge said.

President Trump, meanwhile, has not publicly and unequivocally endorsed its cancellation. He has continued to express support for the fund in remarks to reporters.

Brinkema gave the parties a week to negotiate an agreement for Blanche to submit a sworn declaration that the administration won’t revive the fund.

Brinkema previously agreed to temporarily block the administration from proceeding with the fund for at least two weeks. Her May 29 order was due to expire on Friday.

Trump’s Republican administration created the fund to resolve his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

Plaintiffs who sued to block fund payouts argue that the government can’t legally divert taxpayer money into what they argue is a slush fund for compensating Trump’s allies.

In a separate case on Wednesday, a different judge in Washington, D.C., rejected a government watchdog’s parallel request for a court order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from forging ahead with the fund. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said he accepts Blanche’s representation that the fund is now moot.

Leon had asked Justice Department attorney Andrew Block why Blanche doesn’t formally rescind his May 18 order establishing the fund. Block said he didn’t know. He still didn’t have an answer to that question when Brinkema posed it two days later.

“It’s a huge gap in the record that we don’t have an answer to that question,” the judge said.

In the Virginia case, attorneys from the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward asked for an order to temporarily suspend the fund’s implementation and stop the Trump administration from disbursing any payouts from it.

The plaintiffs include a fired prosecutor and a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest.

Even before the administration said it was dropping the fund, the Justice Department did not form the five-member commission that would decide on payout criteria, so no money was paid out nor claims accepted.

Many of the Republican president’s allies are opposed to compensating rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In May, however, Blanche wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Capitol rioters who engaged could be eligible to apply for payments from the fund.

Trump issued mass pardons to Capitol rioters on his first day back in the White House last year. More than 1,500 people were charged in the Jan. 6 attack before Trump erased every case with his sweeping act of clemency.

Brinkema was nominated to the bench by President Clinton, a Democrat.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

EXPLAINER

Trump cancels planned Iran attacks, saying talks are close as Tehran reviews a proposed US deal.

United States President Donald Trump said he had cancelled a third straight night of planned attacks on Iran, saying talks with Tehran were close to producing a deal.

The announcement marked a dramatic turnaround. Just hours earlier, Trump warned that Iran would be hit “very hard” and threatened to target Kharg Island and other oil facilities.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s correspondent said a senior Iranian official confirmed that a proposed memorandum of understanding with the US was being considered by Iran’s top leadership.

Here is what has happened:

In Iran

• Trump calls off planned Iran attacks: Hours after warning that Iran would be hit “very hard” and threatening attacks on Kharg Island and other oil facilities, Trump said he had cancelled the planned strikes, claiming negotiations had reached a breakthrough. In a Truth Social post, Trump said discussions had been elevated to Iran’s top leadership and that the “final points” of an agreement had been approved by all parties involved, including the US and several regional allies.
• Tehran says the sacrifices of war were worth it: Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Mohamed Vall said many Iranians would be relieved to see the conflict end after months of hardship and loss. But the government is also trying to sell a potential deal as a victory, telling people that “it is worth the suffering” because Iran could come out of the war “in much stronger shape”, with the possibility of sanctions being lifted and assets being unfrozen.

In the US

• Expert says Trump used an ‘escalate to de-escalate’ strategy: Richard Weitz, an international security expert at the NATO Defense College, told Al Jazeera that Trump’s threats to intensify the conflict may have been aimed at forcing a diplomatic breakthrough. The strategy, he said, is to “threaten to escalate” a conflict “in order to force an end to it”. However, Weitz cautioned that “we still have a bit of uncertainty over what precisely was agreed and how it will be implemented.”
• Trump has tried to hold Netanyahu back in recent weeks: Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett said Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have long had “a shared desire to limit Iran’s nuclear programme” and ensure Tehran never obtains a nuclear weapon. But she said there was a “growing concern” within the White House that Netanyahu could “derail efforts in the diplomatic realm”, with Trump increasingly trying to restrain the Israeli leader and, in the US president’s words, “allow time for diplomacy”.

In Lebanon

• Hezbollah says it carried out 24 attacks on Israeli forces: The Lebanese armed group said it launched a series of drone, missile and rocket attacks on Israeli soldiers, armoured vehicles and military positions across southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley between Wednesday and Thursday. Hezbollah said it repeatedly struck troop concentrations near Tayr Harfa, while also attacking Israeli forces in Naqoura, al-Qaouzah, Rashaf, Qantara, Zawtar al-Sharqiyah and Yohmor al-Shaqif.

Israel continues to expand settlements in the occupied territory, which are illegal under international law.

The Israeli government has allocated a first tranche of an expected $388m in new funds for the construction of settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The anti-settlement group Peace Now reported on Thursday that the government had allocated 152 million shekels ($51m) to prepare construction plans for 69 illegal settlements and outposts in the occupied West Bank.

The cabinet later reportedly postponed a decision about a 1-billion-shekel ($338m) allocation. That proposal, if passed, would mark one of the largest expansions of illegal Israeli settlements in decades.

“The government decided to postpone the decision [on the 1-billion-shekel allocation] and refer it to the Security Cabinet which is expected to convene on Sunday,” Peace Now wrote.

Under the yet-to-be-approved plan, construction for the settlements, including infrastructure and public buildings, would begin despite necessary planning protocols not having been carried out in accord with Israeli law.

Peace Now accused the government of intending to bypass planning and construction regulations.

“October 7 proved that the right-wing approach has failed: the conflict cannot be ‘managed,’ and the Palestinians cannot be ‘defeated’,” the group said in a statement.

“Israel must reach a political solution and diplomatic agreement, but instead the government is only sinking us deeper into the mire and condemning us to many more years of bloody conflict.”

Israel has come under growing condemnation for expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are illegal under international law.

On Tuesday, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France and Norway imposed sanctions on networks involved in financing, enabling and carrying out settler violence against Palestinians.

According to Peace Now, the current Israeli government has approved 103 settlements since it took office in December 2022. From that figure, 51 are entirely new settlements.

