hold

ORLANDO, Fla. — The next U.S. census is four years away, but two lawsuits playing out this year could affect how it will be done and who will be counted.

Allies of President Trump are behind the federal lawsuits challenging various aspects of the once-a-decade count by the U.S. Census Bureau, which is used to determine congressional representation and how much federal aid flows to the states.

The challenges align with parts of Trump’s agenda even as the Republican administration must defend the agency in court.

A Democratic law firm is representing efforts to intervene in both cases because of concerns over whether the U.S. Justice Department will defend the bureau vigorously. There have been no indications so far that government attorneys are doing otherwise, and department lawyers have asked that one of the cases be dismissed.

As the challenges work their way through the courts, the Census Bureau is pushing ahead with its planning for the 2030 count and intends to conduct practice runs in six locations this year.

The legal challenges

America First Legal, co-founded by Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, is leading one of the lawsuits, filed in Florida. It contests methods the bureau has used to protect participants’ privacy and to ensure that people in group-living facilities such as dorms and nursing homes will be counted.

The lawsuit’s intent is to prevent those methods from being used in the 2030 census and to have 2020 figures revised.

“This case is about stopping illegal methods that undermine equal representation and ensuring the next census complies with the Constitution,” Gene Hamilton, president of America First Legal, said in a statement.

The other lawsuit was filed in federal court in Louisiana by four Republican state attorneys general and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which opposes illegal immigration and supports reduced legal immigration. The lawsuit seeks to exclude people who are in the United States illegally from being counted in the numbers for redrawing congressional districts.

In both cases, outside groups represented by the Democratic-aligned Elias Law Group have sought to intervene over concerns that the Justice Department would reach friendly settlements with the challengers.

In the Florida case, a judge allowed a retirees’ association and two university students to join the defense as intervenors. Justice Department lawyers have asked that the case be dismissed.

In the Louisiana lawsuit, government lawyers said three League of Women Voters chapters and Santa Clara County in California had not shown any proof that department attorneys would do anything other than robustly defend the Census Bureau. A judge has yet to rule on their request to join the case.

A spokesman for the Elias Law Group, Blake McCarren, referred in an email to its motion to dismiss the Florida case, warning of “a needlessly chaotic and disruptive effect upon the electoral process” if the conservative legal group were to prevail and all 50 states had to redraw their political districts.

Aligning with Trump’s agenda

The goals of the lawsuits, particularly the Louisiana case, align with core parts of Trump’s agenda, although the 2030 census will be conducted under a different president because his second term will end in January 2029.

During his first term, for the 2020 census, Trump tried to prevent those who are in the U.S. illegally from being used in the apportionment numbers, which determine how many congressional representatives and Electoral College votes each state receives. He also sought to have citizenship data collected through administrative records.

A Republican redistricting expert had written that using only the citizen voting-age population, rather than the total population, for the purpose of redrawing congressional and state legislative districts could be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.

Both Trump orders were rescinded when Democratic President Biden arrived at the White House in January 2021, before the 2020 census figures were released by the Census Bureau. The first Trump administration also attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire, a move that was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In August, Trump instructed the U.S. Commerce Department to change the way the Census Bureau collects data, seeking to exclude immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. Neither officials at the White House nor the Commerce Department, which oversees the Census Bureau, explained what actions were being taken in response to the president’s social media post.

Congressional Republicans have introduced legislation to exclude noncitizens from the apportionment process. That could shrink the head count in both red and blue states because the states with the most people in the U.S. illegally include California, Texas, Florida and New York, according to the Pew Research Center.

The Constitution’s 14th Amendment says “the whole number of persons in each state” should be counted for the numbers used for apportionment. The numbers also guide the distribution of $2.8 trillion in federal dollars to the states for roads, healthcare and other programs.

Defending the Census Bureau

The Louisiana lawsuit was filed at the end of the Biden administration and put on hold in March at the request of the Commerce Department. Justice Department lawyers representing the Cabinet agency said they needed time to consider the position of the new leadership in the second Trump administration. The state attorneys general in December asked for that hold to be lifted.

So far, in the court record, there is nothing to suggest that those government attorneys have done anything to undermine the Census Bureau’s defense in both cases, despite the intervenors’ concerns.

