Government

Bulgaria’s eighth parliamentary election in five years has concluded with former president Rumen Radev’s Progressive Bulgaria party emerging as the clear winner. Radev will be the next prime minister.

While pollsters predicted a win for Radev ahead of the election, they did not necessarily expect it to be such a large one.

With 98.3 percent of ballots tallied on Monday, official figures show Radev’s party taking 44.7 percent of the vote, and likely to secure roughly 130 of the 240 seats in parliament. The centre-left party has come in far ahead of rivals, raising hopes among voters for a more stable government after years of fragile coalitions and repeated votes.

However, questions remain over what Radev’s foreign policy will entail and what his election means for Bulgaria’s position within the European Union and NATO.

Here is what you need to know:

Who is Rumen Radev?

The 62-year-old served as Bulgaria’s president for nearly a decade before stepping down in January this year to launch his bid to become prime minister.

The former air force commander has positioned himself as an outsider, saying he wants to rid the country of its “oligarchic governance model”, amid widespread frustration with corruption and political turmoil that has gripped the country of 6.6 million people.

In 2025, Radev supported anti-corruption protests that brought down the conservative-backed government of former Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov. He urged voters to turn out in large numbers to counter vote-buying.

At a pre-election rally on Wednesday last week, he pledged to “remove the corrupt, oligarchic model of governance from political power”.

Radev’s stance on foreign policy has drawn attention in Europe, however.

Although he publicly condemned Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, he has also opposed providing military support to Ukraine and called, instead, for renewed, “practical relations with Russia based on mutual respect and equal treatment”.

Radev objected to a 10-year defence pact concluded between Bulgaria and Ukraine in March.

He has also called for the resumption of Russian imports to Europe, despite EU sanctions on Russian oil and a decision at the end of last year to cease all energy imports from Russia by 2027.

All this has led to critics labelling him “pro-Russian”. Radev, however, says he is merely taking a pragmatic approach.

“We are the only member state of the European Union that is both Slavic and Eastern Orthodox,” he said in an interview with Bulgarian journalist Martin Karbovski.

“We can be ‌a very important ⁠link in this whole mechanism … to restore relations with Russia,” he added.

Following the election, Russia congratulated Radev, welcoming his victory.

“Of course, we are impressed by the statements made by Mr Radev, who won the election, and by some other European leaders regarding their willingness to resolve problems through pragmatic dialogue,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Monday.

On Europe, some label Radev a eurosceptic, as he has criticised aspects of EU policy, including reliance on renewable energy and Bulgaria’s adoption of the euro.

At his campaign rally on Wednesday last week, he said: “The coalition-makers introduced the euro in Bulgaria without asking you. And now, when you pay your bills, always remember which politicians promised you that you would be in the ‘club of the rich’.”

Following his victory, he told reporters: “A strong Bulgaria and a strong Europe need critical thinking and pragmatism. Europe has fallen victim to its own ambition to be a moral leader in a world with new rules.”

Nevertheless, Radev has signalled his willingness to cooperate with pro-European parties on issues like judicial reform and has stated that Bulgaria will “continue on its European path”.

Following his win, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said: “Bulgaria is a proud member of the European family and plays an important role in tackling our common challenges.”

How significant is this result?

Since 2021, Bulgaria has been through multiple governments, many brought down by protests or parliamentary disagreements.

The election result places Radev’s party, with 44 percent of the vote, well ahead of the centre-right GERB party of former Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, which secured 13.4 percent of the vote, and the reformist PP-DB coalition, with 12.7 percent.

The margin between the parties is wider than pollsters predicted. On Friday last week, according to Bulgaria’s Alpha Research, Radev’s Progressive Bulgaria was projected to win, but with only 34.2 percent of the vote, followed by Borissov’s GERB-UDF with 19.5 percent. This led observers to predict that a coalition government would be necessary.

Despite securing a clear majority, however, Radev has yet to rule out creating a coalition with a smaller party to form a government.

“We are ready to consider different options so that Bulgaria can have a regular and stable government,” he told reporters on Sunday.

This latest election was called after former PM Zhelyazkov announced in December that his cabinet would resign, amid a looming no-confidence vote.

The election campaign centred heavily on cost-of-living pressures, corruption, and other economic concerns, with many voters expressing frustration at the lack of credible political alternatives.

What will Radev’s role as prime minister be?

