majority

Starbucks has announced it will sell the majority stake in its Chinese business for $4bn to a Hong Kong-based private equity firm after years of losing market share to local competitors in China.

Starbucks announced the sale on Monday, which will see the firm Boyu Capital take a 60 percent stake in its Chinese retail operations through a joint venture.

Boyu Capital has offices in Shanghai, Beijing and Singapore, and its cofounders include Alvin Jiang, the grandson of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, according to the Reuters news agency.

The US coffee giant will retain a 40 percent interest in its China operations while maintaining its ownership of the company’s brand and intellectual property, the company said.

The deal marks a “new chapter” in Starbucks’s 26-year-long history in China, the company said in a statement.

It will also give Starbucks a much-needed injection of funding and logistical support as it tries to expand its business deeper into China, according to Jason Yu, the Shanghai-based managing director of CTR Market Research.

Starbucks has 8,000 locations across China, but it aspires to open as many as 20,000 through its joint venture, the company said in a statement.

“Starbucks used to be a pioneer in coffee in China, where it was probably the first coffee chain in many cities, but this is no longer the case as the local competition already outpaced Starbucks in their expansion,” Yu told Al Jazeera.

Top competitors include homegrown Luckin Coffee, which has more than 26,000 locations worldwide, mostly in China.

Starbucks has historically been concentrated in first- and second-tier cities like Shanghai, Beijing and Shenzhen while Luckin has expanded into much smaller cities.

Luckin has also built a reputation around offering customers much cheaper drinks than Starbucks through its loyalty programme and in-app discounts.

A small Americano coffee at Starbucks costs 30 yuan ($4.21), but at Luckin, the same drink retails on average for about 10 yuan ($1.40), according to Yu.

Olivia Plotnick, founder of the Shanghai-based social marketing company Wai Social, told Al Jazeera that Starbucks has been unable to keep up with competitive pricing and consumer preferences.

“Between domestic players such as Luckin and later Cotti Coffee undercutting Starbucks on price, footprint and flavour fuelled by tech, wider beverage competition from the rise of milk tea brands and delivery platform wars, Starbucks have lost their once very competitive edge,” Plotnick said. By “delivery platform wars”, Plotnick referred to the cutthroat competition between apps for delivery services that drives down prices of goods like coffee.

Starbucks’s joint venture with Boyu Capital will offer the company more capital for investment but also help with logistics, infrastructure and managing commercial property as it opens more storefronts in regional cities, Yu said.

The company is following a familiar playbook used by other international brands in China, he said.

In 2016, after a major food safety scandal, KFC and Pizza Hut owner Yum Brands sold a stake in their China business to the China-based Primavera Capital and an affiliate of the e-commerce giant Alibaba Group, according to Reuters. The China business was later spun off into an independent entity.

In 2017, McDonald’s sold off a majority stake in its China, Hong Kong and Macau businesses to the Chinese state-backed conglomerate CITIC and the private equity group Carlyle Capital although it later bought back some of its business, according to CNBC.

After the deal with CITIC, McDonald’s doubled its outlets in China to 5,500 as of late 2023, CNBC said, and aims to open 10,000 restaurants by 2028.

In January, 1991, as America stood on the edge of its first war in a generation, a quiet, bespectacled man stood in the well of the U.S. Senate and forced the nation to hesitate and think. George J. Mitchell, a former federal judge who was then Senate majority leader, had successfully pressed the Bush Administration into something Presidents had ignored for half a century: allowing Congress its constitutional authority to vote on making war.

Mitchell’s maneuver was politically perilous. Anyone who opposed the Gulf War risked appearing disloyal to the country and its then enormously popular President. Yet what followed, people in both parties now recall, was one of the finest moments in Senate history, a high-minded and highly emotional debate of conscience by a nation about to send its young people to war.

During George Bush’s four years as President, it was only one of many incidents when Mitchell, an intellectual politician in the era of three-second attack politics, drew sharp lines between Congress and the Republican Administration. For a time, the stoic New Englander, who avoided flashy TV sound bites and had a strong commitment to lighthouses and waterfowl, was the most important Democrat in the country.

Mitchell had risen to majority leader with historic speed. He was in only his eighth year when the Senate picked him as its leader. The former political protege of legendary Maine Democrat Edmund S. Muskie, Mitchell had spent much of his time in the Senate fighting to pass two liberal bills, a Clean Air Act and a law to clean up oil spills. He struck colleagues as uniquely decent and fair, disciplined, unemotional and deeply intellectual.

Early in 1994, he stunned Washington by announcing he would not seek almost certain reelection for a third term. He then turned down a seat on the Supreme Court in the spring of 1994. Some speculated that he was holding out to become commissioner of baseball. Still others linked his court demurrer to the fact that the 61-year-old divorce would marry 37-year-old Heather MacLachlan, a manager of professional athletes.

He dedicated the rest of his Senate career to passing health-care reform, but by October, that effort had collapsed. Then, on Election Day, his chosen successor for the Senate lost, the seat going to Republican Olympia Snowe. His party had lost the Senate after six years in the majority and the House after 40. On election night, Mitchell says, he never saw it coming.

During his last week in Washington, Mitchell sat down a t the polished conference table in his elegant Senate office to reflect on his leaving. He was still busy, juggling plans for his marriage in December and managing the passage of GATT , always dressed in crisp white shirt and dark suit, even on Saturday. But over the course of three long sessions, his reserve began to ease and his hands to wave as he reflected on what is right and wrong with the U.S Congress, on President Clinton, the Republican and Democratic parties, and about why so many Americans feel the nation is in political crisis.

*

I was taken by surprise. I’d hoped that we would retain control of both the Senate and House, although I knew that we would suffer some losses. In off-year elections, the party of the President usually loses about four seats in the Senate. We lost eight.

In retrospect, if the Administration and the congressional leadership had decided to forgo health care for this year and concentrated on welfare reform, it might have produced a different result.

But I think the Democrats are also suffering the effects of larger cultural, political and economic upheaval. Whenever a society is in transition, there’s uncertainty, anxiety, even fear. Clearly, we are a society undergoing major transition now. For most American families, incomes have either declined or remained stagnant. People see now that it is not inevitable or likely that incomes will continue to rise. Whenever there is a major transition, there is a natural desire, even a longing, for a simple, easy answer–Why is this so? How can it be corrected? There is a nostalgia for the past, often an inaccurate glorification of the past. We’ve had in our history times when seemingly simplistic answers have been offered, which in retrospect look ridiculous. The Know-Nothing movement flourished in the mid-19th Century; the Ku Klux Klan flourished early in this century; we’ve had a lot of Red scares; we’ve had a lot of things we look back on and wonder now how they happened. But at the time, given the state of anxiety and fear, it’s understandable.

I want to make very clear that I do not equate what happened this year with the Ku Klux Klan or the Know-Nothings. I’m simply describing a phenomenon of a society in transition being (susceptible).

What the Republicans did was very skillful. They developed a clear and simple message–that if we can somehow stop this expansion of government authority, then family values will be restored. It has an appeal. It’s simple, it’s comprehensible, it appears to be logical. Of course, it isn’t going to restore those values. It certainly isn’t going to do the really essential thing of promoting economic growth. Indeed, they also labeled the Democrats as the party of high taxes. In fact, the President’s economic plan passed in 1993 raised income-tax rates only on the highest-earning 1.2% of all Americans and cut taxes for most lower- and middle-income families. Polls show people don’t know that. But the Republicans didn’t make up their argument out of whole cloth. Democrats helped them.