In the Louisiana case, Justice Department lawyers argued against lifting the hold, saying the Census Bureau was in the middle of planning for the 2030 census: “At this stage of such preparations, lifting the stay is not appropriate.”

Schneider writes for the Associated Press.

A fundraiser aimed at keeping Mickey Rourke housed has hit the brakes temporarily after the Oscar-nominated actor rejected more than $100,000 from fans and supporters earlier this week.

On Thursday, the GoFundMe page had a “donations paused” tag on it while Kimberly Hines, Rourke’s manager of nine years, addressed the situation in an update.

“Thank you so much for your generosity and for standing with Mickey during this time,” she wrote. “Your support truly means a great deal to us, and we are grateful for every donation. We remain committed to finding a resolution and are working with Mickey to determine the next steps.”

Rourke, 73, said in a video posted Monday that he didn’t know who set up the campaign. The effort, ostensibly aimed at keeping Rourke in his home when he faced eviction because of nearly $60,000 in unpaid rent, was set up Sunday by members of his management team and raised more than its $100,000 goal by Tuesday morning. Dozens of the more than 2,700 people who donated also posted messages about how much the actor’s films had meant to them over the years.

“I wouldn’t know what a GoFund foundation is in a million years,” said Rourke, who was a leading man in the 1980s with movies including “Barfly” and “Angel Heart” and was Oscar-nominated for his work in 2008’s “The Wrestler.” “My life is very simple and I don’t go to outside sources like that.”

He said later in the video that he “would never ask strangers or fans for a nickel. That’s not my style. You ask anyone who knows me. It’s humiliating and it’s really f— embarrassing.”

Rourke said that he wound up in “a really bad situation” with the house he had been renting for years in Beverly Grove. New owners bought the place, wouldn’t fix anything, he said, and raised the rent to $7,000 a month from $5,200. He alleged that the floors were rotted, there was no running water in a couple of places there should have been and the place was infested with rodents.

Rourke was served with notice of eviction in December, with the landlords also looking to recapture $59,100 in unpaid rent for 2025. Ricardo Villalobos, the attorney representing owner Eric Goldie in the eviction case, did not reply to The Times’ request for comment about Rourke’s allegations. The eviction paperwork, reviewed by The Times, was filed Dec. 29.

Hines did not respond to The Times’ request for comment but spoke with the Hollywood Reporter on Tuesday, telling the trade that it wasn’t true that Rourke didn’t know the origins of the fundraiser. She validated some of the things he said about the condition of the property and added a few details of her own. In her GoFundMe update Thursday, she included a link where donors who wanted a refund could submit a claim. The fundraiser lists Hines as the beneficiary.

She told the trade outlet that she and her assistant ran the fundraiser idea past Rourke’s assistant and everyone thought it might be helpful. Hines and her assistant arranged for movers and a U-Haul to help Rourke, got the “Iron Man 2” villain and his three dogs out and into a nearby hotel and secured an apartment for him to move into soon in Koreatown, she said, before his landlords were to change the locks that day on what she called an “uninhabitable” house.

“Nobody’s trying to grift Mickey. I want him working. I don’t want him doing a GoFundMe,” said Hines, who fronted the money Rourke needed in an “emergency” situation. “The good thing about this is that he got four movie offers since yesterday. People are emailing him movie offers now, which is great because nobody’s been calling him for a long time.”

The actor “doesn’t know the word moderation,” she told THR. “So he either has a lot or has nothing. He lives check to check.” Hines said it was time for a reality check with her client about living within his means off Social Security and income from any work that might come his way.

In his video, Rourke took some responsibility for his situation.

“Listen, I’ve done a really terrible job in managing my career. I wasn’t very diplomatic. I had to go to over 20 years of therapy to get over the damage that was done to me years ago, and I worked very hard to get through that,” the “9½ Weeks” star said. “I’m not that person anymore.”

After telling supporters they should get their money back, he added, “Like all storms, this’ll pass, and I’ll go to work and things will get back to whatever normal is.” Until then, don’t worry about him, he said, because he’s grateful for what he has.

“I’ve got a roof over my head, I’ve got food to eat. … I don’t need anybody’s money, and I wouldn’t do it this way. I’ve got too much pride. This ain’t my style.”

