officials

Negotiators from Russia and the United States have met in the US city of Miami as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged Washington to ramp up the pressure on Moscow to end its war on Ukraine.

The meeting on Saturday took place between Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, and US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Dmitriev told the reporters the talks were positive and would continue on Sunday.

“The discussions are proceeding constructively,” said Dmitriev. “They began earlier and will continue today, and will also continue tomorrow.”

Earlier, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had said that he may also join the talks in Miami. He said that progress has been made in discussions to end the war, but there is still a way to go.

“The role we’re trying to play is a role of figuring out whether there’s any overlap here that they can agree to, and that’s what we’ve invested a lot of time and energy [on], and continue to do so,” Rubio said. “That may not be possible. I hope it is. I hope it can get done this month, before the end of the year.”

Trump’s envoys have for weeks been negotiating a 20-point peace plan with Ukrainian, Russian and European officials.

While US ​officials say they have made progress, major differences remain on the issues of territory and possible security guarantees that Kyiv says are essential for any agreement.

Russia has shown few signs that it is willing to give up its expansive territorial demands in Ukraine, which it believes it is well-positioned to secure as the war grinds on and political fractures emerge among Ukraine’s European allies.

In Kyiv, Zelenskyy said he remains supportive of a US-led negotiations process, but that diplomacy needs to be accompanied by greater pressure on Russia.

“America must clearly say, if not diplomacy, then there will be full pressure… Putin does not yet feel the kind of pressure that should exist,” he said.

The Ukrainian leader said Washington has also proposed a new format for talks with Russia, comprised of three-way talks at the level of national security advisers from Ukraine, Russia, and the US.

Zelenskyy expressed scepticism that the talks would result in “anything new”, but said he would support trilateral discussions if they led to progress in areas such as prisoner swaps or a meeting of national leaders.

“If such a ‍meeting could be ⁠held now to allow for swaps of prisoners of war, or if a meeting of national security advisers achieves agreement on a leaders’ meeting… I cannot be opposed. We would support such a US proposal. Let’s see how things go,” he said.

The last time Ukrainian and Russian envoys held official direct talks was in July in Istanbul, which led to prisoner swaps but little else.

The talks in Miami come after Putin promised to press ahead with his military offensive in Ukraine, hailing Moscow’s battlefield gains in an annual news conference on Friday.

Putin, however, suggested that Russia could pause its devastating strikes on the country to allow Ukraine to hold a presidential ballot, a prospect that Zelenskyy rejected.

Meanwhile, the death toll in Ukraine’s Black Sea Odesa region from an overnight Russian ballistic missile strike on port infrastructure rose to eight, with 30 people wounded.

A civilian bus was struck in the attack, Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko said.

The Russian attacks on the coastline region have wrought havoc in recent weeks, hitting bridges and cutting electricity and heating for hundreds of thousands in freezing temperatures.

Moscow earlier said it would expand strikes on Ukrainian ports as retaliation for targeting its sanctions-busting oil tankers.

On Saturday, Ukraine claimed to have destroyed two Russian fighter jets at an airfield in Moscow-occupied Crimea, according to the security service SBU. Kyiv’s army said it struck a Russian oil rig in the Caspian Sea as well as a patrol ship nearby.

Putin described Russia’s initial full-scale invasion of Ukraine as a “special military operation” to “demilitarise” the country and prevent the expansion of NATO.

Kyiv and its European allies say the war, the largest and deadliest on European soil since World War II, is an unprovoked and illegal land grab that has resulted in a tidal wave of violence and destruction.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

The incident marks the second time in recent weeks that the US has seized an oil tanker near Venezuela.

The United States has seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela in international waters, according to officials quoted by international news agencies.

The incident comes just days after US President Donald Trump announced a “blockade” of all sanctioned oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela.

This also marks the second time in recent weeks that the US has seized a tanker near Venezuela and comes amid a large US military build-up in the region as President Donald Trump continues to ramp up pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Three officials, who were speaking to the Reuters news agency on the condition of anonymity, did not say where the operation was taking place but added the Coast Guard was in the lead.

Two officials, speaking to The Associated Press news agency, also confirmed the operations. The action was described as a “consented boarding”, with the tanker stopping voluntarily and allowing US forces to board it, one official said.

Al Jazeera’s Heide Zhou-Castro said that there was no official confirmation from the US authorities on the operation.

“We are still waiting for confirmation from the White House and Pentagon on the details, including which ship, where it was located, and whether or not this ship was beneath the US sanctions,” she said.

More soon…

The US has seized a vessel in international waters off the coast of Venezuela, US officials have told BBC News partner CBS.

It is the second time this month that the US has seized a ship off the country’s coast.

The move comes after US President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he was ordering a “blockade” of sanctioned oil tankers entering and leaving Venezuela.