For too many in our party, government became a first resort rather than a last. There was an inability to distinguish between principle and programs–we became committed to programs. Democrats have succeeded when we have seen the difference and when we have been perceived as the party of economic growth. But in recent years, we’ve become increasingly perceived not as the party trying to make the economic pie grow but as the party trying to make sure that every single person gets an absolutely equal slice of the pie. That has coincided with a polarization of income concurrent with the polarization by race.

In Congress, meanwhile, the Republicans have been very skillful, cynical but skillful, in creating a gridlock from which they have benefited.

Perhaps the best example is the first item in the House Republicans’ contract with America, which would require that all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress. That’s a good idea, isn’t it? It’s so good, in fact, that we Democrats have promoted this legislation even longer than Republicans. That bill passed the House of Representatives when it was controlled by Democrats.

When I tried to bring it up in the Senate, Republican senators objected. They prevented the Senate from considering the legislation that their party said was No. 1 on its contract. That’s cynicism and, I’m sorry to say, successful cynicism. Now next year they’ll pass the legislation, and they’ll say, “Look here, we’re honoring our contract.”

*

Though they barely knew each other before Election Day in 1992, Mitchell was one of President Clinton’s closest allies during the past two years. He fought for Clinton’s deficit-cutting budget in 1993 and battled for health care reform in 1994 even when most Democrats thought the battle was lost. Since the Democratic defeat in November, many in Mitchell’s party have laid most of the blame on Clinton.

*

I think the problems the President has encountered are largely the result of too ambitious an agenda. If we had had just a few items, I think we’d have been a lot better off.

In retrospect, moreover, if I had known that health care would not be enacted, it would have made sense to discontinue the effort and to go on to welfare reform. But nine months ago, (passing health care) looked pretty good.

I didn’t know then-Gov. Clinton very well prior to the election, but I came to consider him extremely intelligent, very knowledgeable on issues, hard working, and the policy positions he has taken are mostly, not always, consistent with my own.

I recall one meeting last year, when he had a group of us to the White House for dinner to talk on health care, bipartisan, maybe 10 or 12 senators. Usually at these meetings, the members of Congress know all the details because the President speaks in general terms. It became evident quickly that the President knew much more about the details than did any of the members. It was a complete reversal in terms of knowledge of the subject.

I also disagree that the President is vacillating and indecisive. Historian Garry Wills has compared Clinton to Lincoln and said that the difference is Clinton does it all publicly in advance, and Lincoln did it all privately, behind the walls of the White House. I think one of the problems that has depicted this White House as vacillating is that they do their thinking out loud.

It is unfair, too, to have suggested that President Clinton has no bedrock principles on which he will not compromise. Look at the things he’s taken on. Why does he have political problems? In the South, they say it’s because of the policy on gays in the military. Is this a man without conviction? I don’t see how critics can have it both ways. On the one hand they say he pursued unpopular policies, on the other he doesn’t have convictions.

I have a theory, though it’s entirely subjective and personal, that economic matters are more important to the electorate in presidential elections than they are in off-term elections. I think if the economy stays strong, he’ll be in a much better position to gain reelection than he is now. Right now he’s being measured not against another person, but against each citizen’s individual subjective idealization of the presidency. When he runs, he’s going to be running against a person, (who will) have a personal life and a business background that will be relentlessly scrutinized. I’m convinced that Ross Perot will be running, and that will help President Clinton–even more than in ‘92, because the Perot supporters are much more Republican now. I think Bill Clinton will be reelected.

*

Mitchell said he began thinking about retiring the day of the 1994 State of the Union speech in January. There were many factors, but important among them was the realization that if he didn’t leave now, at 61, he would become too old to take up anything else–such as, for instance, baseball commissioner.

*

In 1993, when I turned 60, I decided to celebrate by climbing the highest mountain in my home state of Maine, Mt. Kitahdin. It’s one of the toughest non-technical climbs in the East, a mile high and about a 4,000-foot vertical climb.

There are two peaks on Mt. Kitahdin: Pamola Peak and the summit. The distance between them is a narrow ledge that stretches more than a mile, called the Knife’s Edge; I have a fear of heights.

Late that night, after we finished, I told my friends that the climb reminded me of Charles Darwin’s trip around the world, during which he first conceived the theory of evolution. It was a physically rough trip for him; he was sick for a large part of the time. He never made another such trip, and he spent the rest of his life talking about that one. That’s the way I felt about climbing Mt. Kitahdin.

That is also how I feel when I reflect on what it took to pass major legislation in the U.S. Senate, including one of my highest priorities, the Clean Air Act.

I had run for majority leader in 1988, in significant part so that we could pass some of the legislation that I had tried for six or seven years to make into law and failed. After I was majority leader, and we finally got the clean air bill onto the floor, it became obvious it couldn’t pass. I didn’t want it to die, so I decided we should negotiate. We spent over a month in my conference room–members of the Bush Administration and senators, groups of 10 or 12, sometimes 50 or 60. There were many 16- to 18-hour days. We went over every provision, negotiating in good faith, and we finally reached a consensus.

That’s what it takes to enact major legislation. And that is one of the few tools available now to the Senate majority leader: the ability to get people together, to get them to listen to each other. No longer can a leader order senators to follow. Lyndon B. Johnson centralized power in the majority leader. He was able to exert influence on his colleagues for three reasons. One was his personality. Second, he had the power to appoint all senators to committees and to remove them from committees. That can make or break a senator’s career. The other was that if you wanted a roll call vote, you had to get his approval. He used those powers very effectively, but in the minds of many of his colleagues, he abused them. When he left, those powers were taken away from the majority leader, so majority leaders since have had very little in the way of institutional tools to impose discipline (over their party or the institution).

I have advocated that some of these powers be restored. Bob Dole, the new majority leader, disagreed. I expect he may change his mind now. Of course, the Senate could make these changes simply by operating with a resumption of the self-restraint that existed among its members for most of our history but no longer does.

In the entire 19th Century there were 16 filibusters in the U.S. Senate–an average of one every 6 1/2 years. For most of this century, filibusters occurred fewer than once a year. In the 103rd Congress just concluded, there were 20 filibusters attempted and 72 motions to end them.

It is harder to govern now, I think, because of the tone in politics today, which debases public discussion. Distrust of Congress and elected officials is not new in our society, but I think several factors have contributed to the increase in negativism in politics.

First, the press has abandoned many of the traditional restraints it imposed on itself with regard to reporting on the personal life of public officials. Second, television. The viewer, the voter, hears candidate Tom say that his opponent Diane is a bum; Diane responds that Tom is a crook, and so the voters come to believe that they have a choice between a bum and a crook. A third factor, I believe, is partisan. Until Bill Clinton was elected, there seemed a nearly permanent state of affairs in which the presidency was held by Republicans and the Congress by Democrats. So for nearly two decades, Republicans bashed the Congress.

All of those things have combined to create a highly negative discussion in which issues are oversimplified and reduced to slogans.

*

In his own career, Mitchell was unusually fair and bipartisan when it came to dispensing the rules of the Senate. Among his first acts as majority leader was ending the practice of tactical surprise . Before that, both sides had to keep one senator on the floor at all times . But Mitchell could also be scorchingly partisan when it came to policy differences.

*

We Democrats bear responsibility for the failure to deal more effectively with the nation’s problems. But so do Republicans. Their policy in the Senate in 1994 was one of total obstruction. Let me give you an example.