On Wednesday, Amnesty International published a report accusing the Israeli government of playing a central role in what it describes as the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. The report described the government’s actions as “integral”.

At least 117 villages in the West Bank have been subject to either complete or partial displacement due to settler attacks, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

Amnesty also condemned the upcoming “Great Israeli Real Estate Event”, which is due to take place in London on Sunday.

The event, which has also been held in the United States and Canada, promotes the sale of properties in the occupied West Bank, which campaigners say is in violation of international law.

Interim ODNI chief Bill Pulte has been slammed by Democrats as a Trump loyalist with no intelligence background.

United States President Donald Trump has directed Bill Pulte to cut staff at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) as soon as he takes up his role as acting intelligence chief.

The order came in a Truth Social post on Wednesday, in which Trump doubled down on his choice of Pulte, a controversial pick.

“I have named William Pulte to be Acting Director of National Intelligence, who will take over on June 19th, and have asked him to execute the immediate and needed downsizing of the office, reverting staff to their home agencies,” Trump wrote.

Pulte’s appointment has sparked bipartisan pushback, with Democrats especially questioning his qualifications.

A businessman with ties to construction and private equity, Pulte has no intelligence or military background, and critics see him as a Trump loyalist who has attacked the president’s critics.

In Wednesday’s post, Trump did emphasise he was already searching for Pulte’s successor. “I am looking for a permanent ODNI Nominee with experience in National Security,” he wrote.

But Pulte’s short-term appointment has become a flashpoint in Congress, with Democrats refusing to renew a controversial surveillance measure until a permanent pick is selected.

When he takes up his interim role next week, Pulte will succeed former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who stepped down last month after her husband was diagnosed with cancer.

But Congress members like Democrat Mark Warner, a key figure on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, have decried Pulte as “grossly unqualified”.

Warner and other leaders have also warned that Pulte’s appointment would complicate negotiations to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows warrantless surveillance of communications involving foreigners.

That measure is divisive on both sides of the aisle, as it has also resulted in the surveillance of US citizens. It allows intelligence agencies to collect emails, texts and phone data without warrants, if the communications in question are believed to involve individuals outside the US.

Warner said naming Pulte to head the ODNI was like “throwing a live hand grenade” into Congress’s efforts to reauthorise Section 702.

Last week, all but one Senate Democrat and seven Republicans voted against a three-year extension of Section 702, citing concerns about Pulte. Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman was the only Democrat to break party ranks in that 52-47 vote.

But Trump has called on Congress to pass a temporary extension of Section 702, denouncing Democrats for blocking the bill.

“Just like they did on Border Funding, the Radical Left Dumocrats [sic] are trying to take our National Security hostage because of unrelated issues,” Trump wrote on Wednesday. “They should stop playing politics with the safety of our Great Country.”

Still, Trump has faced backlash from within his Republican Party, with congressional leaders calling on the president to select a permanent intelligence chief to put the matter to bed.

“We don’t need a weaponised DNI [director of national intelligence],” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters. “We need professionals here.”

Critics have questioned whether Pulte would use US intelligence capabilities to persecute Trump’s perceived political enemies.

Currently, the 38-year-old Pulte serves as the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

In that position, Pulte has accused several of Trump’s adversaries of mortgage fraud. They include  Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, all of whom Trump has personally attacked.

Democrats have accused the 38-year-old Pulte of weaponising his government role for political aims.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, better known as NASA, has unveiled the crew for its upcoming Artemis III spaceflight, a preparatory mission as the United States plans to return to the Moon.

On Tuesday, it was revealed that astronauts Andre Douglas, Frank Rubio, Luca Parmitano and Randy Bresnik will be leading the flight. Serving as a backup is veteran test pilot Bob Heintz, who is able to substitute into any role.

Their two-week mission will focus on collecting research and practising in-space docking procedures in preparation for a future Moon landing.

While no women were named to the Artemis III flight, the newly announced crew represents a range of experiences and backgrounds.

Making his first spaceflight is Florida-born engineer Douglas, 40, who was a backup crew member for NASA’s last major spaceflight, Artemis II, which flew a loop around the Moon.

Douglas will serve as mission specialist on Artemis III, and his presence on the flight will make him one of roughly two dozen African American people to travel to space, out of a population of hundreds of space travellers so far.

Also serving as mission specialist will be Rubio, a 50-year-old Salvadoran American physician who used to pilot Black Hawk helicopters for the US Army. He currently holds the record for the longest single-duration spaceflight by a US astronaut, at 371 days.

The oldest member of the four-man crew is its 58-year-old commander, Bresnik. A former US Navy test pilot and Marine, Bresnik is the only Artemis III crew member to have participated in a space shuttle mission, back in 2009. That programme has since been retired.

More recently, in 2017, Bresnik served as the commander for the International Space Station.

The fourth and final member of the Artemis III mission is its pilot, Parmitano, 49. He will be the only astronaut on the mission who is not a US citizen.

Born in Paterno, Italy, Parmitano has a background in his country’s air force. In 2019, he too served as commander on board the International Space Station, becoming the first Italian to do so.

“ Each of you possess a unique background,” said NASA administrator Jared Isaacman, who introduced the astronauts. “Your vast experience and unwavering dedication to NASA’s mission enables you to help make us and take this next great step in space exploration.”

The Artemis III mission will be a public-private partnership. Three rockets will blast off as part of the initiative.

One will carry the four-man crew into orbit around Earth in an Orion spacecraft. Another two rockets will bear aloft Moon lander models from Blue Origin and SpaceX, private firms owned respectively by tech entrepreneurs Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk.

The Orion spacecraft will then practice rendezvous procedures with each of the two landers, in preparation for similar manoeuvres during future Moon missions. The Artemis III flight is set to take off before the end of 2027.

“Artemis III will be an extraordinary demonstration of what is possible when the greatest aerospace companies across the United States, alongside our European partners, come together to showcase the technological might and ambition of the free world,” said Isaacman, a Trump appointee who has experience commanding private space flights for SpaceX.

