Means

The United States Senate has voted in favour of invoking its war powers to force President Donald Trump to halt his military campaign against Iran or seek congressional approval before any further action is taken.

Here is a closer look at Tuesday’s vote – the 10th attempt Congress has made to rein in the US-Israel war on Iran – and what this means for the US government.

Why did this vote take place?

A similar measure had already been approved in the House of Representatives on June 3 by a vote of 215 to 208, and on Tuesday, the Senate passed it in a 50-48 vote. Trump’s Republican Party has slim majorities in both chambers.

Speaking on the Senate floor before the vote, top Democrat Chuck Schumer advocated for the war powers resolution as he criticised Trump’s military campaign against Iran.

“For years, Trump promised to put maximum pressure on Iran, but he ended up delivering maximum confusion, maximum chaos, maximum cost to the American people with his disastrous war,” Schumer said.

“Time after time, the vast majority of Senate Republicans sided with Trump and his war instead of the American people. The American people have paid the price for Trump’s historic blunder in Iran. It’ll go down in the history books as one of the worst foreign policy forays America has ever made.”

The war against Iran has proved highly unpopular in the US. A poll released on Tuesday by the news agency Reuters and the research firm Ipsos found that 24 percent of respondents felt the war had been worth the cost.

The Senate passed its first war powers resolution against the Iran conflict on May 20, but that effort was a procedural move only and did not progress.

Who voted and how?

Four Republican senators crossed party lines to vote for the resolution, and all but one of the chamber’s Democrats also voted in favour.

Tuesday’s breakaway Republicans were Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky. A further two Republicans did not vote: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania.

The lone Democrat to vote against the measure was Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman.

What does the resolution say?

The war powers resolution “directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran”.

Only if “explicitly authorised by a declaration of war or a specific congressional authorisation” would Trump be allowed to use further military force against Iran, it says.

The resolution, however, does allow for a limited military presence to remain in the Middle East to prevent any “imminent attack” against the US or its allies.

What is the significance of the vote?

The vote reflects growing unease even among some of Trump’s Republican supporters about the unpopular conflict, which began with US-Israeli air strikes on Tehran on February 28.

This is the first time both chambers of Congress have passed a resolution directing a president to remove US armed forces from a warzone under the War Powers Act although it was not immediately clear how the votes might affect the conflict.

Technically, the Trump administration should now seek explicit congressional approval for further strikes on Iran. However, previous administrations have found routes around this by securing more limited authorisations for the use of military force (AUMFs) instead.

For example, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed an AUMF that gave then-President George W Bush broad powers to conduct what would become the global “war on terror”.

And one year later, it passed another AUMF, allowing the use of the military against the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which became the basis of the 2003 invasion.

The two authorisations remain in place, and presidents continue to rely on them to carry out strikes without first seeking congressional approval. The assassination of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020 in Baghdad was authorised by Trump under the 2003 AUMF.

In addition, a resolution does not have the force of law. Experts said, therefore, that while the Senate vote is viewed as a rebuke to Trump, it is largely symbolic.

What effect will this have on US-Iran talks in Switzerland?

Before the vote on Tuesday, some Republican senators had warned that the war powers resolution would weaken Trump’s standing in the Switzerland negotiations.

“If this passes, the Iranians are going to simply stand up and walk away from negotiations,” Senator James Risch of Idaho told the Senate on Tuesday.

“They’re going to say: This thing’s over. The Congress has told the president of the United States, ‘Leave us alone. We can do whatever we want to do,’ and they will walk away.”

How will the Trump administration respond?

Risch also argued that the resolution is essentially useless, given its symbolic nature. “It’s going to have no effect. The president isn’t going to pay any attention to it,” he said.

The US Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war, but that division of power has eroded over the past 75 years as successive presidents alone have committed US forces to overseas conflicts.

Trump has pointed to that precedent to argue that he does not need congressional authorisation at all.

In an appearance on The Axios Show last week, Trump denied learning any “lesson” about the limits of his executive powers during the Iran war. “There are no limits,” he said.

The last time Congress voted to go to war was during World War II although it has passed AUMFs in the decades since, which allow for limited military engagement without congressional approval for all-out war.

During Trump’s first term, there were concerns that he could use the 2001 AUMF to strike Iran under the unfounded claim that Tehran supports al-Qaeda.

Some critics pointed out that Republicans may be more willing to confront Trump over the issue of congressional authorisation now as they defend their seats before November’s midterm elections.

Kevin Turner is in intensive care and his family will need to pay the bill – and the cost of getting him home

A dad faces a £30,000 medical bill after falling ill on holiday because he didn’t declare a common ailment on his travel insurance. Kevin Turner flew to Alicante with his partner Joy Peck in May after feeling poorly the week before with a chest infection.

After taking antibiotics and steroids, the 63-year-old said he felt assured by his GP that he was ‘good to go’ and was prescribed more medication to account for being away. The retired painter and decorator felt ‘off’ when he landed but put it down to the journey. It was when his chest pains worsened the following day that Joy called an ambulance.