We passed earlier this year in both houses the gift- and lobbying-disclosure legislation. The Republicans really didn’t want it, so when the bill came up for final passage in the House, Newt Gingrich concocted this argument that it will have some effect on grass-roots lobbying, and they got Christian organizations to come out against it. That same excuse was used in the Senate. So I offered to take that provision out and vote on the same bill that we had passed by a vote of 95 to 2 a few months earlier. Which, of course, all the Republicans had voted for. But they refused. When you prevent legislation that you’ve actually voted for, you’re engaged in a policy of total obstruction. But it worked. The Republican (complaint) was, well the darned place isn’t functioning. The Democrats are in charge, so let’s change the people in charge, and maybe we’ll get some action.

Now they are in a different position. I think the Republicans will soon learn that it’s easier to campaign against something than to govern. You actually are responsible for acting. I think we Democrats suffer the burden more because we believe that government can produce beneficial results and conditions in our society. But we didn’t do a very good job of making that case this year.

I don’t know Newt Gingrich very well. Most of my dealings have been with Bob Michel, who was the Republican leader in the House for all of the time that I was majority leader. Newt sort of took over during the latter stages of this Congress. My impression is that he’s very smart and appears to be committed to an ideology. But I wonder if he is smart enough to recognize that in order to be a successful Speaker, he will have to use an approach different from that which got him to be Speaker–basically the difference between campaigning and governing.

I believe people can change. In general terms, I think people grow in office. I think people become more responsible with increased responsibility, become more active with increased demands on them. But I have no way of knowing in his particular case.

*

For all his frustration, even anger, Mitchell wanted to assert that he does not feel jaundiced about politics and the future. He also remains, in the parlance of Washington, an unreconstructed liberal, though not without complaints .

*

For all this, the problems of the party and the historical forces the Republicans have capitalized on, I don’t share the view that the country is shifting ideologically. Nor do I fear that the Democratic Party is somehow marginalizing itself. I am, on the contrary, very optimistic.

I’ve written a lot of bills that have become law, and many of them are meaningful to me. I’m the author of something called the Lighthouse Preservation Program. It’s a very small bill, but I regard it as a great accomplishment.

It’s ironic that at this moment, when American ideals and culture are ascendant in the world, when the American economy is the most productive and efficient in the world, when unemployment in America is less than that in virtually every other developed industrial democracy of the world, that Americans should be so anxious and fearful, such easy prey for demagoguery and scapegoatism. I think the Democrats still are the party of opportunity and economic growth.

What we have to do is to narrow our focus to economic-growth policies as opposed to trying to solve every other problem. I can sum up my philosophy in a sentence: In America, no one shouldbe guaranteed success, but everyone should have a fair chance to go as far as talent, education and will can take them.

Oct. 22 (UPI) — Israel’s Knesset on Wednesday, in a preliminary vote, approved sovereignty in the West Bank for Israel, described as a political ploy by the right-wing opposition during U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s visit to the nation.

President Donald Trump said last month that he will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank.

The bill, which is called “Application of Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, 2025,” passed 25-24 by the parliament, and was transferred to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. It must still pass three additional votes in the plenum session.

The legislation says that “the laws, judicial system, administration, and sovereignty of the State of Israel shall apply to all areas of settlement in Judea and Samaria.”

A more limited annexation bill passed 32-9, also in a preliminary reading. The bill applies sovereignty to the West Bank settlement of Ma’ale Adumim near Jerusalem.

Militant Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and not the West Bank, said in a statement that the recent bill “reflects the ugly face of the colonial occupation.”

As a “flagrant violation of all relevant international laws and resolution,” Hamas said Israel “insists on continuing its attempts to ‘legitimize’ settlements and impose Zionist ‘sovereignty’ over the occupied Palestinian territories.”

In 2007, the Palestinian territories were split into two separate administrations.

Israel maintains military control of the 2,263 square miles of the West Bank, while the Palestinian Authority, led by the Fatah party, has jurisdiction over civil and security authority in specific zones, based on the 1995 Oslo Accords.

The West Bank has been divided into three zones.

Area C, which makes up about 60% the West Bank, is under full Israeli military and civilian control. Area C includes agricultural land, water springs, quarries and land for future infrastructure for Israelis.

In August, Israel approved final plans for a settlement project in E1 of Area C between East Jerusalem and the Ma’ale Adumim settlement. This arrangement would sever the West Bank for a contiguous Palestinian State, which Israel opposes as a two-state solution.

More than 500,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank out of the total population of 4 million.

Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1980 and applies its civil law there, though the international community does not recognize this annexation. About 500,000 Israelis live there.

“By applying sovereignty to Judea and Samaria, we are correcting a historical wrong that is long overdue,” Avi Maoz, head of the far-right Noam party, said. “Since the government has hesitated, it is our duty as members of Knesset to act.”

All but one Likud minister boycotted the vote, with Yuli Edelstein breaking ranks to cast a decisive vote. Likud then removed Edelstein from his seat on the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, a spokesperson for the lawmaker confirmed to The Times of Israel.

Maoz denied a request by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to delay the vote.

Netanyahu’s Likud party said the vote was an attempt to embarrass the government while U.S. Vice President JD Vance visited the country.

“We strengthen settlements every day with actions, budgets, construction, industry, and not with words,” the Times of Israel reported by Likud. “True sovereignty will be achieved not with a show-off law for the protocol, but by working properly on the ground and creating the political conditions appropriate for the recognition of our sovereignty, as was done in the Golan Heights and in Jerusalem.”

The United Arab Emirates said in September that annexation of the West Bank would severely undermine the spirit of the Abraham Accords.

The West Bank was captured during the Six-Day War in 1967, except for East Jerusalem, as a “temporary belligerent occupation.”

The historic city of Bethlehem is in the West Bank and is under Israeli occupation. It has historic ties to the Jewish religion, as well as to Christianity and Islam.

In 2024, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an advisory opinion that Israel’s presence in the West Bank was unlawful under international law because it is no longer temporary.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans are taking the first steps to change the chamber’s rules on Thursday, making it easier to confirm groups of President Trump’s nominees and overcome Democratic delays.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s move is the latest salvo after a dozen years of gradual changes by both parties to weaken the filibuster and make the nominations process more partisan. He has said the Democrats’ obstruction is “unsustainable” as they have drawn out the confirmation process and infuriated Trump as many positions in his administration have remained unfilled.

Opening up the Senate, Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said that the delays have prevented the Senate from spending time on legislative business.

“We’re going to fix this today, and restore the longtime Senate precedent of expeditious confirmation, and the Senate’s role as first and foremost a legislative body,” Thune said.

Republicans are taking a series of procedural votes Thursday on a group of 48 of Trump’s nominees, and are expected to vote to “overturn the chair,” or change the rules, which takes a simple majority vote. If all goes according to their plan, the nominees — undersecretaries and staff positions for various agencies across the government as well as several ambassadors — could be confirmed by next week.

The rules change effort comes as both parties have obstructed the other’s nominees for years, and as both Republicans and Democrats have advocated speeding the process when they are in the majority. The Republican rules change stops short of speeding up votes on high-level Cabinet officials and lifetime judicial appointments, and it is loosely based on a proposal from Democrats under President Biden.

Republicans have been pushing the rules change since early August, when the Senate left for a monthlong recess after a breakdown in bipartisan negotiations over the confirmation process and Trump told Senate Democratic Leader Charles E. Schumer to “GO TO HELL!” on social media.

Democrats have blocked more nominees than ever before as they have struggled to find ways to oppose Trump and the GOP-dominated Congress, and as their voters have pushed them to fight Republicans at every turn. It’s the first time in recent history that the minority party hasn’t allowed at least some quick confirmations.