Although Radev is best known for holding the title of president, that is a largely ceremonial role in Bulgaria’s political system.

The president serves as head of state, representing national unity and playing a role in foreign policy; executive power lies primarily with the prime minister and his cabinet.

The prime minister appoints his cabinet ministers, sets the government agenda, and is the key representative of Bulgaria in international affairs, including within organisations like the European Union and NATO.

The prime minister remains in office unless he chooses to resign or is removed in a no-confidence motion.

After talks in Switzerland, the two sides also made progress on a protocol for ceasefire oversight.

The government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and rival M23 rebels have agreed to ease aid deliveries and release prisoners, as mediators push to resolve a years-long conflict that has persisted despite multiple peace deals.

The two sides announced the measures in a joint statement shared by the US Department of State on Saturday, following five days of talks in Switzerland.

“The parties agreed to refrain from any action that would undermine the principled delivery of humanitarian assistance within the territories impacted by the conflict,” said the statement.

Both sides also pledged not to target civilians and to facilitate medical care for the wounded and sick as they noted progress on a protocol for humanitarian access and judicial protections.

They agreed to release prisoners within 10 days as part of efforts “to continue building confidence”.

In addition, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding for a ceasefire monitoring mechanism that will “begin conducting surveillance, monitoring, verification, and reporting on the implementation of the permanent ceasefire between the parties”.

Since 2021, the M23, backed by Rwanda, has seized territory in eastern DRC, a region ravaged by more than 30 years of conflict.

While the two sides signed a United States-brokered peace agreement in December, fighting has continued, most recently reaching the highland areas of South Kivu, according to media reports.

In a statement last week, Human Rights Watch accused the parties of blocking aid deliveries and stopping civilians from fleeing the South Kivu highlands.

“Civilians in South Kivu’s highlands are facing a dire humanitarian crisis and live in fear of abuses by all parties,” said Clementine de Montjoye, senior Great Lakes researcher at Human Rights Watch.

The latest round of talks, held in the Swiss Riviera town of Montreux, included representatives from Qatar, the US, Switzerland, the African Union (AU) Commission, and Togo serving as the AU mediator.

The order calls on the federal government to relax restrictions on psychedelics, including ibogaine, for potential treatments.

United States President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to speed up the review of a handful of psychedelic drugs, including the controversial ibogaine.

Trump was joined by podcaster Joe Rogan during Saturday’s Oval Office event.

Rogan, considered one of the most influential podcasters in the country, has been a leading proponent of ibogaine, which is derived from a plant that grows in West Africa and has been embraced by some military veteran groups as a treatment for post-traumatic stress.

Speaking at the event, Rogan recounted how he had previously texted information to Trump about ibogaine.

He recalled that the president quickly texted back: “Sounds great. Do you want FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval? Let’s do it.”

Advocacy groups have long pushed for more research into the possible use of psychedelics to treat an array of issues, including depression.

“Today’s order will ensure that people suffering from debilitating symptoms might finally have a chance to reclaim their lives and lead a happier life,” Trump said at the signing.

“If these turn out to be as good as people are saying, it’s going to have a tremendous impact.”

At one point, the president quipped that he would be open to taking psychedelics himself: “Can I have some, please? I’ll take some.”

But he quickly pivoted away from the joke. “I don’t have time to be depressed. You know, if you stay busy enough, maybe that works, too. That’s what I do,” he said.

Increasing research into psychedelics has proven a rare issue with bipartisan support in the US, where ibogaine and other psychedelics remain banned under the federal government’s most restrictive category for illegal drugs.

Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr had previously pledged to ease access to psychedelics for medical use.

Trump’s executive order calls on the Department of Health and Human Services to direct at least $50m to states that have enacted or are developing programmes to advance psychedelic drugs for serious mental illness.

It also arrives ahead of several actions from the FDA to loosen restrictions.

This week, the agency will issue so-called “national priority” vouchers for three psychedelics, which the agency’s commissioner, Marty Makary, said will allow certain drugs to be approved quickly “if they are in line with our national priorities”.

The FDA is also taking steps to clear the way for the first-ever human trials of ibogaine in the US. Previous research had been stalled by concerns over the drug potentially triggering fatal heart problems.

Ibogaine was first used by members of the Bwiti religion in African nations like Gabon for religious ceremonies.