After being rushed to a hospital in Alicante, doctors discovered Kevin had a pierced lung and pneumonia and he was put in intensive care. Despite having holiday insurance, Kevin’s family says his medical bills aren’t covered as he didn’t declare his chest infection before travelling – meaning he faces bills of at least £30,000.

Kevin’s daughters Sam Turner, 44, and Natalie Fowell, 40, have set up a GoFundMe to help pay his medical bills and get him home to the UK. Sam, from Winsford, Cheshire, said: “It was really, really scary because obviously you’re helpless. You’re over here and you don’t know what’s going on.

“He did have an existing chest infection that he had visited the doctor for that week and had been given antibiotics and steroids. He did also say that he was due to go on holiday and there were no warnings or concerns around that [from the GP] so he thought he was good to go.

“They just gave him enough medication for the fact that he was going away and that was it. He’d arrived at midnight, had something to eat and drink and gone to bed, feeling a bit off but just put it down to travel. It got progressively worse from there.

“By the next day the pains were just so much that in hindsight he probably already had pneumonia when he got on the flight, but he wasn’t aware. Joy rang me from the hotel and said ‘I’ve had to call him an ambulance, he’s not good’ and we were like ‘right, ok get him to the hospital’, trying to get updates all the time.

“They [doctors] said he had a pierced lung and chest and stomach pain where it’s believed air and gases had built up and had to be drained.”

Wedding co-ordinator Sam flew out to be with her dad on May 30 to be by his bedside. After contacting the insurance company, Sam says she was told that Kevin’s medical bills wouldn’t be covered as he didn’t declare the ongoing chest infection on his travel insurance before flying.

The cost of his bills is estimated to be £30,000, but as Kevin is still in intensive care it may rise. You can donate to Kevin’s GoFundMe here: https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-kevs-recovery-and-journey-home

Sam said: “It very much looks like it’s a case of, the small print says if there are any significant health changes up to the date of travel then you must notify them. He’s still in intensive care and we’re trying to find out what the prognosis is.

“He hasn’t been out of bed, he hasn’t used his legs or feet and he’s just really worried because he’s lost all feeling in them. The insurance took about two weeks for them to decide that they weren’t going to pay out. It involved a lot of chasing from us.

“I would always say read the small print of the insurance document, make sure you go with a reputable company and look at their reviews.”

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what we know about the ruling:

What has the Court of Appeal ruled?

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

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

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

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

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

Why was this case brought?

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

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

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

Why did the UK proscribe Palestine Action?

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

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

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

Other previous actions the group has taken include:

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

How has Palestine Action responded to the ruling?

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

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

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

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

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

How have others reacted to the ruling?

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

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

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

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

Venezuela is becoming increasingly important in Colombia’s presidential election, though not necessarily from a policy perspective. The three leading candidates are not offering radically new approaches toward Caracas. Instead, they broadly accept that Colombia will not shape Venezuela policy in a vacuum, but within a regional framework increasingly defined by Washington.

Even among the Colombian Right, the differences are narrower than the rhetoric sometimes suggests. Some candidates favor preserving parts of the thaw in relations initiated under Gustavo Petro, while others align themselves more openly with the Trump administration’s emerging three-phase approach toward Venezuela, combining pressure, negotiation, and eventual normalization while maintaining support for María Corina Machado and the democratic opposition.

The real competition is happening elsewhere.

As Bogotá increasingly adapts itself to strategic realities designed in Washington, Venezuela has become less a matter of concrete policy and more a source of symbolic legitimacy inside the Colombian Right. The question is no longer simply who has the best Venezuela strategy, but who is most closely aligned with the hemisphere’s most internationally legitimized anti-chavista figure.

Both Paloma Valencia and Abelardo de la Espriella have sought proximity to Machado, likely recognizing her growing political value among Colombian-Venezuelan voters and sectors of the Colombian Right that increasingly view her as a hemispheric democratic symbol after July 28, 2024. Early in the electoral cycle, both candidates publicized meetings with Machado and members of her team, presenting themselves as politically aligned with the Venezuelan opposition’s struggle. Valencia recently traveled to Panama to meet Machado personally, while De la Espriella has repeatedly emphasized his relationship with anti-chavista circles to position himself as part of a broader regional conservative realignment.

Yet the two candidacies embody very different political instincts.

Support from figures close to Machado, Trump-world Republicans, Miami exile networks, and conservative media ecosystems now carries political value extending far beyond Venezuela itself.

Valencia represents a more traditional conservative internationalism tied to institutional anti-chavismo, democratic legitimacy, and Atlanticist conservatism. De la Espriella, meanwhile, has increasingly embraced a far more populist style of politics, openly presenting himself as a Colombian version of Nayib Bukele that promises to build ten CECOT-style mega prisons in Colombia.

That contradiction becomes particularly striking when placed alongside one of the defining professional relationships of De la Espriella’s career: his representation of Alex Saab during the height of the CLAP era. Saab became one of the clearest symbols of late-stage chavismo’s corruption architecture, embodying the opaque financial networks, sanctions arbitrage, and humanitarian corruption that increasingly defined the Maduro era.