Schumer has said Democrats are delaying the nominations because Trump’s nominees are “historically bad.”

“If you don’t debate nominees, if you don’t vote on individual nominees, if there’s not some degree of sunlight, what will stop Donald Trump from nominating even worse individuals than we’ve seen to date, knowing this chamber will rubber stamp anything he wishes?” Schumer said Monday.

Schumer told Republicans that they will “come to regret” their action — echoing a similar warning from GOP Leader Mitch McConnell to then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2013, when Democrats changed Senate rules for executive branch and lower-court judicial nominees to remove the 60-vote threshold for confirmations. At the time, Republicans were blocking President Obama’s picks.

Republicans took the Senate majority a year later, and McConnell eventually did the same for Supreme Court nominees in 2017 as Democrats tried to block Trump’s nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

“I say to my Republican colleagues, think carefully before taking this step,” Schumer said.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press.

The East L.A. Classic, matching high school football rivals Garfield and Roosevelt, is returning to East Los Angeles College on Friday, Oct. 24, the Bulldogs confirmed on Monday. There also will be a JV game and flag football game.

Last season, the two schools played at SoFi Stadium. The Coliseum has also hosted a recent game. But East L.A. College has been the site for the majority of a rivalry that serves as a homecoming for both schools and annually attracts the largest fan attendance in the City Section, if not in Southern California.

Thousands of alumni return for the yearly matchup. There’s a week of festivities that both schools participate in leading up to the game.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court panel has ruled that President Trump cannot use an 18th century wartime law to speed the deportations of people his administration accuses of being in a Venezuelan gang. The decision blocking an administration priority is destined for a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Two judges on a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in the ruling Tuesday, agreed with immigrant rights lawyers and lower court judges who argued the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was not intended to be used against gangs such as Tren de Aragua, which the Republican president had targeted in March.

Lee Gelernt, who argued the case for the ACLU, said the administration’s use of “a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration was rightly shut down by the court. This is a critically important decision reining in the administration’s view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts.”

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the majority erred in second-guessing the president.

“The authority to conduct national security operations in defense of the United States and to remove terrorists from the United States rests solely with the President,” Jackson said. “We expect to be vindicated on the merits in this case.”

The administration deported people designated as Tren de Aragua members to a notorious prison in El Salvador and argued that American courts could not order them freed.

In a deal announced in July, more than 250 of the deported migrants returned to Venezuela.

The Alien Enemies Act was only used three times before in U.S. history, all during declared wars — in the War of 1812 and the two world wars.

The administration unsuccessfully argued that courts cannot second-guess the president’s determination that Tren de Aragua was connected to Venezuela’s government and represented a danger to the United States, meriting use of the act.

In a 2-1 ruling, the judges said they granted the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs because they “found no invasion or predatory incursion” in this case.

The decision bars deportations from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. In the majority were U.S. Circuit Judges Leslie Southwick, who was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, who was nominated by Democratic President Biden. Andrew Oldham, a Trump nominee, dissented.

The majority opinion said Trump’s allegations about Tren de Aragua did not meet the historical levels of national conflict that Congress intended for the act.

“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States,” the judges wrote.

In a lengthy dissent, Oldham complained his two colleagues were second-guessing Trump’s conduct of foreign affairs and national security, realms where courts usually give the president great deference.

“The majority’s approach to this case is not only unprecedented — it is contrary to more than 200 years of precedent,” Oldham wrote.

The panel did grant the Trump administration one legal victory, finding the procedures it uses to advise detainees under the Alien Enemies Act of their legal rights were appropriate.

The ruling can be appealed to the full 5th Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court, which is likely to make the ultimate decision on the issue.

The Supreme Court has already gotten involved twice before in the tangled history of the Trump administration’s use of the act. In the initial weeks after Trump’s March declaration, the court ruled that the administration could deport people under the act, but unanimously found that those targeted needed to be given a reasonable chance to argue their case before judges in the areas where they were held.

Then, as the administration moved to rapidly deport more Venezuelans from Texas, the high court stepped in again with an unusual, post-midnight ruling that they couldn’t do so until the 5th Circuit decided whether the administration was providing adequate notice to the immigrants and could weigh in on the broader legal issues of the case. The high court has yet to address whether a gang can be cited as an alien enemy under the act.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michelle L. Price in Washington contributed to this report.

A new study revealed that LGBTQIA+ people in the US want to get married.

In 2015, the queer community achieved a massive victory when same-sex marriage was legalised across all 50 states – following the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case.

Over the last decade, thousands of LGBTQIA+ couples have exercised their right to get married, with many more considering the possibility.

According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, 59% of LGBTQIA+ US adults under 50 who have never been married say they want to get hitched. Comparatively, 63% of non-LGBTQIA+ individuals under the same age bracket say the same thing.

Upon further investigation, researchers found that of the surveyed LGBTQIA+ adults, those between the ages of 18 and 29 were more than likely to say they wanted to get married compared to those aged 30 to 49.

Non queer adults also displayed similar stats, with 79% of 18 to 29-year-olds embracing marriage, while only 49% of 30-49 year olds agreed.

When surveying those who are divorced, widowed or separated, 49% of LGBTQIA+ adults said they were more likely to get married again. The same couldn’t be said for their heterosexual peers, with only 33% expressing an interest.

The study also shed some light on the respective groups’ views about having children.

47% of non-LGBTQIA+ adults under 50, who don’t have kids, were shown to have more of an interest in starting a family, while only 33% of LGBTQIA+ adults shared the same sentiment.

However, a nearly equal portion of LGBTQIA+ adults (28%) and non-LGBTQIA+ adults (29%) were unsure if they wanted to have children.

Lastly, it was revealed that 37% of LGBTQIA+ women and 36% of LGBTQIA+ men want to have kids someday.

There was a bigger disparity between the straight individuals. 54% of non-LGBTQIA+ men were reported to want children, and 39% of non-LGBTQIA+ women shared the same interest.

The recent data comes at a time when marriage equality is facing a new wave of attacks from Republicans and conservative figures.

In July, former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis – who made headlines in 2015 when she refused to issue marriage licenses to LGBTQIA+ couples – filed a petition urging the US Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.

In the filing, she described the ruling as being “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process” and further claimed that it forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”

For more information about the petition and whether the Court will hear the case, click here.

WASHINGTON — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid.

Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money.

In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid.

After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year.

The appeal court’s majority partially vacated Ali’s order.

Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress’ spending powers.

“The parties also dispute the scope of the district court’s remedy but we need not resolve it … because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,” Henderson wrote.

Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held “in no uncertain terms” that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons.

“Yet that is what the majority enables today,” Pan wrote. “The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.”

The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals.

Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

SIX in 10 Gen Zers reckon music gigs are overpriced – but are making financial sacrifices so they don’t miss out.

A study of 2,000 adults found 46 per cent of 21- to 24-year-olds believe concerts are out of reach for most people.

3

3

Gen Zers are nonetheless determined to make it work, with 67 per cent having been to at least one gig in the past year – and spending an average of £117 on their priciest ticket.

To cover the cost, nearly one in five young adults (18 per cent) cut back on essentials, while 26 per cent scrapped a subscription – and 15 per cent admitted to spending more on a live music event than on their monthly bills.

The study was commissioned by Greene King, which staged the ‘biggest pub gig ever’ – with Sam Ryder giving a surprise performance at the iconic pub The Anchor on London’s South Bank.

As one of 800 acts in Greene King Untapped – a competition to find the next big music talent – Sam performed a 35-minute set, free for fans to watch.