Explosion prompts concern

The mood at Tuesday’s unveiling ceremony was celebratory, as each newly announced astronaut took the stage to soaring music and standing ovations.

But looming over the event were concerns related to the explosion of an uncrewed Blue Origin New Glenn rocket in Florida on May 28.

That blast sent a mushroom cloud billowing above the city of Cape Canaveral, and it caused severe damage to a launchpad complex where the takeoff was scheduled.

Representatives from both NASA and Blue Origin, however, took the stage to wave aside any concerns.

“While we recognise there are questions about how Blue Origin’s recent anomaly impacts our plans, setbacks are a learning opportunity,” said Jeremy Parsons, NASA’s acting deputy administrator.

He added that NASA was taking an “active role” with its partners to “ensure the right outcomes are achieved”. The private firms, in turn, were granted “unparalleled access” to NASA experts, technology and test facilities.

“We are confident that New Glenn will be ready for Artemis III, together with Blue Origin,” Parsons said.

John Couluris, a representative for Blue Origin, likewise described the May 28 explosion as an “anomaly”.

“We’ve redoubled our efforts and are moving forward,” Couluris said, describing Blue Origin’s factories as “running around-the-clock shifts” to be ready for the Artemis III launch.

“We will measure ourselves not only by our successes but how we respond to setbacks.”

Race to the Moon

The race to beat China’s space programme was another theme that cropped up during Monday’s ceremony.

Several speakers alluded to China’s growing lunar landing programme, a rival to NASA’s efforts.

Earlier this year, the China Manned Space Agency announced its intentions to place a person on the Moon by 2030. Already, in 2024, China became the first country to retrieve soil samples from the far side of the Moon using robotics.

But lunar missions have been a point of pride for the US, which holds the distinction of completing the first crewed mission to the Moon in 1969.

Last April, the Artemis II flight marked the US’s return to lunar travel. For the first time since 1972, a crewed capsule flew beyond low Earth orbit, and it broke records for the farthest crewed flight into space.

Next year’s Artemis III mission is set to build on that effort. The administration of US President Donald Trump has signalled it would like to see astronauts land on the Moon before the Republican leader’s term ends in January 2029.

NASA officials have also described the Artemis programme as a stepping stone to establishing a permanent base on the Moon. Various speakers on Monday highlighted that vision.

Couluris, the Blue Origin representative, called the Moon an “eighth continent” for humans to explore.

NASA scientist Nicky Fox, meanwhile, described the Artemis III mission as part of the preparatory work that would enable the US “to plant astronaut boots back on the lunar surface — to stay”.

But the US’s lunar programme has faced numerous setbacks, as NASA engineers work to address technical issues that could otherwise cause life-threatening situations in deep space.

Originally, Artemis III was supposed to mark the US’s return to the Moon, bearing a crew to the lunar surface. But in February, that plan was scrapped in favour of the present-day project, which focuses on conducting practice drills in low Earth orbit.

“We will use this mission to reduce risk for our future crewed Moon missions with lander test articles from both Blue Origin and SpaceX, to ensure we will beat China back to the Moon,” Parsons said on Tuesday.

“This mission is deliberately designed to take calculated risks so that future crews will be safer and ultimately successful when we put boots on the lunar surface.”

Still, officials applauded Artemis III as a major step towards human beings reaching the Moon once more.

In a recorded statement, Senator Ted Cruz suggested that the Artemis III mission would also put the US a step ahead of China.

“At a time of growing competition with China in space, this mission will strengthen America’s leadership, expand our economy, and help secure a lasting American lunar presence,” he said.

“When America commits to a mission, we lead and we succeed.”

At a campaign rally in Armenia’s capital, Yerevan, on Saturday, one day before Armenia’s election, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, outfitted in a white button-up shirt and a red-brimmed baseball cap, held a look of determination.

Flanked by supporters waving their arms and flashing his campaign’s signature heart-shaped hand gesture, Pashinyan was perched centre stage, pounding away on a drum kit for the crowds – literally drumming up support.

By election day, his governing Civil Contract party appeared to have drummed up something more consequential: public backing for his vision of Armenia’s future following the loss of the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh to a crushing military defeat by Azerbaijan in 2023. 

Pashinyan, who formed a band earlier this year and campaigned with a series of concerts around the country, secured 49.8 percent of the vote in Sunday’s ballot, enough to retain a parliamentary majority.

His victory is seen as a test of his handling of the loss of the Nagorno-Karabakh region and his ability to steer the country away from Russian influence.

He has ultimately prevailed despite Russian meddling in Armenian politics, and the country now looks set to reorient itself away from its former ruler – signalling Armenians’ willingness to embrace a new direction, analysts say.

“Many Armenians are prepared to give his new vision a chance: an Armenia less defined by conflict, more open to normalising relations with Azerbaijan and Turkiye, and increasingly focused on building its future within its internationally recognised borders,” Zaur Shiriyev, an analyst at the Carnegie ⁠Russia Eurasia Center, told Al Jazeera.

‘Tired of conflict and war’

The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh could have spelled political doom for Pashinyan. By handing him a second term, Armenians have signalled that they are ready to put the conflict that has intermittently reared its head for decades behind them, analysts say.

“Nationalism no longer resonates among the public, which is demonstrably tired of conflict and war,” Richard Giragosian, director of the Yerevan-based Regional Studies Center, told Al Jazeera, even if the loss of the region remains an “open wound”, he said.

Nagorno-Karabakh, meanwhile, no longer features at all in the Armenian government’s defence reform, nor in its national security strategy, “a final confirmation of the new strategy of diversification”, Giragosian explained.

Peace efforts instead took centre stage in Pashinyan’s campaign, including the agreement he signed at the White House last August with Azerbaijan, finally ending the on-again-off-again war that had raged since the late 1980s.

Unlike in 2021, when Pashinyan’s campaign was shaped by the immediate aftermath of war and questions of political survival, Sunday’s vote became a clearer test of public support for his peace agenda, Shiriyev said.

Peace over nationalism

The result also demonstrates that the nationalist mantras peddled by opposition leaders have not been able to sway the majority of Armenians, said Svante Cornell, director of the Institute for Security and Development Policy and its Central Asia-Caucasus programme.