The irony of Saab’s former lawyer attempting to embody Colombia’s hardest anti-chavista and anti-corruption posture is difficult to ignore. But the contradiction also reveals something deeper about contemporary Latin American politics, where anti-establishment rhetoric and proximity to opaque power structures are no longer necessarily disqualifying contradictions.

The contradictions are perhaps most visible within parts of the Venezuelan opposition’s own media ecosystem. Some anti-chavista pundits spent years cultivating reputations as uncompromising anti-corruption crusaders, often accusing opposition figures of moral weakness, accommodationism, or hidden financial interests. Their enthusiastic support for Abelardo de la Espriella, despite his long professional relationship with Alex Saab during the height of the CLAP era, suggests that ideological affinity and political aesthetics are increasingly overriding the moral rigidity that once characterized parts of anti-chavista discourse.

Venezuela’s role in the Colombian election is not primarily about foreign policy. It is about political identity.

At the same time, other sectors of Machado’s broader international coalition appear more naturally aligned with Valencia’s institutional conservatism. The result is an increasingly visible fragmentation within the anti-chavista ecosystem itself, one that reflects broader tensions inside the Latin American Right between institutional conservatism, populist maximalism, and Bukele-style punitive politics.

Washington has only reinforced those dynamics. As the US once again becomes the principal external actor shaping Venezuela’s political future, different Colombian candidates increasingly compete to position themselves as the preferred interlocutors of the emerging regional order. Support from figures close to Machado, Trump-world Republicans, Miami exile networks, and conservative media ecosystems now carries political value extending far beyond Venezuela itself.

In that sense, Venezuela’s role in the Colombian election is not primarily about foreign policy. It is about political identity.

And perhaps more importantly, it may also offer a glimpse into the future political terrain of a post-transition Venezuela itself. If chavismo eventually collapses or evolves into some form of negotiated transition, the country will not emerge into a region defined by liberal democratic consensus. It will emerge into a hemisphere shaped by Bukele, Milei, Trumpism, social media maximalism, and deep public exhaustion with traditional political elites.

The rise of figures like De la Espriella suggests that the post-chavista Right may not necessarily resemble the liberal democratic opposition that spent decades fighting chavismo. It may instead reflect a harsher, more punitive, and more performative political culture, one forged not despite the region’s prolonged crises, but because of them.

The ceasefire between the US and Iran has been in place for nearly four weeks. The Strait of Hormuz has not been at peace for a single day.

This week pushed that contradiction to its most dangerous point yet. The United States launched Project Freedom, a naval escort operation designed to guide roughly 2,000 ships stranded on either side of the Strait through to open water. Iran said any ship attempting passage without IRGC permission would be fired on. Within hours, both sides were claiming to have hit the other, the UAE was scrambling missile alerts for the first time since the ceasefire began, an oil refinery in Fujairah was on fire, and commercial aircraft bound for Dubai were turning around mid-air.

As of Tuesday evening, Trump announced Project Freedom would be paused “for a short period of time” to see if an agreement with Iran could be reached. Secretary of State Rubio told reporters the US was now in a “defensive” posture. Twenty-four hours earlier, both sides had been shooting and denying it simultaneously.

Here is what we know, what is contested, and what it means.

What Is Project Freedom and Why Did the US Launch It?

Trump announced the operation on Sunday, framing it in humanitarian terms, an effort to free the seafarers and cargo companies that had done nothing wrong and were caught between two governments fighting a war neither had formally ended. About 2,000 ships have been stranded on either side of the Strait since late February, unable to move without IRGC permission, which Iran began requiring and charging for after the ceasefire took effect.

The US had already begun a naval blockade of Iranian ports on April 13. Project Freedom was the next escalation — a direct challenge to Iran’s assertion that the Strait was now under its operational control. Trump described it as a “humanitarian gesture.” Iran described it as a violation of the ceasefire and an act of military aggression in a sensitive oil region that affects the economies of countries around the world.

Two American-flagged merchant ships successfully transited the Strait on Monday with US Navy escort. A Danish shipping company confirmed one of its vessels crossed with US military protection. But the transit did not go smoothly.

Did Iran Attack a US Warship? What the Claims Say

By Monday afternoon, the competing narratives had become almost impossible to untangle, which is itself part of the story.

Iran’s Fars News Agency reported a US warship had been hit by two Iranian drones after refusing to turn back from the Strait. CENTCOM denied any warship had been hit. US Admiral Brad Cooper said CENTCOM forces had sunk six IRGC vessels that tried to interfere with Project Freedom. Trump later said seven. Iran’s state broadcaster then reported that Tehran had launched an investigation and its preliminary conclusion was that the vessels the US claimed to have sunk were not IRGC boats at all, they were two small civilian craft carrying passengers from Oman to the Iranian coast, and five civilian passengers had been killed. The US has not commented on that claim and it has not been independently verified.