The total amount pledged to the fundraiser had dropped from more than $100,000 earlier this week to a little less than $97,000 Thursday after it was paused. Late Wednesday, Rourke’s Instagram page reposted a World Boxing News story summing up the reason for the pause.

Calls for new elections in Venezuela often assume the existence of basic democratic conditions. In reality, those conditions do not exist. Venezuela cannot hold credible, free, or fair elections today because the country lacks the most fundamental prerequisite of democracy: the rule of law. Without a restoration of institutional independence and a genuine separation of powers, elections would serve only to legitimize an authoritarian system rather than offer Venezuelans a real choice.

Although Venezuela formally maintains the appearance of a constitutional democracy—with a constitution, courts, and a National Assembly—real power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of individuals aligned with the ruling party. Institutions that should act as checks on executive authority instead function as extensions of it.

A clear example is the swearing in of the interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, done by her brother, Jorge Rodríguez, who is the president of the National Assembly.

This concentration of power is not accidental. Over many years, first under Hugo Chávez and later under Nicolás Maduro, the government systematically dismantled institutional independence. A majority of judges were replaced with loyalists, transforming the judiciary into a political tool rather than an impartial arbiter of the law. As a result, courts no longer protect constitutional rights or limit executive overreach; they enforce political decisions.

The definitive rupture of constitutional order occurred after Venezuelans elected an opposition-majority National Assembly in 2015 (following the 2014–2015 political cycle). This democratic outcome represented a clear mandate to challenge executive power, oversee government actions, and restore institutional balance.

After the elections held in July of 2024, despite clear and convincing evidence that the opposition had won, not one Venezuelan institution recognized the result and instead awarded the presidency to Maduro once again.

Rather than accept this result, the Maduro government moved to neutralize the Assembly. Through rulings issued by a politically controlled Supreme Court, the Assembly was declared in contempt, its powers were stripped, and its legislative authority rendered meaningless. To fully sideline the opposition-controlled legislature, the government went further by creating a so-called “Constituent Assembly,” purportedly to reform the constitution. This body was neither elected under fair conditions nor authorized through a legitimate democratic process. Instead, it functioned as a parallel legislature designed to replace the National Assembly altogether. This marked the end of any meaningful separation of powers in Venezuela.

From that point on, Venezuela ceased to operate under its own constitutional framework. There has been no genuine transfer of power, no institutional accountability, and no respect for electoral outcomes that challenge the ruling group’s control.

In this context, calling for new elections without first restoring the rule of law is fundamentally flawed. Elections held under a system where courts, electoral authorities, security forces, and media are controlled by one political faction cannot be free or fair. They do not reflect the will of the people; they merely reproduce the existing power structure.

True elections require an independent judiciary; a neutral and credible electoral authority; respect for the separation of powers; and guarantees of political rights, free speech, and fair competition. None of these conditions currently exist in Venezuela. After the elections held in July of 2024, despite clear and convincing evidence that the opposition had won, not one Venezuelan institution recognized the result and instead awarded the presidency to Maduro once again.

Depolitize the guys with guns

For Venezuela, the path forward is not immediate elections, but a democratic transition. Such a transition must focus first on restoring the rule of law, reestablishing independent institutions, and guaranteeing basic political freedoms. More importantly, making sure that the nation’s security forces are once again impartial and can align with the mandate granted by the people.  

The Venezuelan armed forces have become one of the most decisive instruments of authoritarian control. Far from acting as a neutral guarantor of constitutional order, they operate as an extension of the ruling party. This loyalty is maintained through a combination of political patronage, economic privileges, and legal impunity, ensuring that the military remains aligned with the regime rather than the nation.

Can Venezuela simply declare that everything passed over the last ten years never existed? While morally appealing, such an approach would be legally and practically unworkable.

For any genuine democratic transition to succeed, this dynamic must change. The armed forces must be depoliticized and restored to their constitutional role: defending the sovereignty of the country, not a political faction. Their impartiality is essential to guarantee that electoral outcomes are respected and that citizens can exercise their rights without fear of coercion or intimidation. Without this shift, even well-designed electoral reforms risk collapse under the weight of military interference.

Without this transition, elections risk becoming another instrument of authoritarian control. With it, they can become the foundation for rebuilding Venezuela’s democracy. Only then can elections serve their true purpose: allowing Venezuelans to decide their future freely and without coercion.