“The opposition represented a return to oligarchy, nationalism and forever conflict,” Cornell told Al Jazeera.

“While the Pashinyan government has its flaws, it represents something different than the past.”

The election saw the two main opposition forces – Strong Armenia and Armenia Alliance – win 41 seats combined in the new parliament, against the 64 seats the government holds, out of a total 105.

But Giragosian cautioned against overstating the opposition’s strength as, he said, the two opposition parties are unlikely to cooperate given the friction between their leaders – Russian-Armenian oligarch Samvel Karapetyan, whose Strong Armenia took 29 seats, and former President Robert Kocharian, whose Armenia Alliance won just 12.

“The division and dissent within the opposition will present a profound obstacle,” he said.

Although united in their shared pro-Russian leanings, Karapetyan is seen by Kocharian as an “interfering interloper”, with Kocharian himself resenting his third-place position behind Karapetyan, the analyst said.

“This is further exacerbated by Kocharian’s sense of entitlement, and his frustration of being rebuffed by Moscow in his prior attempts to gain direct Russian backing and support,” Giragosian added.

Still, Cornell said, the persistence of pro-Russian, nationalist sentiment in Armenia generally should not be taken lightly.

Until 2020, Armenia was governed by successive administrations that spent three decades pushing a nationalist identity, he said.

“To expect such views, such sentiments would just disappear – would be unrealistic,” Cornell noted.

Russian influence weakened – but not gone

In the lead-up to Sunday’s election, international observers had accused Russia of attempting to interfere – but its inability to change the result reflects Moscow’s limited reach in the country today, analysts say.

“Moscow still has tools in Armenia, but it no longer has the authority it once had,” Shiriyev said.

“In today’s Armenia, being seen as Russia’s preferred candidate can mobilise voters against you as much as for you.”

As Armenia strives to resist what Shiriyev refers to as the “gravitational pull” of the “Russian orbit”, a window of opportunity has been created by Moscow’s preoccupation with its invasion of Ukraine and a new openness from Western partners.

“The larger risk is from not altering strategy, and the benefits of a pivot to the West are both demonstrable and popular in Armenia today,” Giragosian said.

Russia, he added, is now increasingly viewed in Armenia as a “dangerously undependable so-called partner”.

Benyamin Poghosyan, an Armenia analyst at the Italian Institute for International Political Studies, argues that the primary foreign policy drivers of the election, however, were regional actors – not Russia or the West.

“The reality on the ground is far more nuanced,” Poghosyan told Al Jazeera. Armenia’s future relations with Azerbaijan and Turkiye, as well as the regional fallout from the conflict in Iran, are far greater influences, he said.

There are good reasons not to count Moscow out completely, however. While pro-Russian forces did not prevail this time, they will continue to assert their influence, Cornell said. He referred to the cautionary tale of another Caucasus country.

“In Georgia, the work of undermining a reformist and pro-Western government and turning the country around to a more pro-Russian line took over 15 years,” he said.

At the same time, Moscow still holds massive economic leverage over Yerevan, said the analysts.

Russia remains the primary export destination for Armenian agriculture and wine, is the main source of critical imports like wheat, and supplies the country with heavily discounted gas, Poghosyan noted.

“Because Russia has the capacity to inflict severe economic pain, Yerevan must tread carefully to protect its core interests without completely rupturing its relationship with Moscow,” he said.

Shiriyev added that many Armenians work in Russia, with families depending on remittances, and business ties running deep.

“By contrast, Western integration can still feel abstract and uncertain to many voters. That is why pro-Russian forces can still gain traction, even as Russia’s political image in Armenia has weakened,” he said.

A constitutional hurdle

But while Pashinyan’s re-election has strengthened his hand in the country’s peace process, it has not resolved one key sticking point for constitutional change to ensure it, said Shiriyev.

Azerbaijan has demanded a change to Yerevan’s constitution as a means of guaranteeing that no future Armenian government might revive claims related to Nagorno-Karabakh or Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.

“But Pashinyan lacks the two-thirds majority needed to move easily toward a referendum, and even a referendum would be politically uncertain,” said Shiriyev.

This election, Cornell said, was “a necessary but not sufficient condition for the peace process to advance”.

Poghosyan warned that if Baku refuses to drop these preconditions, “the peace agreement will remain stalled, leaving both nations trapped in a volatile state of ‘no war, no peace’”.

On the question of regional normalisation, however, the outlook has shifted.

Since the bilateral peace treaty was signed at the White House last August, Azerbaijan has lifted restrictions on trade and transit with Armenia and restarted talks on border demarcation – moves that Giragosian said have also accelerated the opening for Armenia-Turkiye normalisation.

“For Armenia,” said Shiriyev, “the West may offer the road, Russia increasingly acts as the roadblock, and normalisation with Azerbaijan and Turkiye is the real prize.”

Four states are set to hold their primary votes, further solidifying the battle lines for the United States midterm elections in November.

On Tuesday, citizens in Maine, South Carolina, North Dakota and Nevada are set to cast their ballots in party primaries, designed to select which Democratic and Republican candidates advance to the final round of voting.

But Maine has emerged as one of the most heated primary battlegrounds. With Democrats desperate to flip four seats in the US Senate, all eyes are on Republican Senator Susan Collins’s re-election campaign.

Democrats are hoping to defeat her in November, but the party has fractured over controversies related to its leading candidate, Graham Platner. The race has become one of the most closely watched of the primary season.

At stake in November is control of Congress, and each party is angling to put forward the strongest contender.

Currently, the Republican Party holds slender majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but Democrats hope to wrest back control, in what would represent a major rebuke to President Donald Trump.

State-level races are also in play during Tuesday’s primaries. Several in key swing states like Nevada could have outsized influence over election administration in the years ahead.

Here are some of the key races to watch.

Key Senate race in Maine to be decided

The Democratic Party’s long-shot hope of retaking the Senate hinges on Maine, a lushly forested northeastern state largely bordered by Canada and the Atlantic Ocean.