Why Iran Attacked the UAE in 2026: The Fujairah Strike Explained

The UAE’s Ministry of Defense said its air defenses engaged 15 ballistic missiles, three cruise missiles, and four drones launched from Iran on Monday, the first Iranian attacks on the UAE since the ceasefire took effect on April 8. One drone struck an oil refinery in Fujairah, wounding three Indian nationals and setting the facility ablaze. Four missile alerts were issued across the country, sending residents to shelter. Commercial aircraft bound for Dubai and Abu Dhabi turned around in mid-flight.

Iran’s position was that the Fujairah attack was not a premeditated strike on the UAE but a consequence of what it called US military adventurism in the Strait. An Iranian military official said the Islamic Republic had no preplanned programme to attack UAE facilities, and that what happened resulted from the US attempt to create an illegal passage through restricted waters. The UAE’s Foreign Ministry rejected that framing entirely, condemning what it called renewed terrorist and unprovoked Iranian attacks on civilian sites, and warning it reserves the full right to respond.

Why the Attack Claims Cannot Be Independently Verified

One detail worth noting is the shifting count of Iranian vessels supposedly sunk. Admiral Cooper said six. Trump said seven. No independent observer has confirmed either figure, and Iran has denied any IRGC boats were hit at all. This pattern: each side claiming damage inflicted while denying damage received, with no neutral verification , has run throughout the conflict and is not unique to this week’s exchange. What is different now is that the Strait is supposed to be under a ceasefire, and the exchanges are happening in a waterway where 2,000 civilian ships are anchored and waiting to see who wins the argument.

How the Hormuz Escalation Is Threatening Iran Ceasefire Talks in 2026

Trump’s decision to pause Project Freedom on Tuesday is significant precisely because of how quickly it followed the launch. The operation began Sunday. By Tuesday, with the UAE under attack, Iranian drones targeting ships in the Strait, and competing claims circulating with no resolution, the White House stepped back. Rubio reframed the entire mission as defensive rather than offensive, and a new UN Security Council resolution on freedom of navigation was announced, co-authored by Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar. A previous similar resolution was vetoed by China and Russia, and the outlook for this one is no clearer.

The pause does not resolve the underlying problem. The Strait remains contested. Iran still insists ships must seek IRGC permission and pay for transit. The US still insists the Strait is international water under international law. Two thousand ships are still stranded. And the ceasefire that is supposed to govern all of this is being tested in ways its text was never designed to handle.

The attacks this week did not happen in isolation from the negotiations still technically underway. Pakistan has been trying to bring the US and Iran back to a second round of talks after the Islamabad discussions collapsed on the nuclear question in April. Every exchange of fire, every competing claim, every missile alert in Abu Dhabi makes that second round harder to convene and harder to trust once convened.

As Shahram Akbarzadeh, a professor in Middle East and Central Asian politics at Deakin University, told Al Jazeera: “We see escalation after escalation against the backdrop of shuttle diplomacy. Such attacks, even if they are aimed to be contained, risk exploding into another major combat.” Neither the Americans nor the Iranians want a return to full-scale war, Akbarzadeh said, but neither is prepared to show weakness. “This dynamic has locked them in a perpetual conflict and in desperate need of a circuit breaker.”

The circuit breaker Pakistan offered in April produced a ceasefire. That ceasefire is now generating its own escalation cycle, in twenty-one miles of water, over a question neither side has answered: who controls the Strait of Hormuz, and on what terms does the world’s most important waterway reopen.

Two thousand ships are waiting for the answer.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has shown an ability to make a lot of noise at the government agency known in recent years to be a little sleepy.

But his April 28 announcement that the Walt Disney Co.’s eight ABC TV stations will undergo an early review of their broadcast licenses is his loudest action yet taken on behalf of President Trump, who repeatedly threatened media outlets that he believes are critical of him.

Carr is calling for the review two years before any of the station licenses are up, citing the agency’s inquiry into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies and whether they violated federal anti-discrimination rules.

The timing of Carr’s move is raising eyebrows as it comes after First Lady Melania Trump’s call for the firing of ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over his April 23 comedy bit on the White House correspondents’ dinner. A tuxedo-clad Kimmel called Melania Trump “beautiful,” saying she had “the glow of an expectant widow.”

The first lady’s remarks came after a man armed with a shotgun, handgun and several knives breached security at the Washington black-tie event on April 25. The suspect, Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, was arrested and faces three criminal charges, including attempting to assassinate the president.

Kimmel’s gag became ammunition for right-wing commentators, who claim the left is stoking political violence.

The host said the joke was about the age difference between the 79-year-old president and his wife. Kimmel denied it was a call for violence and has continued to mock the president on his show.

Carr insisted at a Washington news conference last week that his demand for a review is not related to Kimmel’s remarks.

Although many are skeptical, Carr, who was at the April 25 dinner, told The Times there would be an action related to ABC coming soon. The conversation occurred hours before the shots were fired.

The investigation into Disney’s practices began in March 2025, part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reverse DEI initiatives across private companies, federal agencies, universities and other organizations.

After the 2020 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, which spurred the Black Lives Matter movement, companies such as Disney and NBC-owned Comcast aggressively promoted their diversity efforts.

But experts believe Carr is acting on ABC at the behest of Trump, as the chairman has often expressed support on social media whenever the president criticizes one of the broadcast TV news outlets.