The problem of legal continuity

If the diagnosis is clear—that Venezuela cannot hold credible elections under current conditions—the path forward is far less certain. The country faces a fundamental and unavoidable question: how does a society undo more than a decade of institutional erosion without creating legal chaos or collective paralysis?

One of the most difficult challenges of a democratic transition is determining what to do with the body of laws, decrees, and decisions enacted under an illegitimate system. Can Venezuela simply declare that everything passed over the last ten years never existed? While morally appealing, such an approach would be legally and practically unworkable.

Millions of Venezuelans have lived, worked, signed contracts, owned property, and made daily decisions under this framework. Entire economic and social relationships—even distorted ones—have been shaped by these rules. Declaring all of them null and void overnight would risk replacing authoritarianism with legal uncertainty.

A transition must therefore strike a careful balance: recognizing legal reality without legitimizing the system that produced it.

This dilemma is especially acute when it comes to contracts issued by the regime. Some were instruments of corruption or political patronage; others were ordinary commercial or administrative acts necessary for the country to function.

Above all, a transitional process will require political restraint: a recognition that the goal is not to replace one concentration of power with another, but to restore limits on power itself.

Take Chevron for example. Their current operations in the country are legally questionable; many lawyers in the country will tell you that the legal framework under which they are operating has no legal foundation. This will probably make it difficult for other oil companies to go into the country and invest until there is a clear legal framework that they can trust.

A future democratic government will need a principled framework to distinguish between contracts that are inherently illegitimate due to corruption, coercion, or constitutional violations; and contracts that, while issued under an authoritarian regime, involve good-faith third parties and essential services.

This is not a problem unique to Venezuela, but it requires transparent mechanisms—such as independent review bodies or transitional courts—to prevent arbitrariness while restoring public trust.

The constitutional question

Another central issue is whether Venezuela should return to a prior constitutional framework as a foundation for democratic restoration. Some argue that the 1999 Constitution—despite its flaws—remains the last broadly legitimate constitutional document approved by popular vote and could serve as a starting point.

If so, the question becomes procedural: how does the country re-legitimize institutions that still formally exist but have lost all independence?

One possible path is a general referendum authorizing a limited, clearly defined transitional process. Such a referendum could enable the appointment of a new, independent National Electoral Council; establish a transparent mechanism to select new Supreme Court justices; and define the temporary scope and duration of transitional authorities.

This would allow change to occur within an explicit democratic mandate, rather than through ad hoc or purely political decisions.

Importantly, Venezuela does not lack institutions on paper. Courts, electoral bodies, ministries, and legislative frameworks already exist. The challenge is not rebuilding the state from scratch, but cleaning and depoliticizing institutions so they can function independently.

That process will require clear legal standards for independence and accountability. International technical support and observation would help to prevent permanent transitional arrangements by enforcing time-bound mandates. Above all, it will require political restraint: a recognition that the goal is not to replace one concentration of power with another, but to restore limits on power itself.

There are no simple solutions. Any transition will involve compromises, uncertainty, and difficult decisions. But postponing these questions—or pretending elections alone can resolve them—only delays Venezuela’s recovery.

The task ahead is not merely electoral. It is constitutional, institutional, and moral. Reestablishing democratic rule of law will require confronting the past honestly, managing the present responsibly, and designing a future in which no individual or group can again place itself above the law.

The shots had stopped falling. The tension had started rising. Fresh off its worst loss of the Lindsay Gottlieb era, USC had, for the better part of three quarters, looked well on its way to a get-right win Tuesday, the sort that might help ease the embarrassment from a 34-point loss to bitter rival UCLA.

But over the course of the fourth quarter, as Oregon clawed its way back, the Trojans tightened up. The offense looked out of sorts. The defense looked out of breath. No. 21 USC (10-5, 2-2 in the Big Ten) missed its first eight shots of the quarter, just as Oregon (14-3, 2-2) exploded on that end, its worst fears coming to life out of the loss.

Over four minutes and 46 painful seconds, the Trojans went scoreless, unable to do much of anything but watch as Oregon stole a 71-66 victory Tuesday.

The loss was USC’s second in a row, marking the first time since January 2024 that the Trojans suffered consecutive defeats.