The BRIT-nominated Eurovision star, who has also been appointed the pub chain’s Head of Gigs, said: “Playing in pubs and smaller venues was where it all started for me, with intimate venues, borrowed PA systems, and a handful of pub-goers who might become fans.

 “Grassroots music is at the heartbeat of the scene and those early gigs shaped who I am as an artist.

“These spaces allow live music to be an experience available to everyone, that’s why they’re so important, and I’m stoked to be a part of the team helping to keep that alive.” 

The study also found that 40 per cent of adults have skipped live music because of high ticket prices – missing an average of three events in the past year.

Half of those surveyed said they’ve wanted to attend a music event but couldn’t because tickets sold out too quickly.

The study also found that 53 per cent believe live music ticket prices are unfair, with 67 per cent saying prices have become unreasonable in recent years.

Meanwhile, 61 per cent claimed they would go to more gigs if tickets cost less.

The research also revealed that 41 per cent feel most alive when attending a gig, while 63 per cent admit the energy of a live performance doesn’t translate the same way digitally.

And 38 per cent have suffered FOMO (a Gen Z term meaning Fear of Missing Out) after seeing concerts on social media they couldn’t attend.

Zoe Bowley, managing director at Greene King Pubs, said: “Pubs have long been the heartland of grassroots music, a place where emerging talent takes root, stars are born, and communities come together. 

“It’s where British people do what they do best: connect, celebrate, and create lasting memories.”

In other news, The Sun recently revealed Oasis are getting big-money offers for more shows almost daily.

Insiders told Bizarre editor Ellie Henman last month the brothers are flooded with bids from across the globe.

This comes after their epic 41-show reunion tour sold out in minutes on 31 August.

3

A majority of people in five nations – Brazil, Colombia, Greece, South Africa and Spain – believe that weapons companies should stop or reduce trade with Israel as its onslaught on Gaza continues, a poll released on Thursday reveals.

Spain showed the highest support for weapons deals to be halted, with 58 percent of respondents saying they should stop completely, followed by Greece at 57 percent and Colombia at 52 percent. In Brazil, 37 percent of respondents believed arms companies should completely stop sales to Israel, while 22 percent believed they should be reduced. In South Africa, those levels stood at 46 and 20 percent, respectively.

Commissioned by the Global Energy Embargo for Palestine network, endorsed by the left-wing Progressive International organisation, and fielded by the Pollfish platform last month, the survey comes in the wake of a call by Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, on countries to slash financial relations with Israel as she decried an “economy of genocide“.

“The people have spoken, and they refuse to be complicit. Across continents, ordinary citizens demand an end to the fuel that powers settler colonialism, apartheid and genocide,” said Ana Sanchez, a campaigner for Global Energy Embargo for Palestine.

“No state that claims to uphold democracy can justify maintaining energy, military, or economic ties with Israel while it commits a genocide in Palestine. This is not just about trade; it’s about people’s power to cut the supply lines of oppression.”

The group said it chose the survey locations because of the countries’ direct involvement in the import and transport of energy to Israel.

More than 1,000 respondents in each nation were asked about governmental and private sector relations with Israel to measure public attitudes on responsibility.

Condemnation of Israel’s action in Gaza as the humanitarian crisis escalates was the highest in Greece and Spain and lowest in Brazil.

Sixty-one percent and 60 percent in Greece and Spain respectively opposed Israel’s current “military actions” in Gaza, while in Colombia, 50 percent opposed them. In Brazil and South Africa, 30 percent were against Israel’s war, while 33 percent and 20 percent, respectively, supported the campaign.

To date, Israel’s genocide in Gaza has killed more than 60,000 people – most of them women and children. Now home to the highest number of child amputees per capita, much of the besieged Strip is in a state of ruin as the population starves. As the crisis worsens, arms dealers and companies that facilitate their deals are facing heightened scrutiny.

In June, as reported by Al Jazeera, Maersk divested from companies linked to Israeli settlements, which are considered illegal under international law, following a campaign accusing the Danish shipping giant of links to Israel’s military and occupation of Palestinian land.

On Tuesday, Norway announced that it would review its sovereign wealth fund’s investments in Israel, after it was revealed that it had a stake in an Israeli firm that supplies fighter jet parts to the Israeli military. In recent months, several wealth and pension funds have distanced themselves from companies linked to Israel’s war on Gaza or its illegal occupation of the West Bank.

Responding to the poll, 41 percent in Spain said they would “strongly” support a state-level decision to reduce trade in weapons, fuel and other goods in an attempt to pressure Israel into stopping the war. This figure stood at 33 percent in Colombia and South Africa, and 28 and 24 percent in Greece and Brazil, respectively.

“The message from the peoples of the world is loud and clear: They want action to end the assault on Gaza – not just words,” said David Adler, co-general coordinator of Progressive International. “Across continents, majorities are calling for their governments to halt arms sales and restrain Israel’s occupation.”

TOKYO — Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba on Wednesday vowed to remain in power to oversee the implementation of a new Japan-U.S. tariff agreement, despite media speculation and growing calls for him to resign after a historic defeat of his governing party.

Ishiba met with heavyweights from his Liberal Democratic Party, or LDP, and former Prime Ministers Taro Aso, Fumio Kishida and Yoshihide Suga at party headquarters.

He told reporters afterward that they didn’t discuss his resignation or a new party leadership contest, but only the election results, voters’ dissatisfaction and the urgent need to avoid party discord.

Despite his business-as-usual demeanor, Ishiba is under increasing pressure to bow out after the LDP and junior coalition partner Komeito lost their majority in Sunday’s election in the 248-member upper house, the smaller and less powerful of Japan’s two-chamber parliament, shaking his grip on power.

It came after a loss in the more powerful lower house in October, and so his coalition now lacks a majority in both houses of parliament, making it even more difficult for his government to pass policies and worsening Japan’s political instability.

Ishiba says he intends to stay on to tackle pressing challenges, including tariff talks with the U.S., so as not to create a political vacuum despite calls from inside and outside his party for a quick resignation.

Ishiba “keeps saying he is staying on. What was the public’s verdict in the election all about?” said Yuichiro Tamaki, head of the surging Democratic Party for the People, or DPP.

At the LDP, a group of younger lawmakers led by Yasutaka Nakasone started a petition drive seeking Ishiba’s early resignation and renewal of party leadership.

“We all have a sense of crisis and think the election results were ultimatum from the voters,” he said.

Japanese media reported that Ishiba is expected to soon announce plans to step down in August.

The conservative Yomiuri newspaper said in an extra edition on Wednesday that Ishiba had decided to announce his resignation by the end of July after receiving a detailed report from his chief trade negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, on the impact of the U.S. tariffs on the Japanese economy, paving the way for a new party leader.

Ishiba denied the report and said that he wants to focus on the U.S. trade deal, which covers more than 4,000 goods affecting many Japanese producers and industries. He welcomed the new agreement, which places tariffs at 15% on Japanese cars and other goods imported into the U.S. from Japan, down from the initial 25%.

Still, local media are already speculating about possible successors. Among them are ultraconservative former Economic Security Minister Sanae Takaichi, who lost to Ishiba in September. Another conservative ex-minister, Takayuki Kobayashi, and Agriculture Minister Shinjiro Koizumi, the son of former popular Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, are also seen as potential challengers.

In Sunday’s election, voters frustrated with price increases exceeding the pace of wage hikes, especially younger people who have long felt ignored by the ruling government’s focus on senior voters, rapidly turned to the emerging conservative DPP and right-wing populist Sanseito party.