“It might be the case that Disney can get some early relief by saying this should be dismissed because this is really a 1st Amendment issue,” said James Speta, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law. “We all know what’s going on here — the administration doesn’t like the speech that’s coming out of the talent on the broadcasting airwaves.”

Disney is not commenting on Carr’s DEI investigation, but it earlier defended the record of its TV stations, which are ratings leaders in most markets. “We are confident that record demonstrates our continued qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment and are prepared to show that through the appropriate legal channels,” the company said.

Here’s a primer on what to know and the challenges Disney may face.

Why are TV stations licensed by the government?

Government licensing regulates the spectrum allocated to broadcast channels, largely to prevent interference between TV signals. When renewals come up, the license holder must demonstrate that the station is serving the public interest by providing local news, program diversity and educational and informational shows for children. The procedure once occurred every three years, but deregulation efforts have extended that period to the current span of eight years.

When was the last time a TV station faced a significant license renewal challenge?

The most notable recent example was Fox Corp.’s Philadelphia station WTXF, which was up for a license renewal in October 2023. Activist groups filing the challenge said Fox was unfit to own the outlet after a judge ruled earlier that year that the company’s Fox News Channel had spread falsehoods about voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Fox paid $787 million to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems that alleged the cable news channel damaged the company’s reputation.

Fox News, which operates on cable and satellite and is therefore not subject to FCC control, has a different management team than the parent company’s local TV stations, which mostly cover their communities and do not typically present political commentary. The FCC rejected the renewal challenge in January 2025, noting that none of the false information on Fox News was heard on the Philadelphia station. WTXF was not cited in Dominion’s lawsuit.

Are there any other examples?

Yes. Other White House administrations have threatened to pull TV station licenses in response to negative news coverage. At the height of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, Richard Nixon’s allies unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the TV licenses of three stations then owned by the Washington Post.

Has a company ever lost its broadcast license?

RKO General, a unit of the General Tire and Rubber Co., was the last company to lose broadcast TV station licenses in 1987, including Los Angeles outlet KHJ. The case was related to corporate malfeasance and not broadcast content on the stations.

The process to revoke the RKO licenses took seven years from the moment the FCC voted in favor of the move.

But isn’t this case different?

Yes. Although the rule Carr mentioned is legitimate, the FCC has rarely if ever acted on it, according to one veteran TV executive who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. If Disney or any other company was found to violate the nondiscrimination rule, they would in previous eras probably be subjected to a just a fine, not the denial of a license, which would be viewed by many as government censorship.

What happens in the event that ABC licenses are not renewed?

Nothing immediately, as the licenses are in effect through 2028 to 2032, depending on the outlet. If Disney had to sell the stations, the price would probably be depressed due to pressure to unload the properties.

But public communications attorney Andrew Jay Schwartzman told The Times last month that the bar for denying a renewal is high and any effort would be tied up in court on constitutional grounds.

“The law intentionally sets out a very steep burden for the FCC to deny a license renewal; the process takes many years, during which time the licensee continues to operate normally under ‘continuing operating authority,’” Schwartzman said.

The 60-day clock for President Trump to seek congressional approval for further military actions against Iran was stopped by the April 7 ceasefire, a senior White House official claimed to The War Zone Friday morning. As we previously noted, the president faced a deadline today under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to obtain permission from Congress to continue fighting.

The White House decision comes as the now-paused war is at a stalemate, with both sides believing they can outlast the other. Meanwhile, Trump is considering options for a new round of strikes while Iranians say they have presented new plans for working toward a peace deal.

“For War Powers Resolution purposes, the hostilities that began on Saturday, February 28 have terminated,” the official told us, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the matter. “Both parties agreed to a two-week ceasefire on Tuesday, April 7 that has since been extended. There has been no exchange of fire between U.S. Armed Forces and Iran since Tuesday, April 7.”

The administration’s statement today follows War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Congressional testimony yesterday that “the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire.”

Under the War Powers Resolution, the use of armed forces should be terminated within 60 days unless Congress has declared war or voted to approve a 30-day extension. Since Trump formally notified Congress about the Iran war on March 2, that deadline fell today. Even though several other presidents have simply ignored the War Powers Resolution, the Trump administration is now arguing that the measure doesn’t really apply to their operation just yet.

It remains unclear how or if Congress will react. It adjourned yesterday for a week-long recess. On Thursday, the Senate rejected the latest of many resolutions intended to halt the war, The Washington Post noted. 

Republican lawmakers appear to be deferring to Trump on the issue of the War Powers Resolution. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told The Associated Press on Thursday that he doesn’t plan on a vote to authorize force in Iran or otherwise weigh in.

“I’m listening carefully to what the members of our conference are saying, and at this point I don’t see that,” Thune said.

Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said he’d vote for an authorization of war if Trump asked for it. But he questioned if the War Powers Act, passed during the Vietnam War era as a way for Congress to claw back its power, is even constitutional.

“Our founders created a really strong executive, like it or not like it,” Cramer said.