Venezuela has not yet responded to the latest US seizure, but has previously accused Washington of seeking to steal its oil resources.

The BBC has contacted the White House for comment.

The operation was led by the US Coast Guard, similar to the operation earlier this month, CBS reports. The ship was boarded by a specialised tactical team.

In recent weeks, the US has been building up its military presence in the Caribbean Sea and has carried out deadly strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug-smuggling boats, killing around 100 people.

The US has provided no public evidence that these vessels were carrying drugs, and the military has come under increasing scrutiny from Congress over the strikes.

The US has accused Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro of leading a designated-terrorist organisation called Cartel de los Soles, which he denies.

The Trump administration accuses him of and the group of using “stolen” oil to “finance themselves, Drug Terrorism, Human Trafficking, Murder, and Kidnapping”.

Venezuela – which is home to the world’s largest proven oil reserves – is highly dependent on revenues from its oil exports to finance its government spending.

Trump’s announcement of a “blockade” came less than a week after the US seized an oil tanker believed to be part of the “ghost fleet” off the coast of Venezuela, which allegedly used various strategies to conceal its work.

The White House said the vessel in question, called the Skipper, had been involved in “illicit oil shipping” and would be taken to a US port.

Venezuela’s government decried the move, with Maduro saying the US “kidnapped the crew” and “stole” the ship.

The United States Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, will hold talks in Miami, Florida, with senior officials from Qatar, Egypt and Turkiye as efforts continue to advance the next phase of the Gaza ceasefire, even as Israel repeatedly violates the truce on the ground.

A White House official told Al Jazeera Arabic on Friday that Witkoff is set to meet representatives from the three countries to discuss the future of the agreement aimed at halting Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Axios separately reported that the meeting, scheduled for later on Friday, will include Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty.

At the same time, Israel’s public broadcaster, quoting an Israeli official, said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is holding a restricted security consultation to examine the second phase of the ceasefire and potential scenarios.

That official warned that Israel could launch a new military campaign to disarm Hamas if US President Donald Trump were to disengage from the Gaza process, while acknowledging that such a move was unlikely because Trump wants to preserve calm in the enclave.

Despite Washington’s insistence that the ceasefire remains intact, Israeli attacks have continued almost uninterrupted, as it continues to renege on the terms of the first phase, as it blocks the free flow of desperately needed humanitarian aid into the besieged Palestinian territory.

According to an Al Jazeera analysis, Israeli forces carried out attacks on Gaza on 58 of the past 69 days of the truce, leaving only 11 days without reported deaths, injuries or violence.

In Washington, Trump said on Thursday that Netanyahu is likely to visit him in Florida during the Christmas holidays, as the US president presses for the launch of the agreement’s second phase.

“Yes, he will probably visit me in Florida. He wants to meet me. We haven’t formally arranged it yet, but he wants to meet me,” Trump told reporters.

Qatar and Egypt, who are mediating and guaranteeing the truce after a devastating two-year genocide in Gaza, have urged a transition to the second phase of the agreement. The plan includes a full Israeli military withdrawal and the deployment of an international stabilisation force (ISF).

Fragile truce, entrenched occupation

Qatar’s prime minister warned on Wednesday that daily Israeli breaches of the Gaza ceasefire are threatening the entire agreement, as he called for urgent progress towards the next phase of the deal to end Israel’s genocidal war on the besieged Palestinian enclave.

Sheikh Mohammed made the appeal following talks with United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington, where he stressed that “delays and ceasefire violations endanger the entire process and place mediators in a difficult position”.

The ceasefire remains deeply unstable, and Palestinians and rights groups say it is a ceasefire only in name, amid Israeli violations and a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Since the truce took effect on October 10, 2025, Israel has repeatedly breached the agreement, killing hundreds of Palestinians.

Gaza’s Government Media Office says Israel committed at least 738 violations between October 10 and December 12, including air strikes, artillery fire and direct shootings.

Israeli forces shot at civilians 205 times, carried out 37 incursions beyond the so-called “yellow line”, bombed or shelled Gaza 358 times, demolished property on 138 occasions and detained 43 Palestinians, the office said.

Israel has also continued to block critical humanitarian aid while systematically destroying homes and infrastructure.

Against this backdrop, Israel Hayom quoted an Israeli security official as saying the so-called “yellow line” now marks Israel’s new border inside Gaza, adding that Israeli forces will not withdraw unless Hamas is disarmed. The official said the army is preparing to remain there indefinitely.

The newspaper also reported that Israeli military leaders are proposing continued control over half of Gaza, underscoring Israel’s apparent intent to entrench its occupation rather than implement a genuine ceasefire.

Compounding the misery in Gaza, a huge storm that recently hit the Strip has killed at least 13 people as torrential rains and fierce winds flooded tents and caused damaged buildings to collapse.