None of the opposition parties have shown interest in forming a full-fledged alliance with the governing coalition, but they have said they are open to cooperating on policy.

People expressed mixed reaction to Ishiba, as his days seem to be numbered.

Kentaro Nakamura, 53, said that he thought it’s time for Ishiba to go, because he lacked consistency and did poorly in the election.

“The (election) result was so bad and I thought it would not be appropriate for him to stay on,” Nakamura said. “I thought it was just a matter of time.”

But Isamu Kawana, a Tokyo resident in his 70s, was more sympathetic and said if it wasn’t Ishiba who was elected prime minister last year, the result would have been the same.

“I think he got the short end of the stick,” Kawana said.

Yamaguchi writes for the Associated Press. Reeno Hashimoto contributed to this report.

July 20 (UPI) — Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who assumed office in October 2024, could face mounting political pressure as his ruling coalition is projected to lose its majority during elections for the House of Councilors on Sunday.

Ishiba acknowledged Sunday night to public broadcaster NHK that it would be difficult for the ruling coalition, an alliance of his Liberal Democratic Party and the Komeito Party, to secure the 50 seats in the House of Councilors election to maintain a majority.

Before the election, the LDP-Komeito coalition together held 66 of 125 seats up for grabs this cycle, but exit polls conducted by NHK with other national news outlets showed they are expected to only win somewhere between 32 and 51 seats in the upper house.

“The situation is severe, and we must accept it humbly and sincerely,” Ishiba said in remarks to NHK. He added that his party has a “responsibility” to fulfill the promises it made to voters, including raising wages more than inflation and measures to combat population decline.

The country’s national legislature, called the Diet, is comprised of two houses: the House of Councilors, and the more powerful lower house, called the House of Representatives, which is responsible for selecting the prime minister.

Ishiba became Japan’s prime minister last fall after winning the ruling LDP’s internal leadership election, replacing Fumio Kishida, who stepped down amid declining approval and scandal ties.

Because the LDP held a majority in the lower house of parliament at the time, through its longstanding coalition with the Komeito party, Ishiba’s victory secured his elevation to the country’s top office.

Days after taking power, he called a snap general election in October 2024 in an effort to strengthen his mandate. Instead, voters handed his party a historic defeat: the LDP-Komeito coalition lost its majority in the lower chamber for the first time in over a decade, forcing Ishiba to lead a fragile minority government.

Now, Ishiba’s leadership is facing another major test in Sunday’s upper house election, where exit polls suggest the ruling coalition is also on track to lose control of the legislature’s second chamber, which would make it difficult for the government to pass legislation.

Under Japanese law, a minority government can continue to rule as long as it avoids a no-confidence vote in the House of Representatives and because Japan’s opposition is often fragmented, it could be hard to oust a weakened ruling party. Still, it could lead to the possibility that Ishiba may choose to resign less than a year after becoming prime minister.

Masataka Furuya, chairman of the Central Election Management Committee, released a statement before voting Sunday, encouraging the public to participate in the voting process. As of 7:30 p.m. local time, the nationwide voter turnout rote for the election was 29.9%, lower than the previous election three years ago.

The back-to-back losses reflect growing voter dissatisfaction with the LDP under Ishiba, driven by economic stagnation, public frustration over immigration policy, and fatigue with the party’s decades-long grip on power.

“We hope that all voters will fully understand the significance of this regular election of the House of Councilors, actively participate in the voting, and exercise their precious vote with care,” the office of the Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications said in a statement Sunday.

“We also ask that those involved in the voting and counting of the elections take strict and fair action and take the utmost care in managing and executing the elections.”

Exit polls from an election in Japan project the ruling coalition is set to lose its majority, putting the country’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba under immense political pressure.

Voters headed to the polls earlier on Sunday for the tightly-contested upper house election, being held amid public frustration over rising prices and the threat of US tariffs.

Having already lost its majority in Japan’s more powerful lower house, defeat for the coalition in the upper house would critically undermine its influence over policymaking and could prompt Ishiba to quit less than a year after he was elected.

The coalition needs 50 seats to retain control of the 248-seat upper chamber – with an exit poll from public broadcaster NHK projecting them to win between 32 and 51.

Earlier polls had indicated that Ishiba’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its junior partner Komeito were at risk of losing their majority, having already lost their majority in Japan’s more powerful lower house.

On Sunday, NHK projected it “may be difficult for the ruling coalition to maintain their majority”.

Despite the projection his coalition would lose the upper house, Ishiba told a news conference at his party’s headquarters in Tokyo that he intended to remain as prime minister.

“We are engaged in extremely critical tariff negotiations with the United States…we must never ruin these negotiations,” he said.

Half of the seats in the upper chamber were being voted on in Sunday’s election, with members elected for six-year terms.

If the coalition takes home less than 46 seats, it would mark its worst performance since it was formed in 1999.

Ishiba’s centre-right party has governed Japan almost continuously since 1955, albeit with frequent changes of leader.

The expected result underscores voters’ frustration with Ishiba, who has struggled to inspire confidence as Japan struggles against economic headwinds, a cost-of-living crisis and trade negotiations with the United States.

Many are also unhappy about inflation – particularly the price of rice – and a string of political scandals that have beleaguered the LDP in recent years.

The last three LDP premiers who lost a majority in the upper house stepped down within two months, and analysts had predicted that a significant loss in this election would yield a similar outcome.

This would open the field for a potential run at the leadership by other notable LDP members, including Sanae Takaichi, who finished second to Ishiba in last year’s general election; Takayuki Kobayashi, a former economic security minister; and Shinjiro Koizumi, the son of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

In any case, a change of leadership within the ruling party would almost certainly unleash political drama and destabilise Japan’s government at a pivotal moment in US-Japan trade negotiations.

Support for the ruling coalition appears to have been eroded by candidates from the small, right-leaning Sanseito party, which drew conservative votes with its “Japanese First”, anti-immigration rhetoric.

Sanseito first gained prominence on YouTube during the Covid-19 pandemic, spreading conspiracy theories about vaccinations and a cabal of global elites.

The fringe party’s nativist rhetoric widened its appeal ahead of Sunday’s vote, as policies regarding foreign residents and immigration became a focal point of many parties’ campaigns.

Going off the NHK exit polls, it is on course to win seven seats.

Famous for its isolationist culture and strict immigration policies, the island nation has experienced a record surge in both tourists and foreign residents in recent years.

The influx has further driven up prices for Japanese people and fuelled a sentiment among some that foreigners are taking advantage of the country, aggravating discontent.

Against that same backdrop, Ishiba last week launched a task force aimed at tackling “crimes or nuisance behaviours committed by some foreign nationals”, including those relating to immigration, land acquisitions and unpaid social insurance.

Japan’s ruling coalition is likely to lose its majority in the upper house, according to an exit poll by local media, potentially fuelling political instability in the world’s fourth largest economy.

Voters in Japan cast their ballots on Sunday in an upper house election which was seen as a test of the popularity of Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and his ruling coalition.

Ishiba’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and coalition partner Komeito needed 50 seats to retain control of the 248-seat upper chamber in an election where half the seats are up for grabs.

They are forecast to secure 32 to 51 seats, the exit poll by public broadcaster NHK showed on Sunday.

While the ballot does not directly determine whether Ishiba’s shaky minority government falls, it heaps pressure on the embattled leader who also lost control of the more-powerful lower house in October.

Ishiba’s poor performance does not immediately trigger a change of government because the upper house lacks the power to file a no-confidence motion against a leader. However, Ishiba could now face calls from within the LDP to resign or to find another coalition partner.