Some drivers could be risking fines and penalty points without realising

Drivers heading out across the UK in the weeks and months to come have been alerted to a lesser-known DVLA rule.

With numerous Britons choosing road trips and staycations, campervans and motorhomes have become the preferred option for many people’s summer travels. However, not all vehicles receive equal treatment and how your campervan is registered could impact how fast you are legally permitted to drive.

If a campervan remains classified as a commercial vehicle, it may be subject to reduced speed limits compared to a standard car. This can surprise drivers, particularly as limits differ depending on weight, road type and whether a trailer is being towed.

The Highway Code establishes clear regulations for different vehicle categories and failing to adhere to them could lead to fines or penalty points. Grasping the distinction before departing could help drivers sidestep unexpected penalties and keep journeys running smoothly.

Speed limit rules for campervans and motorhomes

Paul Gorry, vehicle expert at luxury motorhome manufacturer Auto-Trail, explained: “Many drivers assume their campervan follows the same speed limits as a car, but that is not always the case, especially if the vehicle is still registered as a commercial van. If a campervan is classed as a light goods vehicle up to 3.5 tonnes, the national speed limit is typically 50mph on single carriageways and 60mph on dual carriageways, which is 10mph lower than a car. This difference often comes down to how the vehicle is registered rather than how it is being used, which can lead to confusion for owners who have converted a van into a camper.

“Vehicles still classified as vans must follow lower speed limits on certain roads, particularly single carriageways, which can catch drivers out if they assume they are treated the same as a motorhome. This misunderstanding can lead to speeding fines, especially for those new to campervan ownership.”

£1,000 fines and points

Paul added: “Exceeding the correct speed limit for your vehicle can lead to penalties including fines of up to £1,000 and points on your licence. With modern speed cameras using number plate recognition to identify vehicle type, drivers are far more likely to be caught if they are travelling at car speeds in a vehicle classed as a van.”

How weight changes the rules

He said: “Speed limits for campervans and motorhomes are largely based on weight, with 3.05 tonnes being a key threshold that determines whether car or van limits apply. For vehicles under 3.05 tonnes, drivers can follow standard car limits, including 60mph on single carriageways and 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways.

“Once a campervan exceeds that weight, the limits drop to 50mph on single carriageways and 60mph on dual carriageways, even though motorway speeds can remain at 70mph.”

Towing and larger vehicles bring further restrictions

Paul said: “Drivers also need to be aware that towing a trailer reduces speed limits further, with motorway speeds dropping to 60mph and similar reductions across other road types.

“For larger motorhomes or caravans over 3.05 tonnes or longer than 12 metres, the lower limits of 50mph on single carriageways and 60mph on dual carriageways and motorways apply more consistently.

“Many people only realise these differences when they are already on the road, which can increase the risk of speeding without intending to.”

Why checking your vehicle classification matters

Paul concluded: “Before heading off on a trip, drivers should check both the weight of their campervan and how it is registered with the DVLA. A campervan that looks like a leisure vehicle may still be legally treated as a commercial van, which changes the speed limits that apply. Taking a few minutes to confirm this can help drivers avoid fines and keep their journey running smoothly.”

A CLEANER accused of supplying Liam Payne with drugs before his death could be let off with community service and a rehab course after reportedly striking a plea deal.

Ezequiel David Pereyra, who worked at the Argentina hotel where the ex-One Direction star died, might not face trial and his sentence could be cut from a possible 15 years to a suspended term.

Last night sources said Pereyra was “over the moon”.

The sources also claimed waiter Braian Nahuel Paiz, who is also accused of supplying cocaine to the star, has been offered the same deal. However it is understood that Paiz, 25, will not be accepting the deal.

It came as Liam’s girlfriend, Kate Cassidy, posted a heartbreaking video of her last day with the singer, showing them riding horses together.

A source said: “This will be terribly upsetting for Liam’s  loved ones to hear — as there is now the possibility that there will never be a trial and they will never get answers as to what happened that night.

MAGIC MOMENT

Cheryl gives rare glimpse of son Bear, 9, at Disney after ex Liam’s death

TO THE STARS

Liam Payne’s name blasted to moon in sweet gesture to late space-loving singer

“No one will be held accountable for his death.”

Pereyra, 22, was awaiting trial for allegedly selling cocaine to Liam, 31, before he fell to his death from his hotel balcony in Buenos Aires in October 2024.

He was facing a hefty jail sentence if found guilty.

But his new lawyer, Augusto Maria Cassiau, is said to have struck a deal  with prosecutors to lessen his charge if he admitted his role in the incident.

His new charge will be “facilitation for personal consumption, non-profit” —  admitting he gave the drugs to Liam when he died but he was not a dealer.

Pereyra has been offered a two-year suspended sentence, with time already served in custody awaiting trial being  taken into consideration.

He will have to  perform community service and complete a drug awareness course. 

Pereyra  was released from jail and put under house arrest in December after an appeal court agreed he had  family support, a fixed address and no criminal record.

Last month Paiz, who was also released from prison in December, had his house arrest conditions scrapped.