The primary vote on Tuesday is widely expected to result in Platner advancing as the Democratic champion for November’s midterms. If so, he will take on the longtime incumbent, Republican Senator Collins, who is considered vulnerable to defeat.

Polls have consistently shown the 41-year-old progressive narrowly defeating Collins in the midterm in November.

Platner has appealed to left-wing voters with his positions in favour of universal healthcare and ending US support for Israel. But a slate of recent reports about his past relationships has threatened to chill the enthusiasm for his campaign.

An oyster farmer and former US Marine, Platner has faced accusations of “unsettling” behaviour towards women, including an alleged incident where he twisted one romantic partner’s arm. Platner has denied that allegation.

He has also permanently removed a skull-and-bones tattoo that critics likened to a Nazi symbol, saying he did not know its source.

Still, in Tuesday’s primary, Platner is expected to handily beat his closest Democratic rivals: environmental consultant David Costello and Governor Janet Mills, who will remain on the ballot despite announcing her withdrawal from the race.

Contests for Maine’s House and governor seats

But Maine boasts other nationally significant races, too. That includes the contest for the House seat left open after Democratic Representative Jared Golden announced he would not run for re-election.

Golden has represented Maine’s 2nd congressional district since 2019, and he has proven adept at retaining support, even though his coastal district leans conservative.

If Republicans pick up his seat, it would be a boon to the party’s effort to maintain control of the House. Former Republican Governor Paul LePage is running uncontested in his party’s primary to replace Golden.

Four Democrats, meanwhile, are competing in their party primary to take him on.

They include state Senator Joe Baldacci, state auditor Matthew Dunlap, social worker Paige Loud, and congressional staffer Jordan Wood. All four have charted a more leftward course than the outgoing lawmaker.

Maine’s governor’s race is also open, with Mills, a Democrat, leaving her post at the end of the year due to term limits.

The chance to win the governor’s mansion in November has attracted a crowded field to both party primaries. Each race features notable political scions.

On the left, there is Angus King III, whose father currently represents the state in the US Senate, as well as Hannah Pingree, the daughter of a current member of Congress. Running on the right is healthcare executive Jonathan Bush, a cousin of former President George W Bush.

Election administration looms large in Nevada

Nevada has remained a deeply purple state in recent years, leaning neither left nor right.

Democratic presidential contenders have narrowly won the state from 2008 to 2020, but President Donald Trump broke the streak in 2024, carrying just over 50 percent of the vote.

A staggering 45 percent of Nevada’s voters are registered as independents. That means they hold outsized sway in November’s midterm vote, but they will not be able to cast a ballot in Tuesday’s closed primaries, which are limited to party members only.

The sprawling western state is home to about 3.2 million residents. In the middle of its desert landscape sits Las Vegas, a global gambling and entertainment destination.

But the state has become a political football, in part because of its narrow partisan divide.

Trump and his allies have targeted the state by spreading false claims of election fraud in the wake of the Republican leader’s 2020 election defeat. Those assertions led him to clash with state Attorney General Aaron Ford, who pledged to defend his state’s election integrity.

Now, Ford is currently leading a crowded Democratic field to take on Republican incumbent Joe Lambardo for the governor’s mansion. Polls have shown Washoe County Commissioner Alexis Hill as his top challenger in the Democratic primary.

Lombardo — who has broken state records for his use of vetoes — also faces a deep bench of Republican challengers, but he is expected to skate to an easy victory on Tuesday.

Another key state position is up for grabs this November: Nevada’s secretary of state.

Like Ford, the role’s current occupant, Francisco Aguilar, is a vocal critic of Trump’s efforts to assert more federal control over election administration.

He is running unopposed on the Democratic side, so he automatically advances to November’s general election.

Four Republicans are running to challenge Aguilar, including Jim Marchant, a former state assemblyman who supported Trump’s unfounded claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

Another top primary contender is lawyer Shirley Folkins-Roberts, who has been endorsed by the state’s Republican governor.

On the national level, Nevada has four total seats in the House of Representatives. Three are currently held by Democrats, and one by a Republican.

On Tuesday, Republicans will select their challengers in a bid to unseat the Democratic incumbents, all of whom are running for re-election.

Meanwhile, the retirement of Republican Representative Mark Amodei has sparked hope that Democrats might, for the first time ever, win the state’s 2nd congressional district.

Eight Democrats are vying to be their party’s champion, while 13 candidates are running on the Republican side.

Democrats eye long-shot flip in South Carolina

Since last year, the Trump administration has led a controversial redistricting drive, pushing Republican-led states to redraw their congressional districts to better favour the party.

But last month, lawmakers in South Carolina chose not to pursue a redistricting plan — at least, not yet. Part of the reason came down to Tuesday’s primaries.

Thousands of voters cast their ballots last month as part of an early-voting campaign encouraged by Democrats. Any last-minute redistricting would have required throwing out those votes.

That has, for now, protected the majority Black district of longtime Representative Jim Clyburn, the only Democrat representing South Carolina in the House.

South Carolina, a southern, coastal state home to 5.5 million people, is considered rightward-leaning. But Democrats are seeking to defend their House seat in November’s midterms — and maybe pick up a second.

In Tuesday’s primaries, the 85-year-old Clyburn is expected to sail to victory against a long-shot Democratic challenger. He is all but assured to win in November as well, given his district’s reputation as a Democratic stronghold.

Democrats have also set their sights on flipping South Carolina’s 1st district, with Republican Nancy Mace vacating her seat to run for governor. Seven candidates are running in the Democratic primary race for the coastal district, while 10 Republicans will compete in their party primary.

One Senate seat will also be on Tuesday’s primary ballot: the one held by Republican Lindsey Graham. Despite several challengers, polls show the incumbent with a commanding lead.

Graham, a close Trump ally and a notable war hawk, has been one of Congress’s most vocal supporters of the US-Israel war on Iran.

This year, due to term limits, Governor Henry McMaster is unable to run for re-election. Given that South Carolina is a solidly red state overall, whoever wins Tuesday’s Republican primary is expected to coast to victory in November.