Rogan’s endorsement helped boost Trump ahead of the 2024 presidential election. He has since publicly questioned the administration’s war with Iran, saying it runs counter to Trump’s campaign pledges.

Also present on Saturday was Marcus Luttrell, a former Navy SEAL whose memoir about his time in Afghanistan, Lone Survivor, was later made into a film.

He praised ibogaine during the ceremony: “It absolutely changed my life for the better.”

Court filings have indicated that lawyers for President Donald Trump are seeking a resolution with the Department of Justice over a $10bn lawsuit he filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

But the trouble, critics say, is that such a settlement would leave Trump essentially negotiating with an executive branch under his control.

Friday’s court filing, however, emphasises the efficiency of seeking a settlement.

In the document, Trump’s lawyers call for the case to be paused for 90 days to allow a resolution to be hammered out.

“This limited pause will neither prejudice the parties nor delay ultimate resolution,” the filing says. “Rather, the extension will promote judicial economy and allow the Parties to explore avenues that could narrow or resolve the issues efficiently.”

How did the case start?

The case stems from an incident that began in 2017, when a worker named Charles “Chaz” Littlejohn was re-hired as a contractor through the government consulting firm Booz Allen.

While working on IRS files, Littlejohn stole copies of Trump’s tax returns, which had been the source of prolonged public scrutiny.

Until Trump, every president since Richard Nixon had released their tax returns as a gesture of transparency. Trump, however, claimed he could not, citing ongoing audits.

The tax returns Littlejohn stole were ultimately released to the media, and in 2020, The New York Times released a series of articles that showed Trump paid no income taxes in 10 of the 15 preceding years.

Other years, he paid relatively small sums, like $750, because he reported more losses than gains. ProPublica also ran stories based on the leaked tax returns, highlighting inconsistencies and Trump’s low tax payments.

Privacy law protects taxpayer information from being released by the IRS without explicit permission. Littlejohn was sentenced to five years in prison in 2024.

But in late January of this year, Trump filed a lawsuit arguing that he, his businesses and his sons Eric and Donald Jr had suffered “significant and irreparable harm” from the leaks.

The defendants in the lawsuit were the IRS and its overseeing body, the Treasury Department, both of which are part of the executive branch.

“Defendants have caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing,” the lawsuit reads.

Questions of ethics and legality

But experts have warned that the lawsuit contains flaws that would normally prompt the Justice Department, also under Trump’s control, to seek dismissal.

The lawsuit, for instance, arrives at its whopping $10bn sum by supposedly tallying up media references to Trump’s leaked tax returns.

However, experts say the formula for damages is calculated by the number of unauthorised disclosures by a government employee, not by media re-printings.

Then there is the question of Littlejohn’s employment status. He was an outside contractor, not a government employee.

Trump also has to contend with the two-year statute of limitations in the case. The lawsuit contends that “President Trump did not discover the numerous violations” of his tax returns until January 29, 2024.

But critics point out he had posted on social media about his tax information being “illegally obtained” as far back as 2020, when The New York Times published its series.

Opponents say the lawsuit should be dismissed or at least delayed until Trump is no longer president. Otherwise, they argue it represents a conflict of interest, with Trump fundamentally negotiating with his own administration for a payout.

Controlling ‘both sides of the litigation’

Trump himself has acknowledged that such a payment would “never look good”. But he has justified the sum by saying it would be donated to charity.

“Nobody would care because it’s going to go to numerous very good charities,” he said in February.

Even that, legal experts argue, could run afoul of the Emoluments Clause in the US Constitution, which prohibits the president from profiting off his position, apart from his salary.

Government watchdogs have attempted to stop a settlement from unfolding. On February 5, for instance, the group Democracy Forward filed an amicus brief arguing the court should act to prevent an abuse of power.

“This case is extraordinary because the President controls both sides of the litigation, which raises the prospect of collusive litigation tactics,” the brief explains.

“To treat this case like business as usual would threaten the integrity of the justice system and the important taxpayer and privacy protections at the heart of this case.”

But the $10bn IRS lawsuit is not the only case Trump is seeking to settle with his own government. In 2023 and 2024, Trump filed administrative complaints seeking compensation for federal investigations he considered to be unfair.

One complaint concerns an FBI investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the other is about the FBI’s raid of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate after he refused a subpoena to return classified documents.