No new evidence has appeared in the case file and prosecutors have been unable to  secure a trial date.

In October, on the first anniversary of Liam’s death, Pereyra exclusively spoke to The Sun, offering his condolences to Liam’s family.

He also claimed bosses at the CasaSur Palermo Hotel ignored Liam’s drug use.

In a TikTok video posted on Wednesday, the same day prosecutors offered a plea deal, Kate, 27, can be seen riding horses with Liam.

She wrote: “Enjoy each moment life brings you.

“Because I didn’t know this would be the last time I’d ever see my boyfriend again in this lifetime.”

Liam had flown to Argentina with Kate   to see his former 1D bandmate Niall Horan in concert.

Liam extended the trip but Kate returned to the US.

An autopsy confirmed he died from multiple trauma and internal and external bleeding.

April 30 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Thursday pulled the nomination of Casey Means for surgeon general and replaced her with Dr. Nicole Saphier.

Means, a medical doctor, is a Make America Healthy Again activist who doesn’t have an active medical license.

Saphier is a working radiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York and a former Fox News contributor.

Trump announced the appointment on Truth Social.

“Nicole is a STAR physician who has spent her career guiding women facing breast cancer through their diagnosis and treatment while tirelessly advocating to increase early cancer detection and prevention, while at the same time working with men and women on all other forms of cancer diagnoses and treatments. She is also an INCREDIBLE COMMUNICATOR, who makes complicated health issues more easily understood by all Americans. Dr. Nicole Saphier will do great things for our Country, and help, ‘MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN,'” the president posted.

Means’ nomination had stalled in the Senate. In February, she answered senators’ questions about vaccines, psychedelics and abortion pills.

Trump blamed Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a physician, because he had refused to say if he would support Means.

He said, in a separate post: “Hopefully all of the Great Republican People of Louisiana, which I won, BIG, three times, will be voting Bill Cassidy OUT OF OFFICE in the upcoming Republican Primary!”

In January, Trump endorsed Rep. Julia Letlow, R-La., for the Louisiana Republican primary against Cassidy.

When reporters asked Cassidy about Trump blaming Means’ failed nomination on him, Cassidy said, “I can promise you, there are multiple people on the committee who decided to vote no,” Politico reported.

WASHINGTON — President Trump says he’s nominating Fox News Channel contributor Nicole Saphier for surgeon general after Casey Means’ path forward stalled in the Senate over questions about her experience and her stance on vaccines.

In a social media post Thursday, the Republican president said Saphier is “a STAR physician who has spent her career guiding women facing breast cancer through their diagnosis and treatment.”

Senators of both major political parties grilled Means on her vaccine stance and other health topics during a tense confirmation hearing, deepening doubts about her ability to secure the votes she needs for the role.

Earlier Thursday, Trump on social media commended Means as “a strong MAHA Warrior,” also criticizing the “intransigence and political games” from GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who interrogated Means about vaccines during the hearing.

The withdrawal of Means’ nomination to be the next U.S. surgeon general is a blow to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his movement, which championed Means for the role as the country’s top doctor despite her nontraditional path in medicine and some controversial past remarks on vaccines and other health topics.

The withdrawal comes after tense exchanges between Means and lawmakers of both parties threw into question whether she could secure enough votes to advance out of the Senate health committee. Her nomination had languished since her confirmation hearing in late February, even as activists from Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again movement orchestrated a push to support her bid by surging phone calls to Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, who had both indicated reservations with the pick.

In nominating Means last May, Trump sought to hire a close ally of Kennedy as the nation’s doctor. Means, a Stanford-education physician whose disillusionment with the healthcare system led to her career as an author and entrepreneur, promotes ideas popular with the MAHA movement, including that Americans are overmedicalized and that diet and lifestyle changes should be at the center of efforts to end widespread chronic disease.

After watching Manchester City slip to a 3-2 defeat by Brighton on Saturday, Arsenal fans started to believe they had a chance.

And Slegers’ team made sure to capitalise on the opportunity with seven unanswered goals against Leicester, improving their goal difference to 33 – six behind City.

Leah Williamson’s glancing header – the Gunners’ seventh against Leicester – also took their tally to 103 goals under Slegers. No WSL team has scored more since she was appointed – initially as interim boss – in October 2024.

“Clean sheet, seven goals scored, different scorers – it was a great night for us,” Slegers said to Sky Sports.

“You saw so many players playing the Arsenal way, we played attractive football and we were very brave in everything we did.”

What will also boost Arsenal’s belief is their squad’s strength in depth.

With the second leg of their Women’s Champions League semi-final against Lyon awaiting on Saturday, Slegers rested Williamson, Lotte Wubben-Moy, Mariona Caldentey, Caitlin Foord and Alessia Russo against the Foxes.

Their replacements did the job.

On her 100th WSL appearance, Maanum scored the opening goal and assisted two more, while Smilla Holmberg bagged her first two goals in an Arsenal shirt.

Stina Blackstenius has often had to play second fiddle to Russo, but the Swede, who scored the winning goal in last season’s Champions League final, showed her quality with two goals in the space of nine minutes.