Recent polls have shown a tight race. Trump has endorsed Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette, but surveys show her neck and neck with state Attorney General Alan Wilson and Congresswoman Mace, who has at times broken with Trump over issues like the Iran war.

North Dakota’s lone congressional district

Primary day in the Great Plains state of North Dakota is expected to make few waves nationally.

Neither the governor nor the state’s two senators are up for re-election.

Political observers are expecting few surprises. North Dakota has been a Republican stronghold since the late 1960s.

The 435 seats in the US House are distributed among states based on their population size. But since North Dakota has only about 800,000 people, it has just one congressional district.

During Tuesday’s Republican primary, incumbent Representative Julie Fedorchak will seek to ward off a challenge from former State Department project manager Alex Balazs.

Democrat Trygve Hammer, meanwhile, is running unopposed in his party’s primary.

Volker Turk, the high commissioner for human rights at the United Nations, has issued some of his harshest criticism yet of the recent sanctions the United States has imposed on Cuba.

On Monday, Turk drew a line between the increasing restrictions on the Cuban economy and reports of heightened death rates, particularly among children.

“The fuel restrictions imposed since early 2026 and recent tightening of extraterritorial sanctions, taken together, are directly harming Cubans, especially the most vulnerable,” Turk said in a statement.

“Children are dying because doctors lack access to essential medical supplies and medicines. This is unacceptable.”

Such “severe sanctions”, he added, run contrary to the “basic principles of international human rights law”. He called for them to be “lifted immediately”.

Turk’s comments are a direct response to the suite of actions taken under US President Donald Trump to tighten pressure on Cuba, a Caribbean island that has already weathered a decades-long US trade embargo.

Starting in January, the Trump administration moved to cut off Cuba’s foreign oil supply, a linchpin for its ageing energy grid.

First, it severed supplies of oil and funds from Venezuela. Then, on January 29, Trump issued an executive order declaring Cuba to be an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security. As such, he said, any country that supplied it with oil would be subject to steep tariffs.

In the months since, the Trump administration has continued to layer sanctions on Cuba. In May, for instance, penalties were announced against Cuba’s Interior Ministry, its National Police and its Directorate of Intelligence.

Those were followed this month by sanctions targeting Cuba’s president, Miguel Diaz-Canel, as well as members of his family.

The sanctions are designed to penalise those “responsible for repression” in Cuba, an island whose communist government has been accused of stifling dissent, as well as imprisoning and torturing activists.

Turk on Monday acknowledged Cuba’s human rights record and called on the country to “release all those arbitrarily detained”.

But he also pointed to the mounting death toll associated with the US sanctions, which have isolated the island country from much of the world.

The sanctions freeze any US-based assets the target may have, but they also prohibit entities from conducting business with the sanctioned parties. That can result in difficulties accessing global financial systems and other international platforms.

The de facto oil blockade has also resulted in the increasing frequency of power outages, and essential services like public transportation and medical care have faced reductions. Turk pointed to those downstream effects in his remarks.

“Cuba faces increasing isolation,” he said. “Companies are leaving. Fewer airlines fly to the country. It is almost disconnected from international payment systems.”

Turk’s office has also highlighted the human costs of the sanctions. According to the statistics it cited, infant death rates have doubled, reaching 9.9 for every 1,000 births. The survival rate for childhood cancer, meanwhile, has declined from 85 to 65 percent.

In March, the Cuban government also warned of medical needs going unanswered as a result of the energy shortage. It estimated that there was a backlog of 96,387 people awaiting surgery, 11,193 of whom were minors.

It also underscored that 16,000 patients needed radiotherapy, and another 2,888 required dialysis, two treatments that depend on steady electrical supplies.

Turk’s remarks also pointed to the risks posed by the Atlantic hurricane season and other natural disasters. Within hours of his remarks, western Cuba was rattled by a powerful 6.1-magnitude earthquake. Summer heat alone could cost lives, he explained.

“Rising summer temperatures risk increasing the spread of vector borne and waterborne diseases,” Turk said.

“The hurricane season further increases exposure. This creates a perfect storm for social and economic deterioration and suffering for the Cuban people.”

Trump has repeatedly suggested that he is considering military action in Cuba to remove its leadership after the US-Israel war on Iran reaches an end.

Since January, only one Russian oil tanker has been allowed to reach the island, leaving its foreign fuel supplies largely depleted.

Republican Stephen Buyer was convicted and sentenced to 22 months in prison, though he has maintained his innocence.

United States President Donald Trump has issued a pardon to Stephen Buyer, a former Republican congressman from Indiana who served nearly two years in prison for making illegal stock trades based on inside information after he left office.

The pardon was dated Thursday and released by the White House late Friday night.

Buyer was sentenced to 22 months in prison in 2023 for trades made while working as a consultant and lobbyist. He was ordered to forfeit more than $350,000, representing the amount of the illegal gains, as well as pay a $10,000 fine. He was released in 2025.

The Supreme Court in May rejected Buyer’s appeal without comment or noted dissent.

In granting “a full, complete, and unconditional pardon” to Buyer, Trump cited the Republican’s work, both as a judge advocate general in the US Army and as a politician in the US House. Trump described his career as “distinguished and highly productive”.

Buyer said the pardon “corrects a politically motivated prosecution” and that it was “horrific to be imprisoned for a crime that I did not commit”. He maintains that he is innocent.

Trump used his Truth Social media platform on May 31 to share a pair of letters requesting a presidential pardon for Buyer, a lawyer and Gulf War veteran who left office in 2011.

He was a House prosecutor at Democratic President Bill Clinton’s 1998 impeachment trial, and in 2016, he served on Trump’s transition team, focusing on veterans’ issues.

A letter signed by more than 40 former Republicans in Congress said Buyer was “targeted by the deep state” because of his involvement in Clinton’s trial.

“Like you, Mr President, Steve has been the victim of lawfare conducted by the Biden Administration,” they wrote in the April 2025 letter.