For those complaints, Trump is reportedly seeking additional damages to the tune of $230m.

Ruling is latest loss for Trump administration, which has sought access to state voter data ahead of the US midterms.

A federal judge in the United States has dismissed a Department of Justice lawsuit seeking to access voter data from Rhode Island.

The decision on Friday was the latest loss for the administration of President Donald Trump, which has sought to access voter data in dozens of states across the country.

In the ruling, US District Court Judge Mary McElroy sided with election officials and civil rights groups, writing that the Justice Department does not have the authority “to conduct the kind of fishing expedition it seeks here”.

Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore praised the ruling in a statement afterwards.

“The executive branch seems to have no problem taking actions that are clear Constitutional overreaches, regularly meddling in responsibilities that are the rights of the states,” Amore wrote.

“But the power of our democratic republic, built on three, coequal branches of government, is clearer than ever before.”

The Justice Department has sued at least 30 states for their voter information, maintaining it needs the information to secure election security. State officials have said that turning over the data raises an array of privacy concerns.

Under the US Constitution, state officials administer elections. Only Congress can pass laws related to how states oversee voting.

But Trump has sought to transform election administration, claiming that voting has been marred by widespread fraud.

In particular, Trump has continued to maintain that the 2020 election, in which he lost to former President Joe Biden, was “stolen”.

No evidence has ever been put forward to support the claims.

Federal judges have rejected attempts in California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Oregon to force the states to hand over voter files to the federal government. At least 12 states, however, have willingly provided or pledged to provide voter information to the Trump administration.

The push for voter information is one of several actions that have raised concerns over how the Trump administration will approach the midterm elections in November, which will decide the makeup of the US Congress.

He is currently calling on Republicans to pass the so-called SAVE America Act, a bill that would create higher documentation standards for voters to prove their citizenship when registering to vote and casting ballots.

The majority of Republican lawmakers have embraced Trump’s claim that the law is needed to prevent non-citizens from registering to vote, despite studies showing that instances of voter fraud are glancingly rare.

Critics say the measure would risk disenfranchising millions of voters, particularly those who have legally changed their names, which is a common practice in US marriages.

The vote count continues to determine who will join conservative Keiko Fujimori in Peru’s presidential run-off in June.

Calls to remove the head of Peru’s electoral authority have intensified as delays and alleged irregularities clouded the presidential vote count.

As of Friday, no clear challenger has emerged to face conservative frontrunner Keiko Fujimori in the June 7 run-off.

The general election was held on Sunday, but an extension was granted to accommodate for the difficulties in ballot distribution.

Pressure has mounted against the head of Peru’s National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE), Piero Corvetto. Complaints over errors and logistical problems during Sunday’s election have been compounded by a slow tally that has rattled investor confidence and heightened uncertainty.

According to the ONPE, leftist Roberto Sanchez and ultraconservative former Lima Mayor Rafael Lopez Aliaga remain locked in a close battle for second place, separated by about 13,000 votes as of Friday.

With 93.3 percent of the ballots counted, Sanchez held 12.0 percent of the vote and Lopez Aliaga 11.9 percent.

Fujimori, meanwhile, remained firmly in first place with 17 percent, positioning her for the run-off. Final results could take up to two weeks, according to local election-monitoring group Transparencia.

The vote counting has been further delayed by the roughly 5 percent of ballots that were identified for review due to missing information or errors in polling station records, according to ONPE data. Those ballots will be reviewed by a special electoral jury before being included in the final count, officials said.

Business leaders and lawmakers from across the political spectrum have called on Corvetto to step down, arguing that a replacement should oversee the second round.

“Errors this serious have consequences,” Jorge Zapata, head of business chamber CONFIEP, told local radio station RPP.

Earlier this week, Corvetto acknowledged that there had been some logistical delays that forced voting to be extended by a day, mainly in Lima. Those delays triggered fraud allegations, notably from Lopez Aliaga, who has called for counting to be suspended. Corvetto has denied that any irregularities took place.

Even so, Peru’s top electoral court, the National Jury of Elections, filed a criminal complaint with prosecutors against Corvetto, citing alleged offences, including violations of voting rights. Representatives for Corvetto did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

An investigation is also under way after materials from four polling stations were found on a public road in Lima on Thursday, the police said. ONPE said on the social media platform X that the votes from those stations had already been recorded for counting.

