politics

Disney digs in for a fight with FCC amid ABC stations license threat

The Federal Communications Commission has demanded for months that ABC prove its stations deserve to stay on the air — a proceeding with no precedent in the last half-century. This week, the network delivered a sharp retort, accusing the agency of waging a campaign of political retribution.

“The retaliation against ABC is a signal to every media company in the country: accommodate the Administration’s view of what news coverage should look like or pay the price,” Disney’s attorneys wrote in the 109-page filing.

ABC has enlisted prominent elected officials, community organizations and seasoned litigators for the 1st Amendment showdown that could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Burbank entertainment giant’s combative stance comes after the FCC, led by Chairman Brendan Carr, took the rare step this spring of demanding that Disney defend the broadcast licenses of its eight ABC stations — including KABC-TV Channel 7 in Los Angeles — years before the permits were set to expire.

The government’s move represents a significant threat to Disney because the loss of licenses would hobble the ABC network by forcing its largest stations off the air. Other ABC stations at risk include those in San Francisco, Fresno, Houston, Philadelphia and New York.

The FCC is expected to make a determination next month. It could require ABC to defend the stations in a hearing or before the commission.

The FCC, in a statement, defended its inquiry and hinted that it may go further.

“For decades, Americans of all stripes have been subsidizing broadcast media to the tune of many billions of dollars by giving TV stations free use of a valuable, public resource — the airwaves,” an FCC spokesperson said in a statement.

“Broadcasters are required by law to operate in the public interest — not in the narrow or partisan interests of a political party,” the spokesperson said. “The FCC is going to hold broadcasters accountable to the full extent of the law, regardless of any disinformation campaign that some of them may choose to run.”

ABC accused the FCC of overreach.

“The FCC has spent the last 18 months searching for some pretext for revoking the stations’ licenses,” ABC wrote in the filing. “The Commission has found none, because the stations easily meet the standard for license renewal.”

Disney‘s attorneys cited the unusual nature of the proceedings, linking the FCC’s action to Trump’s dislike of certain ABC network programs. The FCC launched its review in late April — one day after the president lashed out at ABC after late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel made a joke about Trump’s health and First Lady Melania Trump.

Until this spring, the FCC had not called for an early license review in more than 50 years.

“For the first time in history, the Federal Communications Commission has ordered an entire group of local television stations … to undergo simultaneous license renewal proceedings well before their current licenses expire,” Disney’s attorneys wrote.

The network asked the FCC to dismiss its review.

“This is as clearcut an example of retaliation as one could imagine,” ABC said in the filing. Damage has been done even if the FCC stops short of revoking the licenses, the network said.

“The mere investigation and the threat of finding a violation are sufficient: ‘the value of a sword of Damocles is that it hangs — not that it drops,’” ABC wrote.

The FCC has previously said the review grew out of an inquiry it launched early last year to scrutinize Disney’s internal diversity, equity and inclusion programs to see if they violated federal anti-discrimination laws — part of an expansive Trump-led campaign against DEI initiated as soon as he returned to the White House.

This year, the FCC opened a separate inquiry over whether ABC’s “The View” should keep an exemption granted to news programs so they are not obligated to provide equal airtime for opponents of various political candidates. The FCC had given “The View” the exemption in 2002.

Carr also has criticized ABC for not televising Trump’s live prime-time speech earlier this month to vent his grievances over past elections. Carr told reporters ABC’s decision could factor into the station license review.

By calling for the early review, the FCC allowed petitioners and ordinary residents to chime in on the stations’ operations and ABC network programming.

By Wednesday night’s deadline, the FCC had received more than 153,000 public comments. An estimated 96% of respondents wrote to support their local ABC station, the company said, including L.A. County Sheriff Robert Luna, L.A. Police Chief Jim McDonnell and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

In his letter, Luna said KABC — which has operated in Los Angeles for more than 75 years — provides residents with “timely and accurate information that has … undoubtedly saved lives.”

Lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) and Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), have called on the FCC to drop the review, saying the agency has politicized its regulatory powers.

Disney has hired prominent attorneys Beth Wilkinson, Jennifer Tatel and Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general with experience arguing before the Supreme Court. Disney’s chief legal officer, Horacio Gutierrez, is leading the team.

Several conservative groups have questioned whether ABC was fit to hold its licenses.

“ABC’s rights are important, but they are not preeminent,” Center for American Rights President Daniel Suhr wrote in his 66-page petition to the FCC to deny ABC’s local licenses, adding that the commission must instead focus on “the right of viewers of ABC stations.”