A second letter, from five current House Republicans, said pardoning Buyer would bring justice to his case. The June 2025 letter was signed by Tom Cole of Oklahoma, Ken Calvert of California, Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, Jack Bergman of Michigan and Pete Sessions of Texas.

Buyer, 67, was convicted in connection with insider trading involving the $26.5bn merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, announced in April 2018, and illegal trades in the management consulting company Navigant when his client Guidehouse was set to acquire it in a deal publicly disclosed weeks later.

The US Constitution gives the president broad power to grant pardons for federal crimes.

A pardon does not erase a recipient’s criminal record but can be seen as an act of mercy or justice.

Department reports raise concerns about increased espionage activity amid US-Israeli war with Iran, ceasefire talks.

The Pentagon’s intelligence arm has raised the assessed threat level on Israeli spying from “high” to “critical” in recent weeks, according to US media.

NBC News first broke news of the change on Friday, with The New York Times issuing its own report the following day.

The news outlets cited anonymous sources as saying the switch came in light of concerns over increasingly aggressive tactics related to the US-Israeli war with Iran.

They said the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had raised the alert level amid fears that Israel is increasingly attempting to surveil top US officials. The aim is allegedly to understand internal White House deliberations about ending the war.

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have publicly diverged in their approach to the war, which the US and Israel started on February 28.

Trump, on one hand, has repeatedly said he wants to bring the war to a close, amid mounting political pressure at home.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, has called for war to resume, despite an April 8 ceasefire. The fighting has been mostly paused since the temporary truce was announced, but efforts to reach a lasting agreement have repeatedly stalled.

The New York Times reported that, while Israel has been known to spy on the US, the DIA cited an uptick in activities beginning in late 2024, as the administration of US President Joe Biden increased pressure on Israel over its genocidal war in Gaza.

That increase continued into 2025, as Trump returned to the presidency and began deliberating about how to approach Iran.

The newspaper added that other recent intelligence assessments have also documented evidence that there are Israeli efforts to monitor Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff as well as Elbridge Colby, a top policy official at the Pentagon, and his deputy Michael DiMino IV.

Witkoff had been the lead negotiator in nuclear talks that preceded the initial US-Israeli attack on Iran in February.

Both NBC News and The New York Times cited unnamed US officials in their reports. The US Department of Defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Al Jazeera.

However, an unnamed spokesperson told both news organisations that the reports were “false”.

Still, the reported concerns are likely to raise questions over the close intelligence and military coordination between Israel and the US.

Washington has, for years, provided billions in military aid and weapons sales to Israel, including throughout the genocide in Gaza.

The US Congress is also currently debating a section of a new defence bill, which would integrate the two countries’ research and development for weaponry to an unprecedented degree.

While the US and its allies are known to regularly conduct intelligence operations on each other, officials told both NBC and The New York Times that Israel’s recent vigour was unique.

The New York Times reported that the increased DIA designation surpasses all current allies, as well as a handful of countries with more fraught relations.

Recent incidents included Israel’s military intelligence trying to plant listening devices at the DIA headquarters in 2021, according to the newspaper.

In 2025, Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, Shin Bet, was found to have tried to plant a similar device in a Secret Service vehicle, the report said.

When Iran qualified for the FIFA World Cup last March, the men’s national team didn’t expect their participation to hinge on visas being granted by hosts, the United States, only at the last moment – if at all.

Nor did Iranian fans eager to support Team Melli expect to be banned from entry by the US. President Donald Trump signed an executive order last June halting visa issuance to a handful of countries, including Iran, which the US designated a “state sponsor of terrorism”.

Perhaps most unanticipated for Iranians was that the host nation of the largest sporting event in the world would launch a war on their country just months before the tournament began.

For Amir Ghalenoei’s side, the joint US-Israel war was more than a wrench thrown into World Cup preparation plans; it was tangible and personal, as thousands across the country were killed by missile attacks.

It was the US bombing Azadi Stadium, home to several local matches and where the national team trained. It was the men’s team holding tiny backpacks in remembrance of the students massacred in a US strike on a school in Minab the day the war began.

After months of politically charged rigmarole between the US and Iran – which led to them switching basecamps to Mexico instead – the men’s national football team will find themselves playing in the shadow of war. That too, if the US grants them visas in time.

For Iranian football fans, travelling to the US was “almost impossible” even without the visa challenges or the war. There are no direct means of transport between the countries, which do not have formal diplomatic relations.

“Aside from the visa issue, you have to take two- or three-way routes from Tehran to get to the US,” said Ali, a fan who did not want to share his full name for safety reasons.

“Returning from the US to Iran is a big challenge in itself, with the possibility of being arrested by the [Iranian] government,” he added. The war has increased scrutiny of antinational sentiment within Iran, resulting in executions of people arrested on accusations of spying for Israel or the US.

Political repercussions extend to the sport sphere, too. Iran’s top footballer Sardar Azmoun was expelled from the national team in March for a perceived act of disloyalty to the government, when he posted a picture on social media of a ⁠meeting with Dubai ruler Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Relations between the UAE and Iran have been tense during the war, with Iran hitting the Emirates repeatedly and accusing it of allowing the US to use its territory for attacks on Iran.

The US war on Iran, now nearing its 100th day, has also deterred fans globally from attending the World Cup.

“Football is called the Beautiful Game for a reason, for its ability to unite people,” South African football fan Byron Pillay told Al Jazeera.

“But it’s hard to believe in that magic with the politics and war rhetoric off the field of play, specially when one of the tournament hosts is central to that.”

Compatriot Riaz Hamed echoed those reservations. “With the stance of America in particular, regarding the treatment of fans and immigrants in the country, I don’t believe it to be entirely safe to attend.”

Fears have been stoked by reports from organisations such as Human Rights Watch, which said an asylum seeker who attended the Club World Cup final last year in New Jersey with his children was arrested by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) department and deported to his country of origin.

Khayran Noor, an international sports lawyer based in Kenya, emphasised that sport cannot be separated from wider geopolitical dimensions.