Even as Oregon mounted a late run, USC had its chances to shoot its way back into the game. Londynn Jones hit a three-pointer, and freshman Jazzy Davidson made a jumper, her only bucket of the second half, to give the Trojans a nine-point lead with just under five minutes remaining.

But those were the last two buckets USC would score. Oregon’s Ari Long hit a three-pointer, then drained another on the next possession. The Galen Center crowd groaned, seemingly knowing what was coming next.

With 32 seconds remaining, Oregon called a timeout. The Ducks found Long again coming out of the break, and she sank a third three-pointer, this one costly.

Kara Dunn did what she could to keep USC afloat, scoring 21 points and adding nine rebounds. Davidson struggled to find her shooting stroke, but still filled the stat sheet with 13 rebounds, five assists, two blocks and two steals to go with 14 points.

Jones even gave USC critical contributions throughout, as the Trojans were forced to play without sophomore Kennedy Smith, their best defender who has a leg injury, according to the team.

She was missed Tuesday, especially down the stretch, as Long torched the Trojans for nine of her 11 points in the final minutes.

Where USC goes from here remains to be seen, but the schedule doesn’t get any easier, with four more matchups against ranked teams before January is up.

It took nearly four minutes for USC to find the basket to start the game, its offense picking up right where it left off Saturday in its sluggish loss to UCLA. The Trojans missed nine of their first 10 shots, unable to find any semblance of a rhythm.

Then finally, Malia Samuels hit a corner three. Jones sank a three-pointer of her own. Then Dunn got in the party.

USC exhaled — and proceeded to finish the first quarter on a 16-0 run.

The defense did most of the heavy lifting from there, holding Oregon at arm’s length until the fourth quarter, when the Ducks flew out in front, dealing the Trojans another loss.

Published on
05/01/2026 – 17:33 GMT+1

It’s another crucial week for the contentious Mercosur deal. European Union agriculture ministers will meet on Wednesday for key political talks that could lead to a vote on the agreement on Friday.

An EU diplomat told Euronews that the meeting, which is being organised by the European Commission, will be attended by EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen, and Commissioner for Health and Animal Welfare Olivér Várhelyi.

Together, they are expected to give “clarifications” on the continued support for farmers’ income in the next budget of the Common Agricultural Policy.

The deal, which aims to create a free-trade area with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, was at the centre of heated discussions at December’s EU summit.

Its supporters – lead by Germany and Spain – have been pushing for a quick endorsement in order to access new markets at a time of geoeconomic tensions, while Italy and France succeeded in postponing a crucial vote in order to protect their farmers, who fear they will be unable to compete with imports coming from Latin America.

Depending on the outcome of this week’s talks, the EU farm ministers’ meeting could open the door to a vote on the Mercosur agreement on Friday. To be implemented, the deal needs the backing of a qualified majority of EU member states.

Decision day looms again

Among the items on Wednesday’s agenda will be limits on pesticides that can be contained in products imported into the EU, with France demanding that the deal include reciprocity in production standards.

France has been facing an agricultural crisis for several weeks, with farmers protesting against both the Mercosur agreement and the government’s handling of lumpy skin disease, a contagious virus affecting cattle.

In a letter sent on Sunday, French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu called on the EU to tighten border controls on products that do not respect EU sanitary and phytosanitary standards.

The French government also announced it would issue an order to suspend imports from Latin America containing residues of pesticides banned in the EU.

That measure, however, would require clearance from the European Commission. Pressure from Paris has already led the Commission to propose a safeguard to strengthen the monitoring of the European market to avoid unexpected disruptions.

That legislation was the subject of a deal between the European Parliament and the EU Council, and is expected to be endorsed by the 27 member states on Friday during a meeting of EU ambassadors.

Danila Yurov scored twice, Quinn Hughes had four assists and the Minnesota Wild beat the Ducks 5-2 on Friday night.

Kirill Kaprizov, Yakov Trenin and Nico Sturm also scored for the Wild, who earned a point for the fifth straight game (3-0-2). Filip Gustavsson stopped 26 shots.

Minnesota is 22-4-4 in its last 30 games, and 8-1-2 since acquiring Hughes, the 2024 Norris Trophy winner, in a blockbuster with Vancouver on Dec. 12.