European Union election observers said this week that they found no evidence of fraud.

The measure has long been criticised for allowing US intelligence agencies to collect citizen data without a warrant.

The United States Congress has temporarily extended a controversial surveillance law which allows federal intelligence agencies to collect the data of foreigners, including their contacts with US citizens.

The move allows a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to continue until April 30. The short-term extension was passed by the House of Representatives and approved by the Senate on Friday.

The patch comes after President Donald Trump’s efforts to secure a more lasting extension broke down.

Section 702 of FISA allows the National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence services to collect data from foreigners outside of the country.

That could include their interactions with US citizens, a prospect that has alarmed rights advocates.

Collecting such data, which can include correspondence on email and telecommunications platforms, typically requires a warrant approved by a court.

The process has been described by critics as a “backdoor search” that circumvents existing privacy laws.

Speaking after Friday’s vote, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said there was still some openness to reforming the law.

“We’ve got to pivot and figure out what can pass, and we’re in the process ⁠of figuring out how to do that here,” he told reporters.

Supporters of reform, who stretch across party lines, have long sought to repeal or amend Section 702.

While FISA was initially passed in 1978, Section 702 was added as an amendment in 2008.

The addition came amid the US’s “global war on terror”. But during its approval, revelations emerged that the administration of former US President George W Bush had already used the tactics Section 702 legalised.

Supporters, including Trump, maintain that reforming the provision would lead to a lapse in national security.

“I have spoken with many in our Military who say FISA is necessary in order to protect our Troops overseas, as well as our people here at home, from the threat of Foreign Terror Attacks,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Wednesday.

He has pushed for the law to be extended for 18 months without changes. That effort initially appeared on track in the House but was ultimately scuttled by pushback from within Trump’s own Republican Party.

Among the detractors was Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, who has been a regular critic of Trump.

“I will be voting NO on final passage of the FISA 702 Reauthorization Bill if it does not include a warrant provision and other reforms to protect US citizens’ right to privacy,” he wrote ahead of the House vote.

French President Emmanuel Macron said he welcomed the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the Lebanon ceasefire, as the US and Iran declared the key waterway open. His comments came as European leaders discuss a post-war Hormuz maritime force.

The proposed 76-metre arch would tower over other iconic landmarks in Washington, DC, and has attracted scrutiny.

United States President Donald Trump’s goal of erecting a colossal arch in Washington, DC, has taken another step forward, with a key agency approving his proposed design for the monument.

The US Commission of Fine Arts, whose members were appointed by Trump, gave its go-ahead to the president’s design for a lofty 76-metre-high (250-foot) arch.

If given final approval, the arch would be built on Memorial Circle, between the Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial. It would tower above other landmarks in the national capital.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle hailed the commission’s approval as a “step in accomplishing President Trump’s promise to the American people from the campaign trail — to Make America Safe and Beautiful Again”.

But the arch has faced criticism, including for potentially obscuring views of the national cemetery, a resting place for war veterans.

Public Citizen Litigation Group is representing some Vietnam War veterans in a lawsuit against the proposed construction, which they argue needs congressional approval.

Even the vice chair of the Commission of Fine Arts, James McCrery II, suggested that Trump’s proposed “Triumphal Arch” ditch the winged statue and eagles on its top. He also opposed the lions at its base, pointing out that African animals are “not a beast natural to the North American continent”.

The enormous arch is another effort by the US president to leave his mark on the physical landscape of Washington, DC.

In January, he told reporters he wants the arch to be the “biggest one of all”. The commission still needs to vote on final approval for the proposal after reviewing updated designs.

Current plans show the arch would be significantly larger than the Lincoln Memorial, which is 99 feet (30 metres) tall, and about twice as tall as the famous Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which the design resembles.

The phrases “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice for All” would be written in gold lettering atop either side of the monument.

About three out of every four people who delivered public comments about the project expressed opposition, many of them citing its enormous size.

But the arch is one of several Trump projects that have received public pushback.

Trump has sought to paint the granite of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building white, and his allies plan to close the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, a national theatre complex, for two years of renovations, after adding Trump’s name to the exterior.

One of the most permanent changes so far has been the abrupt demolition of the White House’s East Wing, in order to make room for an enormous ballroom, long one of Trump’s priorities.

But that project is likewise entangled in legal battles, with critics arguing that congressional approval is required.