Polling stations opened nationwide at 7am on Sunday (22:00 GMT, Saturday) and voted continued until 8pm (11:00 GMT, Sunday) in most places, according to NHK.

The rising cost of living, especially for the staple food of rice, is a key issue for many voters, with population decline and foreign policy also on the agenda, NHK reported.

Opinion polls earlier also suggested smaller opposition parties pushing for tax cuts and increased public spending were set to gain.

These parties include right-wing Sanseito, which has promised to curb immigration, oppose foreign capital inflows and reverse gender equality moves. The exit poll projected the party has made strong gains.

“I am attending graduate school, but there are no Japanese [people] around me. All of them are foreigners,” said Yu Nagai, a 25-year-old student who said he voted for Sanseito.

“When I look at the way compensation and money are spent on foreigners, I think that Japanese people are a bit disrespected,” Nagai told the Reuters news agency.

Other voters, meanwhile, voiced concern about escalating xenophobia.

Yuko Tsuji, a 43-year-old consultant, who came to a polling station inside a downtown Tokyo gymnasium with her husband, said they support the LDP for stability and unity and voted “for candidates who won’t fuel division”.

“If the ruling party doesn’t govern properly, the conservative base will drift toward extremes. So I voted with the hope that the ruling party would tighten things up,” she told The Associated Press news agency.

Self-employed Daiichi Nasu, 57, said he hopes for a change towards a more inclusive and diverse society, with more open immigration and gender policies such as allowing married couples to keep separate surnames. “That’s why I voted for the CDPJ,” he said, referring to the opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan. “I want to see progress on those fronts.”

More than 20 percent of registered voters, some 21 million people, voted early, significantly more than three years ago, NHK reported.

Ishiba, 68, a self-avowed defence “geek” and train enthusiast, became prime minister on his fifth attempt last September before immediately calling snap elections for late October.

Those polls marked a significant defeat for the new prime minister’s ruling coalition, which won just 209 seats in the lower house of parliament, down from the 279 it previously held.

In April, Ishiba announced emergency economic measures to alleviate any impact on industries and households affected by new tariffs imposed by the United States on Japanese exports.

The country is still frantically seeking to secure a reprieve from US President Donald Trump’s proposed 25 percent tariffs before a new August 1 deadline touted by Washington.

Ishiba’s centre-right LDP has governed Japan almost continuously since 1955, albeit with frequent changes of leader.

He is the third prime minister to lead the country since former leader Shinzo Abe resigned in September 2020.

Abe was assassinated two years later, leading to revelations and public outrage about ties between the former prime minister, his LDP and the Unification Church.

The 46-year old’s comeback bid for 13th world title falls short with a draw against WBC welterweight champion Mario Barrios.

Manny Pacquiao’s bid to become the oldest welterweight champion in boxing history fell short as he failed to beat Mario Barrios at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas.

But he did not lose, either.

Instead, the 46-year-old Pacquiao and the 30-year-old Barrios fought to a majority draw on Saturday, with one judge giving Barrios a 115-113 win and the other two judges scoring it a 114-114 draw.

The result allowed Barrios (29-2-2, 18 knockouts) to retain his WBC welterweight belt.

“I thought I won the fight,” Pacquiao said afterwards.

“I mean, it was a close fight. My opponent was very tough. It was a wonderful fight. It was good.”

Pacquiao (62-8-3, 39 KOs) already holds the record for the oldest welterweight champion, winning the belt via split-decision over Keith Thurman in 2019.

The Filipino legend was enshrined in the International Boxing Hall of Fame last month. Pacquiao dominated Saturday’s fight early on, showing energy against his younger foe.

Ultimately, though, CompuBox stats had Barrios landing more punches (120-101) and more jabs (45-20), though Pacquiao landed 81 power punches to Barrios’s 75.

Pacquiao held the lead on all three cards after 10 rounds, but Barrios took all three rounds on all three scorecards to avoid the upset. Age and stamina were definitely on Pacquiao’s mind after the fight.

“I need to continue my training for longer going into a championship fight,” said Pacquiao, who lost his senatorial bid in the Philippines in May. “Because of the election, I started late, but it’s OK. Of course, I’d like a rematch. I want to leave a legacy and make the Filipino people proud.

“Don’t tell that to Barrios.

“His stamina is crazy,” the champion said. “He’s still strong as hell, and his timing is real. He’s still a very awkward fighter to try to figure out.”

As for a rematch, Barrios is ready.

“I’ll do the rematch. Absolutely. This was huge for boxing. I’d love to do it again.”

Florida’s Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the state’s congressional redistricting map, rejecting a challenge over the elimination of a majority-Black district in north Florida that was pushed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The court, dominated by DeSantis appointees, ruled that restoration of the district that previously united Black communities from Jacksonville to west of Tallahassee, or across 200 miles, would amount to impermissible racial gerrymandering. That, the majority ruled, violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees.

“The record leaves no doubt that such a district would be race-predominant. The record also gives us no reasonable basis to think that further litigation would uncover a potentially viable remedy,” said Chief Justice Carlos Muniz in the court’s majority opinion.

The decision means Florida’s current congressional districts that give Republicans a 20-8 advantage over Democrats will remain in place for the 2026 midterm elections and beyond. The former north Florida district was most recently represented by a Black Democrat, former Rep. Al Lawson. The new districts divide that area among three Republicans.

A panel of three federal judges previously upheld the current congressional districts.

“This was always the constitutionally correct map — and now both the federal courts and the FL Supreme Court have upheld it,” DeSantis said on X.

One of the plaintiffs, the National Redistricting Foundation, called the new ruling “alarming” because it “diminishes the voting power of Black Floridians” by upholding the GOP-drawn map.

“The court is abandoning the most basic role of the judiciary: to provide justice for the people,” said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the foundation.

Earlier redistricting efforts by the state Legislature included versions of the north Florida district that preserved Black voting power. But after a veto by DeSantis, the governor pushed through the current map that eliminated it.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court said one problem for the plaintiffs was they did not propose a viable alternative map but only pointed out potential problems with the current one.

“It is not enough in the redistricting context for challengers to identify a flaw in an enacted districting plan and demand that the court send the Legislature back to the drawing board,” the decision said.

Justice Jorge Labarga was the lone dissenter, contending the lawsuit should be sent back to a lower court for further proceedings to allow the challengers a chance to produce different districts.

“By foreclosing further litigation, the majority’s decision now allows to remain in place a congressional redistricting plan that is unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution,” Labarga wrote.

Anderson writes for the Associated Press.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The Ultra-Orthodox Shas party says it will leave the government in response to dispute over mandatory military service.

A key partner in Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition says it is quitting, leaving the Israeli prime minister with a minority in parliament.

The Ultra-Orthodox Shas party said on Wednesday that it was leaving the coalition in protest against lawmakers’ failure to guarantee future exemption from military conscription for religious students.

“Shas representatives … find with a heavy heart that they cannot stay in the government and be a part of it,” the group said in a statement.

Leading a minority government would make governing a challenge for Netanyahu. But Shas said it wouldn’t work to undermine the coalition once outside it and could vote with it on some laws. It also wouldn’t support its collapse.

The departure of Shas comes one day after another ultra-Orthodox party, United Torah Judaism (UTJ),  resigned from the government over the same issue, which has sparked an explosive debate in the country after more than 21 months of war with Hamas in Gaza.

While ultra-Orthodox seminary students have long been exempt from mandatory military service, many Israelis are angered by what they see as an unfair burden carried by the mainstream who serve.

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders say full-time devotion to holy scriptures study is sacrosanct and fear their young men will steer away from religious life if they are drafted into the military.