“Disney’s lawyers can wish upon a star, but they cannot make this record disappear,” Suhr said in a statement Thursday. “Disney does not own the public airwaves, and an FCC license is not a corporate entitlement. The FCC should reject Disney’s effort to avoid meaningful scrutiny, require full answers, and designate these applications for a hearing.”

The FCC doesn’t license networks, only the local stations that carry network programming.

In one public comment, an ABC critic named Lawrence Caswell agreed with Suhr’s contention: “ABC is just a grossly biased propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.”

Jeffrey C. Illes, a Chicago-area viewer who identified himself as a Republican, wrote in support of Disney’s WLS-TV station.

“I rely on their broadcast for accurate, timely, and trusted local news, breaking weather updates, and essential public safety information,” Illes wrote. “ABC 7 Chicago is a vital institution in our community.”

Stations typically file for a license renewal once every eight years. The commission then determines whether the station has “served the public interest” and has not run afoul of the “rules and regulations of the Commission.”

The commission’s lone Democrat, Anna M. Gomez, blasted the station license inquiry.

“The FCC has no authority to police the ideological balance of the airwaves, and no matter what this Commission does next, the record now makes clear that this was never a genuine search for the public interest,” Gomez said in a Thursday statement.

There are three commissioners: Gomez and two Republicans — Carr and Olivia Trusty, who joined the panel last year.

Congress restricts the FCC from any regulatory moves that trample on free speech rights for broadcasters.

A coalition of progressive groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, urged Disney Chief Executive Josh D’Amaro to continue to defend 1st Amendment freedoms in the company’s battle with the FCC.

“When you’re standing up for yourself, you are standing up for all of us,” the group wrote. “All of our rights are in danger when the FCC is allowed to censor comedians, journalists, and critics.”

Source link

Why is US GDP growth slowing, and how can it be reversed? | International Trade News

United States economic growth slowed in the second quarter of 2026 amid a growing deficit and increasing inflationary pressures.

US gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 1.5 percent between April and June. That is a sharp decline from 2.1 percent growth in the first quarter of the year, according to a Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) report released on Thursday.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

A widening trade deficit is a key reason why GDP is slowing, as is a jump in petrol prices, experts say.

“It’s a classic supply shock. The combination of tariffs and oil price spikes is exactly what a macroeconomist would expect to happen,” Michael Klein, professor of international economic affairs at The Fletcher School at Tufts University, told Al Jazeera.

The US has increased purchases of goods like semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, and industrial equipment, according to BEA data. Business investment in equipment rose by more than 15 percent in the second quarter. Those are essentially the elements needed for the ongoing investment boom to support the growth of artificial intelligence (AI).

“Imports rose due to the investment and consumption driver, and so net exports were a drag on overall growth. Overall, the US is investing and consuming more but not producing more,” Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera.

Exports have not kept pace. The trade deficit in May grew to $77.6bn, a 42 percent increase from the month before, according to BEA data.

Exports tumbled by 3.2 percent to $317.7bn, and imports rose by 3.3 percent to $395.3bn.

This comes as countries around the globe seek to reduce their dependence on the US due to President Donald Trump’s tariff policies.

Among them is Canada, historically one of the US’s biggest trading partners. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has pursued new trade deals with China and Saudi Arabia in recent months, for example, as Trump has slapped steep tariffs on the country, threatened to annex it and called it the 51st state, and refused to renew a trade deal with Canada and Mexico.

Are US tensions with Iran a factor?

In the second quarter, energy prices fluctuated greatly over the past few months. For US consumers, that was mostly reflected in petrol prices. During the second quarter, US petrol prices hit $4.48 per gallon (3.78 litres) in May.

They later retreated to $3.96 per gallon by the end of June. But the reprieve was short-lived as a fragile peace deal failed to take hold, with petrol prices increasing throughout July after the deadline for data to be included in second-quarter GDP had passed. Prices have since moved back above the $4 mark.

Petrol prices drove inflation for much of the second quarter. Between March and April, petrol prices jumped 5.4 percent. The next month, they jumped another 7 percent. They eased between May and June, falling 9.7 percent as global benchmark prices pulled back.

According to analysis from Bank of America, discretionary spending surged in June, the final month of the second quarter, as spending on products outside of petrol jumped while fuel prices temporarily eased.

“With gasoline prices easing in June, total card spending excluding gas surged 5.6% YoY [year over year] – also the strongest growth since April 2022,” the report said.

How can the GDP recover?

US consumers have ramped up spending on prescription drugs, automobiles like light trucks, and new furniture. There was also increased spending in areas like restaurants and hotels, suggesting that consumers remain somewhat resilient.