“Everyone knows their role and brings their strengths. There are such high levels of communication and trust within the team, on the pitch, off the pitch,” Slegers added.

Sparked by the Iran war and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, oil is no longer flowing out of the Middle East as it did earlier this year, which is having a major impact on the aviation industry

Holidaymakers face soaring flight prices and more expensive package breaks even if they’ve already booked because of the looming shortage of jet fuel.

Sparked by the Iran War and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, oil is no longer flowing out of the Middle East as it did earlier this year. Supplies of jet fuel built up by European countries have been severely depleted.

In general, some European countries hold several months’ worth of jet fuel inventory at a time, according to an IEA report released last week. “Every passing day that the Strait of Hormuz remains shut, Europe is edging closer to supply shortages,” said Amaar Khan, head of European jet fuel pricing at Argus Media. “The Strait accounts for around 40% of Europe’s jet fuel imports, but no jet fuel has passed the Strait since the war broke out.”

There are four main ways that the jet fuel shortage could impact British holidaymakers: rising flight prices, extra fees, cancelled flights and package break surcharges. We’ve explained each one below.

READ MORE: easyJet Spain and Portugal flights fuel supply ‘four weeks’ updateREAD MORE: ‘Jet fuel shortage’ update as Government ‘monitoring fuel supplies and pricing’

Rising flight prices

Jet fuel — a refined kerosene-based oil product — is airlines’ biggest cost, making up about 30% of overall expenses, according to the International Air Transport Association. And jet fuel prices have roughly doubled since the war began. Shortages could start next.

Already, a number of airlines have started bumping up the cost of tickets.

Just last week, it emerged that Virgin Atlantic had increased some flight costs with an extra £50 fuel surcharge on economy-class tickets, while premium economy fares are climbing by £180 and business class by £360.

Air France and KLM fares are also going up. They are likely to cost an additional €50, bringing the fuel surcharge to €100 (£86.98) on top of the standard fare. Meanwhile, flights to the United States, Canada and Mexico could increase by €70 (£60.89), and an economy round trip could cost an extra €10 (£8.70).

If you’ve already got your flights booked, you don’t need to worry. You are not going to be asked retrospectively to pay extra on your air fare. Once you have paid, the airline will not come after you for any more cash – unless the government hikes aviation fees, which they don’t appear poised to do.

Extra fees

Many passengers will have booked their flights months in advance, before the US and Israel attacked Iran and fuel prices started rising. Because airlines can’t bump up fares that’re already booked but for which they’re now making less money, they have started looking for other ways to make a bit of extra cash.

American Airlines has said it would hike checked baggage fees by $10 (£7.40) each for the first and second checked bags and by $150 (£111) for the third checked bag on domestic and short-haul international flights. Southwest Airlines has said it will hike checked baggage fees by $10 for the first and second bags, raising costs to $45 (£33) for the first bag and $55 (£40) for the second.

As passengers often add extra luggage just before they fly, these rises could impact passengers who booked flights before the invasion.

No major European airlines have made similar changes.

Cancelled flights

Last week, International Energy Agency Director Fatih Birol said Europe has “maybe six weeks” of remaining jet fuel supplies and said the global economy faces its “largest energy crisis.”

Many major airlines have already cancelled flights because of the fuel price rises and falling demand, and more are likely to do so.

Swedish flag carrier SAS has said it would cancel 1,000 flights in April because of high oil and jet fuel prices, after cancelling a “couple hundred” flights in March. United Airlines said that five per cent of flights would be cancelled in the second and third quarters of 2026, while Dutch airline KLM has cancelled 160 flights for the coming month.

Other airlines, such as BA, have suspended whole routes to parts of the Middle East due to the conflict, while Virgin Atlantic announced earlier this month that it would be permanently scrapping its London flight to Riyadh from April.

Under UK law, if your flight is cancelled more than 14 days before it is due to depart, you are not entitled to compensation. However, your airline does have to offer you a full refund or help you find an alternative flight.

In the latter case, it’s up to you whether to fly as soon as possible after the cancelled flight, or at a later date that suits you. Although most airlines will book you onto another of their flights to the same destination, if an alternative airline is flying there significantly sooner or other suitable modes of transport are available, then you may have the right to be booked onto that alternative transport instead. You can discuss this with your airline.

Given that airfares may be significantly higher than when you booked, opting for an alternative flight rather than taking a refund may work out in your favour.

Extra package break costs

A largely overlooked clause in package holiday terms and conditions could result in the price of a package holiday increasing by hundreds of pounds – even after you’ve already made your booking and payment.

An article by Which? drew attention to the obscure clause found within Package Travel Regulations. It reveals that UK holiday companies can impose an additional charge of up to 8% on a package holiday price, without being required to provide a free cancellation option, under three specific circumstances.

These circumstances include: a destination introducing additional taxes or other charges, a significant shift in currency exchange rates, or a rise in the price of fuel or power. Given the ongoing Middle East conflict, fuel costs have been rising noticeably, which means there’s potential for package holiday operators to invoke this rule for Brits who’ve already booked their holidays should these expenses continue climbing.