On Wednesday, Judge Richard Leon clarified that construction on underground structures at the ballroom site could continue, as part of an exemption he previously allowed for national security concerns.

But he maintained his short-term injunction against construction on the ballroom itself, batting down Trump’s position that the whole project should proceed.

“Defendants argue that the entire ballroom construction project, from tip to tail, falls within the safety-and-security exception and therefore may proceed unabated,” Leon wrote in Thursday’s ruling.

“That is neither a reasonable nor a correct reading of my Order!”

The president responded on social media by calling Leon an “out of control Trump hating” judge. Leon was appointed in 2002 under Republican President George W Bush.

The State Department in the United States has announced it is restricting visas for “individuals from countries in our hemisphere who support our adversaries in undermining America’s interests in our region”.

Thursday’s statement underlined that 26 individuals had already seen their visas stripped as part of the policy.

The State Department’s stance comes as President Donald Trump seeks to expand US influence across the Western Hemisphere, as part of a platform he calls the “Donroe Doctrine”, a riff on the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine.

Since taking office for a second term, Trump has taken an aggressive stance towards stopping drug trafficking across the Americas, threatening economic penalties and military action for noncompliance.

He has also sought to check China’s growing sway over the region, as an increasing number of Latin American countries tighten their bonds with the Asian superpower.

The State Department explained that the expanded visa restrictions would penalise those who “knowingly direct, authorise, fund, or provide significant support to” US adversaries in the Western Hemisphere.

“Activities include but are not limited to: enabling adversarial powers to acquire or control key assets and strategic resources in our hemisphere; destabilising regional security efforts; undermining American economic interests; and conducting influence operations designed to undermine the sovereignty and stability of nations in our region,” the statement added.

The language was vague, never mentioning China or the campaign against drug-trafficking cartels.

But it continues a trend under the Trump administration to revoke visas from foreign critics and political opponents.

Last year, for instance, the administration sought to revoke visas for pro-Palestine protesters, claiming their presence could have foreign policy consequences for the US.

More recently, the administration has terminated the immigration visas for at least seven individuals with familial ties to the Iranian government or individuals connected to the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Revoking visas

The statement on Thursday did not identify the 26 individuals facing visa restrictions as part of the expanded policy.

But it cited the same authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act that the Trump administration has used to attempt to deport pro-Palestine student protesters last year.

Under the law, the entry of foreign nationals can be restricted when the secretary of state has reason to believe they pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

While the administration has abandoned deportation efforts against some of the targeted individuals, at least two, Mahmoud Khalil and Badar Khan Suri, continue to face expulsion.

More recently, the administration has terminated the immigration visas for at least seven individuals with familial ties to the Iranian government or individuals connected to the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Already, some figures in Latin America have seen their visas revoked over political disagreements with the US.

In July, Brazilian officials involved in the prosecution of former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro saw their US visas withdrawn. They included Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, a frequent target of right-wing ire.

Then, in September, the Trump administration stripped Colombian President Gustavo Petro of his visa after he made an appearance at the UN General Assembly that was critical of US policy.

The State Department, at the time, denounced Petro for “reckless and incendiary actions”. He was later invited to visit the White House in February, as part of a detente with Trump.

Visa restrictions have been part of Trump’s larger policy to exert pressure on foreign groups and limit immigration into the US.

Earlier this year, the administration enacted immigrant visa bans on dozens of countries, citing both national security and alleged stresses on social services.

Trump has also sought to take a more militaristic approach towards Latin American governments it deems as adversarial, referring to the whole of the Western Hemisphere as the US’s “neighbourhood”.

In January, the US launched an attack on Venezuela that culminated in the abduction and imprisonment of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, and it has also initiated an ongoing fuel blockade against Cuba.

Some of Trump’s actions in the region have been deadly. The Venezuela attack left dozens of Cubans and Venezuelans killed. And since September, the Trump administration has conducted at least 51 lethal strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea.

The death toll in that campaign has reached at least 177 people. Rights groups have decried the attacks as extrajudicial killings.

But the Trump administration has labelled multiple drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organisations” and has argued they are seeking to destabilise the US through the drug trade.

NEW ORLEANS — The French government is pressing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to release the 86-year-old French widow of a military veteran from immigration custody after she was detained this month.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents detained Marie-Therese Ross in Alabama on April 1 after she overstayed her 90-day visa, according to Homeland Security. Ross is now held at a federal immigration detention facility in Louisiana.