Beckett Sennecke and Troy Terry scored for the Ducks, who have lost five straight and nine of 11. Lukas Dostal made 29 saves, including 17 in the second period.

Yurov put the game out of reach when he redirected Hughes’ shot past Dostal for a 4-1 lead 3:21 into the third. Sturm’s shot from the left circle made it 5-1 with 4:58 left.

Dostal made eight saves during a pair of penalty kills in the first seven minutes of the second, but he caught an unlucky break when the Wild scored on a double-deflection to take a 2-0 lead at the 8:10 mark.

Hughes, one of eight Minnesota players named to Winter Olympic teams Friday, sent a shot from the blue line that hit Trenin’s stick and Yurov’s right skate before trickling into the net.

The Ducks grabbed some momentum when Mason McTavish’s faceoff swipe from the left circle landed on the stick of Sennecke, whose snap shot beat Gustavsson stick-side to cut the lead to 2-1. Sennecke leads NHL rookies with 13 goals.

But Minnesota pushed it to 3-1 with 5:15 left in the second when Trenin took a pass from Hughes in the right circle and rifled a shot past Dostal.

Minnesota took advantage of Alex Killorn’s tripping penalty, needing only nine seconds to score on the power play for a 1-0 lead 5:39 into the first. Dostal blocked Hughes’ slap shot from the point, but Kaprizov banged a shot past Dostal after a scramble in front of the net for his 24th goal.

Up next for the Ducks: at Washington on Monday night.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reached the end of his latest trip to the United States and appears to have gained what he wants from President Donald Trump.

Trump hailed Netanyahu after their meeting on Monday, calling him a “hero” and saying Israel – and by extension its prime minister – had “lived up to the plan 100 percent” in reference to the US president’s signature Gaza ceasefire.

That is despite reports emerging last week that US officials were growing frustrated over Netanyahu’s apparent “slow walking” of the 20-point ceasefire plan – imposed by the US administration in October – suspecting that the Israeli prime minister might be hoping to keep the door open to resuming hostilities against the Palestinian group Hamas at a time of his choosing.

Under the terms of that agreement – after the exchange of all captives held in Gaza, living and dead, aid deliveries into the enclave and the freezing of all front lines – Gaza would move towards phase two, which includes negotiations on establishing a technocratic “board of peace” to administer the enclave and the deployment of an international security force to safeguard it.

So far, Netanyahu has not allowed in all of the required aid that Gaza desperately needs and is also maintaining that phase two cannot be entered into until Hamas returns the body of the last remaining captive. He has also demanded that Hamas disarms before Israel withdraws its forces, a suggestion fully endorsed by Trump after Monday’s meeting.

Hamas has repeatedly rejected disarmament being forced upon it by Israel, and officials have said that the question of arms was an internal Palestinian matter to be discussed between Palestinian factions.

So is Netanyahu deliberately trying to avoid entering the second phase of the agreement, and why would that be the case?

Here are four reasons why Netanyahu might be happy with things just as they are:

He’s under pressure from his right

Netanyahu’s ruling coalition is, by any metric, the most right wing in the country’s history. Throughout the war on Gaza, the support of Israel’s hardliners has proven vital in shepherding the prime minister’s coalition through periods of intense domestic protest and international criticism.

Now, many on the right, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, oppose the ceasefire, protesting against the release of Palestinian prisoners and insisting that Gaza be occupied.

Netanyahu’s defence minister, Israel Katz, has also shown little enthusiasm for honouring the deal his country committed to in October. Speaking at a ceremony to mark the expansion of the latest of Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, Katz claimed that Israel’s forces would remain in Gaza, eventually clearing the way for further settlements.

Katz later walked his comments back, reportedly after coming under pressure from the US.

He doesn’t want an international force in Gaza

Allowing an international force to deploy to Gaza would limit Israel’s operational freedom, constraining its military’s ability to re-enter Gaza, conduct targeted strikes or pursue Hamas remnants within the enclave.

So far, despite the ceasefire, Israeli forces have killed more than 400 people in the enclave since agreeing to halt fighting on October 10.

Politically, agreeing to an international stabilisation force, particularly one drawn from neighbouring states, would broaden what Israel has often seen as a domestic war into an international conflict with many of the strategic, diplomatic and political decisions over that conflict being made by actors outside of its control.