Israel’s two-year war has decimated more than 80 percent of the structures across Gaza, forcing hundreds of thousands of families to take refuge in flimsy tents or overcrowded makeshift shelters.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservatives sounded ready on Monday to overrule Congress and give President Trump more power to fire officials at independent agencies and commissions.

The justices heard arguments on whether Trump could fire Rebecca Slaughter, one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member Federal Trade Commission.

The case poses a clash between Congress’ power to structure the government versus the president’s “executive power.”

A ruling for Trump portends a historic shift in the federal government — away from bipartisan experts and toward more partisan control by the president.

Trump’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the court should overturn a 1935 decision that upheld independent agencies. The decision “was grievously wrong when decided. It must be overruled,” he told the court.

The court’s three liberals strongly argued against what they called a “radical change” in American government.

If the president is free to fire the leaders of independent agencies, they said, the longstanding civil service laws could be struck down as well.

It would put “massive, uncontrolled and unchecked power in the hands of the president,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

But the six conservatives said they were concerned that these agencies were exercising “executive power” that is reserved to the president.

It was not clear, however, whether the court will rule broadly to cover all independent agencies or focus narrowly on the FTC and other similar commissions.

For most of American history, Congress has created independent boards and commissions to carry out specific missions, each led by a board of experts who were appointed with a fixed term.

But the court’s current conservative majority has contended these commissions and boards are unconstitutional if their officials cannot be fired at will by a new president.

Past presidents had signed those measures into law, and a unanimous Supreme Court upheld them 90 years ago in a case called Humphrey’s Executor vs. U.S.

In creating such bodies, Congress often was responding to the problems of a new era.

The Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887 to regulate railroad rates. The FTC, the focus of the court case, was created in 1914 to investigate corporate monopolies. The year before, the Federal Reserve Board was established to supervise banks, prevent panics and regulate the money supply.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market and the National Labor Relations Board to resolve labor disputes.

Decades later, Congress focused on safety. The National Transportation Safety Board was created to investigate aviation accidents, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission investigates products that may pose a danger. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission protects the public from nuclear hazards.

Typically, Congress gave the appointees, a mix of Republicans and Democrats, a fixed term and said they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

Slaughter was first appointed by Trump to a Democratic seat and was reappointed by President Biden in 2023 for a seven-year term.

But conservatives often long derided these agencies and commissions as an out-of-control “administrative state,” and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he believes their independence from direct presidential control is unconstitutional.

“The President’s power to remove — and thus supervise — those who wield executive power on his behalf follows from the text” of the Constitution, he wrote last year in his opinion, which declared for the first time that a president has immunity from being prosecuted later for crimes while in office.

Roberts spoke for a 6-3 majority in setting out an extremely broad view of presidential power while limiting the authority of Congress.

The Constitution in Article I says Congress “shall have the power…to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution…all other powers vested” in the U.S. government. Article II says, “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

The current court majority believes that the president’s executive power prevails over the power of Congress to set limits by law.

“Congress lacks authority to control the President’s ‘unrestricted power of removal’ with respect to executive officers of the United States,” Roberts wrote last year in Trump vs. United States.

Four months later, Trump won reelection and moved quickly to fire a series of Democratic appointees who had fixed terms set by Congress. Slaughter, along with several other fired appointees, sued, citing the law and her fixed term. They won before federal district judges and the U.S. Court of Appeals.

But Trump’s lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court, and the justices, by 6-3 votes, sided with the president and against the fired officials.

In September, the court said it would hear arguments in the case of Trump vs. Slaughter to decide on whether to overturn the Humphrey’s Executor decision.

At the time, conservatives applauded the move. “For far too long, Humphrey’s Executor has allowed unaccountable agencies like the FTC to wield executive power without meaningful oversight,” said Cory Andrews, general counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation.

In defense of the 1935 decision, law professors noted the court said that these independent boards were not purely executive agencies, but also had legislative and judicial duties, like adopting regulations or resolving labor disputes.

During Monday’s argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the principle of “democratic accountability” called for deferring to Congress, not the president.

“Congress decided that some matters should be handled by nonpartisan experts. They said expertise matters with respect to the economy and transportation. So having the president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists is actually is not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States,” she said.

But that argument gained no traction with Roberts and the conservatives. They said the president is elected and has the executive authority to control federal agencies.

The only apparent doubt involved the Federal Reserve Board, whose independence is prized by business. The Chamber of Commerce said the court should overrule the 1935 decision, but carve out an exception for the Federal Reserve.

Trump’s lawyer grudgingly agreed. If “an exception to the removal power exists,” he wrote in his brief in the Slaughter case, it should be “an agency-specific anomaly” limited to the Federal Reserve.