She is among the thousands of people targeted by the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda that has led to the detentions of the spouses of U.S. troops and military veterans who previously received greater leniency under scrapped policies.

Rodolphe Sambou, the consul general of France in New Orleans, told the AP that the French government has “fully mobilized” to push for her release. He said he has visited her in detention twice so far.

“Given her age, we really want her to get out of this situation as soon as possible,” Sambou said. “We want to get her out of jail.”

Sambou said that he has been communicating frequently with Ross’ family and French officials in Washington, Atlanta and Paris to try and coordinate Ross’ release and ensure she has access to sufficient food and healthcare. He said the French government has also contacted Homeland Security.

He declined to comment on her legal status or other details of her case.

Ross married Alabama resident William Ross last April, Calhoun County marriage records show. Ross died in January, according to an obituary from his family, which says he was a former captain in the U.S. Army.

A lawyer who is representing Ross in a separate legal matter did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Ross’ family did not respond to requests for comment.

Brook writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Samuel Petrequin in France contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — It was hard to miss President Trump’s very public spat with Pope Leo XIV this week.

The split was the first time in modern memory that an American president has so openly badmouthed a sitting pontiff, or, for that matter, distributed an image depicting himself as Jesus Christ. Critics cried “blasphemy!” even as supporters continued to stand behind the man whose presidency, some argue, was God sent.

Students of American history will recall an earlier incident that pitted papal and presidential authority against each other. The concern: that a president would align himself too closely to the church, or even take orders from the pope.

That anxiety seeped into the 1960 presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy, whose eventual victory would make him the first Catholic president.

Back then, Kennedy was constantly fending off accusations from Protestant ecclesiastic types who were wary that his nomination meant the pontiff, John XXIII, was already packing his bags for a move into the White House.

President John F. Kennedy meets with Pope Paul VI at the Vatican in July 1963, one month after Paul succeeded John XXIII as pontiff.

(Bettmann Archive / Getty Images)

The issue was so pronounced that 150 clergymen and laypeople formed Citizens for Religious Freedom, which in a pamphlet warned, “It is inconceivable to us that a Roman Catholic President would not be under extreme pressure by the hierarchy of his church to accede to its policies and demands.”

One particularly loud voice among the ministers was the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale, a popular and influential pastor and author. Peale was especially disturbed by Kennedy’s prospects.

“Our American culture is at stake,” he said at a meeting of the ministers. “I don’t say it won’t survive, but it won’t be what it was.”

The group asked Kennedy to “drop by Houston” to make clear his views on faith and government. He agreed, making a televised speech at the Rice Hotel, where he famously spelled out his firm opinions on the separation of church and state.

“I am not the Catholic candidate for president,” Kennedy told the group. “I am the Democratic Party’s nominee for president who happens to be Catholic.”

Time magazine reflected on the address some years later, concluding that the speech had gone so well for Kennedy “that many felt the dramatic moment was an important part of his victory.”

Since then, modern presidents have occasionally found themselves at odds with the Vatican. Typically Republican presidents would hear from the pope about foreign wars, while Democratic presidents were derided over abortion policies.

But such disagreements tended to be handled with the decorous language of diplomacy.

President George W. Bush presents Pope John Paul II with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in Rome on June 4 , 2004. The pope reminded Bush of the Vatican’s opposition to the war in Iraq. Bush praised him as a “devoted servant of God.”

(Eric Vandeville/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)

Then came Trump, who is now being accused of openly mocking the Catholic faith and the 1st Amendment. He called Leo weak on crime and foreign policy, among other things. A self-described nondenominational Christian who says his favorite book is the Bible, Trump’s hasn’t shied from bashing the pontiff, nor has he hesitated to blur the line separating church and state.

Where Kennedy argued for an absolute separation, Trump has advanced a model of religious resurgence, promising “pews will be fuller, younger and more faithful than they have been in years.” Through initiatives including the “America Prays” program launched last year, the White House has sought to bring “bring back God” by inviting millions of Americans to prayer sessions. The webpage for the program focuses features only Christian Scripture.

“From the earliest days of the republic, faith in God has been the ultimate source of the nation’s strength,” Trump said at a National Prayer Breakfast in February.