It could also be framed domestically as a concession forced by the US and international community, undermining Netanyahu’s repeated claims of maintaining Israeli sovereignty and strategic independence.

“If Netanyahu allows a foreign military force into Gaza, he immediately denies himself a large degree of his freedom to operate,” Israeli political analyst Nimrod Flaschenberg said from Berlin. “Ideally, he needs things to remain exactly where they are but without alienating Trump.”

He wants to resist any progress towards a two-state solution

While not explicitly mentioning a two-state solution, the ceasefire agreement does include provisions under which Israel and the Palestinians commit to a dialogue towards what it frames as a “political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence”.

Netanyahu, however, has been arguing against a two-state solution since at least 2015 when he campaigned on the issue.

More recently, at the United Nations in September, he branded the decision to recognise a Palestinian state “insane” and claimed that Israel would not accept the establishment of a Palestinian homeland.

Israeli ministers have also been at work ensuring that the two-state solution remains a practical impossibility. Israel’s plan to establish a series of new settlements severing occupied East Jerusalem – long considered the future capital of any Palestinian state – from the West Bank would make the establishment of a feasible state impossible.

This isn’t just an unfortunate consequence of geography. Announcing the plans for the new settlements in August, Smotrich said the project would “bury the idea of a Palestinian state”.

A resumption of war would benefit him

Netanyahu faces numerous domestic threats, from his own corruption trial to the potentially explosive issue of forcing conscription on Israel’s ultra-religious students. There is also the public reckoning he faces for his own failures before and during the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, all of which will fall within a critical election year for the prime minister.

Each of these challenges risks fracturing his coalition and weakening his hold on power. All of them, however, could be derailed – or at least politically blurred – by a new conflict either with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon or possibly even with Iran.

Renewed fighting would allow him to once more present himself as a wartime leader, limit criticism and rally both his allies and adversaries around the well-worn flag of “national emergency”.

WASHINGTON — Standing alongside President Trump at his Palm Beach estate, Volodymyr Zelensky could only smirk and grimace without overtly offending his host. “Russia wants to see Ukraine succeed,” Trump told reporters, shocking the Ukrainian president before claiming that Vladimir Putin is genuine in his desire for peace.

It was just the latest example of the American president sympathizing with Moscow in its war of conquest in Europe. Yet Zelensky emerged from the meeting Sunday ensuring once again that Ukraine may fight another day, maintaining critical if uneasy support from Washington.

Few signs of progress toward a peace agreement materialized from the meeting at Mar-a-Lago, where Zelensky traveled with significant compromises — including a plan to put territorial concessions to Russia before the Ukrainian people for a vote — in order to appease the U.S. president.

But Zelensky won concessions of his own from Trump, who had for weeks been pushing for a ceasefire by Christmas, or else threatening to cut off Ukraine from U.S. intelligence that would leave Kyiv blind on the battlefield. “I don’t have deadlines,” Trump said Sunday.

Over the course of Trump’s first year in office, Zelensky and other European leaders have repeatedly worked to convince Trump that Russia’s President Putin is, in fact, an aggressor opposed to peace, responsible for an unprovoked invasion that launched the deadliest conflict in Europe since the Second World War.

Each time, Trump has come around, even going as far over the summer as to question whether Ukraine could win back the territories it has lost on the battlefield to Russia — and vowing to North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, “we’re with them all they way.”

Yet, each time, Trump has changed course within a matter of days or weeks, reverting to an embrace of Putin and Russia’s worldview, including a proposal that Ukraine preemptively cede sovereign territories that Russia has sought but failed to occupy by force.

Zelensky’s willingness to offer concessions in his latest meeting with Trump has, at least temporarily, “managed to keep President Trump from tilting further towards the Russian position,” said Kyle Balzer, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “But Trump’s position — his repeated insistence that a deal is necessary now because time is not on Ukraine’s side — continues to favor Putin’s line and negotiating tactics.”

U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Putin’s revanchist war aims — to conquer all of Ukraine and, beyond, to reclaim parts of Europe that once were part of the Soviet empire — remain unchanged.

Yet Trump’s director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, whose own sympathies toward Russia have been scrutinized for years, recently dismissed the assessments as products of “deep state” “warmongers” within the intelligence community.