“If participation can be shaped by geopolitical realities outside the game itself, does that ultimately undermine the inclusive ideals these tournaments claim to represent?” Noor said in an interview with Al Jazeera.

“Football is global, but global mobility is not; the World Cup sits directly at the intersection of that contradiction.”

Mounting visa rejections have also spooked fans from attempting to attend the World Cup.

The US has launched a FIFA Priority Appointment Scheduling System (PASS), which expedites visa interviews for fans who have bought tickets through FIFA. But it does not guarantee a visa.

Last month, a group of nearly 150 Ghana football fans saw their visa applications rejected.

Godwin Nii Armah, 32, scrapped his travel plans for the World Cup for personal reasons, but knew he might have shared the same fate as those compatriots. He also admitted that travelling to Toronto, Boston and Philadelphia to support the Black Stars would have been a costly logistical headache in addition to international flights and visa fees.

Ghana nationals have to pay a $185 fee with their US visa application and 100 Canadian dollars ($71) for the Canadian visa. Add the two, and the amount is comparable to the monthly per capita income in Ghana.

Noor questioned whether future FIFA host agreements should include obligations relating to accessibility and mobility before hosting rights are awarded.

“If teams and fans from particular parts of the world face structural barriers before they can even attend, then the broader spirit of inclusion that these tournaments seek to embody risks being undermined.”

She acknowledged that while states understandably retain sovereign responsibilities regarding border control and national security, global sporting events often require exceptional frameworks.

Fans from 27 of the 48 nations headed to the World Cup need a US visa to apply, costing anywhere between $185 to $435 – amounts that represent wages that an average person in many countries in the Global South would earn over several months.

Canada is marginally more visa-friendly, while Mexico remains the most accessible World Cup host nation.

That was why South Africa chose to send a small supporters group to Pachuca, Mexico, where South Africa have set up basecamp and play two group stage matches.

Sahil Ebrahim is among the “lucky few” in that delegation. After decades of supporting Bafana Bafana from a TV screen in Cape Town, Ebrahim attended the Qatar 2022 World Cup.

Now the 40-year-old is on his way to his second World Cup, where he will witness the tournament opener live in Mexico City, when South Africa play the hosts on June 11.

Contrary to the South African football team, who faced a 24-hour delay in their departure over a visa bungle by the federation, Ebrahim said the Department of Sport did an “excellent job” expediting their visas with the Mexican embassy.

The process, however, paled in comparison with the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where Hayya cards centrally aligned all visa, ticket and transport details for each fan, Ebrahim acknowledged.

While South Africa’s friendly against Jamaica on Friday, June 5, is closed to the public, Ebrahim and the supporters’ group will watch an exhibition game on Sunday where the Bafana legends of 2010 will take on their Mexican counterparts. South Africa had hosted the World Cup in 2010, a first for an African nation.

“Ultimately, major sporting events succeed not only because people watch them, but because people participate in them,” Noor said.

“The question is not who can watch the World Cup – the question is who can truly participate in it.”

Republicans in the United States Senate have renewed their push to pass a controversial $70bn immigration-enforcement funding bill, a top policy priority for President Donald Trump.

But the effort on Thursday faced a series of hurdles, with Democrats forcing votes on several amendments that highlighted controversies related to the Trump presidency.

The rapid-fire votes on the amendments were dubbed a “vote-a-rama“, and they are slated to include issues ranging from Trump’s White House ballroom to his tariff policies and the US-Israel war on Iran.

“Amendment after amendment, vote after vote, Republicans are going to have to answer to the American people,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said.

Early on, Republicans were forced to confront a topic that has dominated headlines in recent weeks: Trump’s proposed $1.776bn “anti-weaponisation” fund.

The fund has been controversial on both sides of the aisle, with critics calling it a slush fund for Trump’s allies.

Several Republicans indicated that the optics of such a fund could be politically catastrophic ahead of November’s midterm elections, and the Department of Justice has since backed away from the scheme.

But Trump himself has avoided saying whether the fund was dead, or just on hold.

It was created as part of a settlement following a lawsuit Trump filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), a part of his government, and it was designed to award payouts to alleged victims of politically motivated prosecution.

Senate Democrats have repeatedly called for such a fund to be banned outright, rather than relying on the Trump administration’s commitment not to revive it.

Nevertheless, on Thursday, Senate Republicans rejected the Democrats’ measure to permanently block the fund.

Republican Tom Tillis introduced a second amendment, which would have also banned the settlement fund. Instead, the legislation would have redirected the allocated funds to a separate anti-fraud fund within the Justice Department. That, too, was rejected.

Thursday’s votes on the “anti-weaponisation” fund were just the start of several rounds of voting on issues uncomfortable to the Republican Party.

Schumer, the top Democrat, signalled that other amendments would tackle another part of the IRS settlement: the permanent immunity from tax audits that Trump had secured for himself and his family.

Trump’s controversial immigration enforcement campaign and other issues were also scheduled to be taken up in the day’s amendments.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he was not sure whether Republicans would defeat every measure, with some members of the party showing an increasing willingness to stand up to Trump.

“I can’t predict how it comes out,” he said.

Immigration funding bill

The situation on Thursday was the result of a standoff between Democrats and Republicans over the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.

Democrats had pledged not to approve further funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), following the killing of two US citizens during immigration operations in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Republicans control 53 seats in the 100-seat chamber, short of the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster.

They have instead been forced to pursue a lengthy procedural manoeuvre to bypass the filibuster, which has taken weeks.

The $70bn funding bill had been stalled by the Trump administration’s demand to include $1bn for security upgrades for Trump’s White House ballroom project.

The request came after the president had repeatedly said that no taxpayer dollars would go towards the project.

The security funding, which roiled several Republicans, was subsequently dropped before the voting started.

The Senate’s parliamentarian, an official who interprets the chamber’s rules, had previously ruled that adding ballroom funding to the $70bn bill would make it ineligible for the budget reconciliation process, which allows the passage of fiscal-related bills with a simple majority.

If Senate Republicans remain unified, they are expected to pass the funding bill late Thursday night or early Friday.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is expected to take up the bill shortly after.