President Trump, then-Vice President Mike Pence and faith leaders say a prayer during the signing of a proclamation in the Oval Office on Sept. 1, 2017. .

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

In the United States, the Catholic Church historically has “loved the 1st Amendment” and its guarantee of religious liberty and, as a result, largely kept some distance from government, according to Tom Reese, a Jesuit priest and religious commentator. After its failures attempting to influence monarchs and politicians in Europe, the Catholic Church “didn’t want the government interfering with them and knew that it wasn’t their right to interfere with the government,” Reese said.

Kennedy loved the 1st Amendment too. He put it above his own religious beliefs, and said as much on his way to the White House.

“I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the 1st Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty,” he said. “Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so.”

Pope Leo XIV meets with members of the community in Algiers at the Basilica of Our Lady of Africa on April 13, 2026.

(Vatican Pool via Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Tuesday asked a federal appeals court to throw out the seditious conspiracy convictions of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders who were sentenced to prison terms for leading members of the far-right extremist groups in attacking the U.S. Capitol to keep President Trump in the White House more than five years ago.

Trump commuted the prison sentences of several Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders in January 2025 in a sweeping act of clemency for all 1,500-plus defendants charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack.

The request by the Justice Department would go a step further and erase the convictions for the extremist group leaders, including Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes.

In court filings, prosecutors asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate the convictions so that the government can permanently dismiss the indictments.

“The government’s motion to vacate in this case is consistent with its practice of moving the Supreme Court to vacate convictions in cases where the government has decided in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of a criminal case is in the interests of justice — motions that the Supreme Court routinely grants,” prosecutors wrote in a court filing signed by U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro.

Juries in Washington convicted the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders of orchestrating violent plots to stop the peaceful transfer of power after Trump’s 2020 election loss to Democratic President Biden.

Kunzelman and Richer write for the Associated Press.

At least nine people have been arrested following the stampede, including police officers and ministry employees.

Haiti has begun three days of national mourning, following a deadly stampede at the Citadelle Laferriere in the northern part of the country.

At least 25 people were killed in the crush that formed at the entrance of the popular tourist site on Saturday, with some visitors pressing to exit while others pushed to enter.

On Tuesday, the Ministry of Culture and Communication announced that two government officials were fired in the aftermath of the stampede.

One, a director with the Institute for the Preservation of National Heritage, was accused of “serious negligence”. The other, who served in the Ministry of Culture and Communication, was criticised for “biased passivity”.

“The Ministry of Culture and Communication, without going into the details of the criminal investigation, believes that the tragedy at La Citadelle is the result of administrative negligence,” it said in a statement.

The government, it added, “will fully assume its responsibilities”, as the event “must outrage the public conscience”.

The tragedy marks one of several crises the Haitian government is facing as it approaches its first round of general elections later this year.

Already, nine suspects have been arrested in connection with the deadly stampede, including five police officers and two employees from the Institute for the Preservation of National Heritage.

The crush of people took place as a local DJ held an event at the citadel, a 19th-century fortress commissioned after the Haitian Revolution, when Haiti’s enslaved population overthrew French colonial rule.

Since its construction, the citadel has become a symbol of Haitian sovereignty.

But the stampede on Saturday was exacerbated by stormy weather conditions, as rain pummelled northern Haiti and participants at the event ran for cover.

Elsewhere in the country, approximately 12 people died due to the heavy downpours, and at least 900 homes and one hospital have been flooded.

The Haitian government has also been grappling with the threat of gang violence, particularly since the assassination of then-President Jovenel Moise in 2021.

His death left a power vacuum in the government that criminal networks have sought to exploit. Federal elections have been repeatedly postponed for much of the last decade.

Earlier this month, a United Nations-backed Gang Suppression Force began to arrive in the country to help address the violence.

From March 2025 through mid-January of this year, the UN has counted at least 5,519 gang-related deaths in Haiti. Roughly 16,000 people have been killed since 2022, and more than 1.5 million have been displaced.

Authorities called for more aid on Tuesday, as the violence continued. In the Marigot commune, seven people were killed and a police station was burned in an overnight gang attack.

Marigot Mayor Rene Danneau described the victims as informants who helped the police. He called on Haiti’s government to step in.

“We are asking the prime minister to take all necessary measures,” he told Radio Television Caraibes.