On Monday, hours after speaking with Trump, Putin ordered the Russian military to push toward Zaporizhzhia, a city of 700,000 before the war began. The city lies far outside the Donbas region that Moscow claims would satisfy its war aims in a negotiated settlement.

“Trump’s instincts are to favor Putin and Russia,” said Brian Taylor, director of the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs at Syracuse University. “Ukraine and its European partners still hope to convince Trump of the obvious fact that Putin is not interested in a deal that doesn’t amount to a Ukrainian surrender.

“If Trump was convinced of Putin’s intransigence, he might further tighten sanctions on Russia and provide more assistance to Ukraine to try to pressure Putin into a deal,” Taylor added. “It’s an uphill battle, one might even say Sisyphean, but Zelensky and European leaders have to keep trying. So far, nearly a year into Trump’s second term, it’s been worth it.”

On Monday, Moscow claims that Ukraine orchestrated a massive drone attack targeting Putin’s residence that would force it to reconsider its stance in negotiations. Kyiv denied an attack took place.

“Given the final degeneration of the criminal Kyiv regime, which has switched to a policy of state terrorism, Russia’s negotiating position will be revised,” Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister since 2004, said in a Telegram post.

Another senior Russian official said the reported attack shocked and infuriated Trump. But Zelensky, responding on social media, said that Russia was “at it again, using dangerous statements to undermine all achievements of our shared diplomatic efforts with President Trump’s team.”

“We keep working together to bring peace closer,” Zelensky said. “This alleged ‘residence strike’ story is a complete fabrication intended to justify additional attacks against Ukraine, including Kyiv, as well as Russia’s own refusal to take necessary steps to end the war.”

“Ukraine does not take steps that can undermine diplomacy. To the contrary, Russia always takes such steps,” he added. “It is critical that the world doesn’t stay silent now. We cannot allow Russia to undermine the work on achieving a lasting peace.”

Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project, which collaborates with the Institute for the Study of War to produce daily battlefield assessments on the conflict, said that the meeting did not appear to fundamentally shift Trump’s position on the conflict — a potential win for Kyiv in and of itself, he said.

“U.S.-Ukraine negotiations appear to be continuing as before, which is positive, since those negotiations seem to be getting into the real details of what would be required for a meaningful set of security guarantees and long-term agreements to ensure that any peace settlement will be enduring,” Kagan said.

Gaps still remain between Kyiv and the Trump administration in negotiations over security guarantees. While Trump has offered a 15-year agreement, Ukraine is seeking guarantees for 50 years, Zelensky said Monday.

“As Trump continues to say, there’s no deal until there’s a deal,” Kagan added. “We’ll have to see how things go.”

A federal judge this week canceled the trial of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran man who was mistakenly deported by the Trump administration, and scheduled a hearing on whether the prosecution is being vindictive in pursuing a human smuggling case against him.

Abrego Garcia has become a centerpiece of the debate over immigration after the Trump administration deported him in March to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Facing mounting public pressure and a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, but only after issuing an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee.

Abrego Garcia has denied the allegations, and argued that prosecutors are vindictively and selectively targeting him. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. wrote in Tuesday’s order that Abrego Garcia had provided enough evidence to hold a hearing on the topic, which Crenshaw scheduled for Jan. 28.

At that hearing, prosecutors will have to explain their reasoning for charging Abrego Garcia, Crenshaw wrote, and if they fail in that, the charges could be dismissed.

When Abrego Garcia was pulled over in 2022, there were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. But Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.

A Department of Homeland Security agent previously testified that he did not begin investigating the traffic stop until after the U.S. Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration had to work to bring Abrego Garcia from El Salvador, where he was deported.

Years earlier, Abrego Garcia had been granted protection from deportation to his home country after a judge found he faced danger there from a gang that targeted his family. That order allowed Abrego Garcia, who has an American wife and child, to live and work in the U.S. under Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervision.

The Trump administration has accused Abrego Garcia of being a member of the MS-13 gang. He has denied the accusations and has no criminal record.

Abrego Garcia’s defense attorney and the U.S. attorney’s office in Nashville did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Bedayn writes for the Associated Press.

US envoy Steve Witkoff to meet senior officials from Qatar, Egypt and Turkiye in Miami to discuss next phase of deal.