Last year the Supreme Court ordered an end to the exemption. Parliament has been trying to work out a new conscription bill, which has so far failed to meet the demands of both Shas and UTJ.

Their joint move leaves Netanyahu with a minority government but is not expected to usher in immediate elections or undermine efforts to secure a possible Gaza ceasefire.

However, the Israeli leader will be more susceptible to the demands of his far-right coalition partners, who oppose ending the war while Hamas remains intact.

This is a developing story. More to come…

People have been left scratching their heads after trying this tricky brainteaser that only 1% of people can answer successfully – do you have what it takes to solve it?

If you can solve this baffling riddle, you could be able to consider yourself among the top 1% of brains in the country – as a staggering 99% will fail to get the answer correct.

Solving brainteasers is a fantastic way to boost your cognitive function and give your brain a much-needed workout, which is as important for your body as regular exercise is for keeping you physically fit. Puzzles can improve your problem-solving skills, improve your pattern recognition, and can even help to stave off the onset of some degenerative diseases such as dementia – so they’re definitely worth a go if you have a spare couple of minutes.

This particular puzzle was set by the question writers on the ITV game show The 1% Club. In the show, the questions start off easy, with ones that 90% of people can solve, and go all the way down to the dreaded 1% question that’s deemed so difficult that 99% of people fail to get it right.

And one recent 1% question that was asked on the show was later shared on TikTok, where it left people scratching their heads as they struggled to solve it.

The question was this: What new word links the capitalised words below?

“My SON TED ate raw FOOD and got SICK, then went to BED with me by his SIDE.”

You’ll need to think outside the box for this one. There are numerous ways the words could be “linked”, and you’ll need to work out what the connection is. Do they all have something in common? Can they all have letters added to the beginning or the end to create new words?

Don’t worry if it looks confusing. The puzzle is designed to be complicated, and there’s no shame in not being able to solve this one. Part of the fun of completing these brainteasers is learning what the pattern is, so that the next time you take one of these on, you’ll know what to look for!

If you think you can give this one a crack, though, keep studying it for as long as you need. Contestants on the show only get a short 30 seconds to solve each question, but you don’t have to be that strict with yourself unless you really want to show your skills.

Whenever you’re ready to see the answer, scroll down to find out if you were right.

Answer

The answer is the word “sea”. Each capitalised word in the sentence can be preceded by the word “sea” to make a new word, such as season, seated, seafood, seasick, seabed, and seaside.

Several people in the comments of the TikTok video were tripped up by the confusing question, with some coming up with strange answers that were far from accurate.

One person said: “Son and Ted are both human (they can get sick), Food and Sick (also connect because bad food can cause sickness, Bed and Side (can also be connected with health), the issue is Sickness is not a new word!”

Another simply responded: “Bedside.”

However, many others believed the answer was “obvious”, with some even saying they couldn’t see why the question was deemed too difficult for all but 1% of people.

MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority struck down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by newer state laws regulating the procedure, including statutes that criminalize abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb.

The ruling came as no surprise given that liberal justices control the court. One of them went so far as promising to uphold abortion rights during her campaign two years ago, and they blasted the ban during oral arguments in November.

The statute Wisconsin legislators adopted in 1849, widely interpreted as a near-total ban on abortions, made it a felony for anyone other than the mother or a doctor in a medical emergency to destroy “an unborn child.”

The ban was in effect until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed it, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it.

Wisconsin Atty. Gen. Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that abortion restrictions Republican legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect trumped the ban. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.

Lawmakers also enacted abortion restrictions under Roe requiring women undergo ultrasounds, wait 24 hours before having the procedure and provide written consent, and receive abortion-inducing drugs only from doctors during an in-person visit.

“That comprehensive legislation so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was clearly meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion,” Justice Rebeca Dallet wrote for the majority.

Sheboygan County Dist. Atty. Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that it can coexist with the newer abortion restrictions.

Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother’s consent — but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling, but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin.

Urmanski had asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper’s ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court.

The liberal justices all but telegraphed how they would rule. Justice Janet Protasiewicz stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. During oral arguments, Dallet declared that the ban was authored by white men who held all the power in the 19th century. Justice Jill Karofsky likened the ban to a “death warrant” for women and children who need medical care.

A solid majority of Wisconsin voters in the 2024 election, 62%, said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to AP VoteCast. About one-third said abortion should be illegal in most cases, and only 5% said it should be illegal in all cases.

In a dissent, Justice Annette Ziegler called the ruling “a jaw-dropping exercise of judicial will.” She said the liberal justices caved in to their Democratic constituencies.

“Put bluntly, our court has no business usurping the role of the legislature, inventing legal theories on the fly in order to make four justices’ personal preference the law,” Ziegler said.

Urmanski’s attorney, Andrew Phillips, didn’t respond to an email. Kaul told reporters during a news conference that the ruling is a “major victory” for reproductive rights.

Heather Weininger, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, called the ruling “deeply disappointing.” She said that the liberals failed to point to any statute that explicitly repealed the 1849 ban.

“To assert that a repeal is implied is to legislate from the bench,” she said.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin asked the Supreme Court in February 2024 to decide whether the ban was constitutional. The court dismissed that case with no explanation Wednesday.

Michelle Velasquez, chief strategy officer for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said Wednesday’s ruling creates stability for abortion providers and patients, but she was disappointed that the justices dismissed the constitutional challenge. She hinted that the organization might look next to challenge the state’s remaining abortion restrictions.

Kaul said he has no plans to challenge the remaining restrictions, saying the Legislature should instead revisit abortion policy.

Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday’s ruling.

Richmond writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday put off ruling on a second Black majority congressional district in Louisiana, instead ordering new arguments in the fall.

The case is being closely watched because at arguments in March several of the court’s conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act.

The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life.

Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a brief dissent from Friday’s order that he would have decided the case now and imposed limits on “race-based redistricting.”

The order keeps alive a fight over political power stemming from the 2020 census halfway to the next one. Two maps were blocked by lower courts, and the Supreme Court intervened twice. Last year, the justices ordered the new map to be used in the 2024 elections, while the legal case proceeded.

The call for new arguments probably means that the district currently represented by Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields probably will remain intact for the 2026 elections because the high court has separately been reluctant to upend districts as elections draw near.

The state has changed its election process to replace its so-called jungle primary with partisan primary elections in the spring, followed by a November showdown between the party nominees.

The change means candidates can start gathering signatures in September to get on the primary ballot for 2026.

The state’s Republican-dominated legislature drew a new congressional map in 2022 to account for population shifts reflected in the 2020 census. But the changes effectively maintained the status quo of five Republican-leaning majority white districts and one Democratic-leaning majority Black district in a state in which Black people make up a third of the population.

Civil rights advocates won a lower-court ruling that the districts likely discriminated against Black voters.

The Supreme Court put the ruling on hold while it took a similar case from Alabama. The justices allowed both states to use congressional maps in the 2022 elections even though both had been ruled likely discriminatory by federal judges.

The high court eventually affirmed the ruling from Alabama, which led to a new map and a second district that could elect a Black lawmaker. The justices returned the Louisiana case to federal court, with the expectation that new maps would be in place for the 2024 elections.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave lawmakers in Louisiana a deadline of early 2024 to draw a new map or face the possibility of a court-imposed map.

The state complied and drew a new map, with two Black majority districts.

But white Louisiana voters claimed in their separate lawsuit challenging the new districts that race was the predominant factor driving the new map. A three-judge court agreed.

Louisiana appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.