But, says Fletcher School’s Klein, that spending is by high-income earners, a trend that indicates a K-shaped economy, which is when the wealthy thrive, while lower-income consumers and small businesses face tougher economic conditions.

“The continued consumption growth of those who are better off depends upon things like the stock market staying strong and housing prices staying strong, because people feel wealthier through the value of their house or their stock portfolios, so they’ll spend more. But by a number of measures, the stock market seems to be very highly valued,” Klein, who also authors the EconoFact economic analysis website, told Al Jazeera.

Overall, consumer confidence fell for the third straight month in July, according to a Conference Board report released on Tuesday. Consumers attributed the decline to “current business conditions”, and the organisation expects “little improvement” for the remainder of the year.

Business investment would also need to surge more broadly to lift the wider economy. While there has been a boom in the AI sector, other industries have not been as eager to keep their inventories stocked.

Klein says consistent trade policies would change that.

“The pervasive uncertainty in the economy will affect businesses’ decisions on hiring and investing. That can also contribute to the slowdown, because, in an uncertain environment, businesses don’t want to make decisions that have long-lasting consequences when they have little idea of what the future will look like,” Klein said.

Creating economic conditions that encourage consumers and businesses to spend would help drive up GDP in the coming quarters. However, uncertain trade policies and concerns about widespread layoffs, as has been the case in several tech companies, have made consumers more cautious with the pocket books.

“If people were more secure and felt that their jobs would be there next year; if they felt that things weren’t more expensive and they could afford to spend more. But those are not easy fixes, right? And talk is not going to change what people rightly perceive as a fraught situation,” Klein added.

Source link

Trump might pause Blanche nomination as GOP senators object to IRS settlement

The high-stakes nomination of Todd Blanche to be attorney general has turned into a clash of wills between President Trump and two Senate Republicans whose political careers he claims credit for ending.

After a vote on Blanche’s nomination was delayed over concerns raised by two lame-duck Republican senators, the president said Thursday he might put Blanche’s nomination on hold rather than meet their demands.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) have indicated that they will vote to support advancing Blanche’s nomination only if the Justice Department provides written assurance that it has completely abandoned a controversial $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization” fund created as part of a settlement between Trump and the Internal Revenue Service and will limit the scope of tax audit immunity granted to Trump, his sons and a business.

Those provisions were part of a proposed settlement of a $10-billion lawsuit Trump filed against the IRS, which is part of his administration.

“The opposition to such a high-ranking executive branch nomination from within Republican ranks is quite unprecedented,” said Phil Brest, who was a top Democratic staffer for the Senate Judiciary Committee during the nominations of Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr and Merrick Garland, who each served as attorney general.

The Senate careers of both Cornyn and TIllis are coming to an end this year after Trump declined to endorse them.

“John Cornyn, of Texas, and Thom Tillis, of North Carolina, both of whom I refused to Endorse, and whose political careers have been ended by my action, are refusing to vote for this Great Nominee,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, his social media platform. “I have no objection to temporarily withdrawing Todd’s name, if they do not do the right thing, and putting him back after Cornyn and Tillis are out of office.”

But that decision brings about its own political risk.

With the president’s approval rating sitting below 35% in recent polls, Democrats could shrink or even reverse the Republican Party’s current 53-seat Senate majority this November. Cornyn‘s and Tillis’ seats in Texas and North Carolina are both at risk of flipping to Democrats.

“So waiting until 2027 could be far harder than it is right now,” said Jessica Taylor, the Senate and governors editor at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Blanche has been serving as acting attorney general since Atty. Gen Pam Bondi was fired in April. He was previously the deputy attorney general and has been associated with some of the most controversial policies associated with the Trump administration, including the IRS settlement, the handling of the Epstein files and prosecutions of Trump’s perceived enemies.

Blanche can continue in the acting role even if he is not confirmed, but the Trump administration would be blocked from appointing a new deputy attorney general unless he is confirmed.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is vetting Blanche, told reporters Thursday that he is hoping to keep Blanche’s nomination on track.

“I’m going to work real hard the next few days to get this thing settled. That’s what we’re going to do. I’m not going to consider any other option, because there’s no reason to consider other options at this point,” Grassley said.

Because the Senate is scheduled to begin its five-week August recess at the end of next week, Blanche probably wouldn’t come before the full Senate for a vote until September at the earliest if the nomination advances out of the Judiciary Committee.

That would put the vote squarely in the middle of peak campaign season, which could present vulnerable Republicans such as Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska with a difficult vote on a nominee who has been linked to many of the Trump administration’s most polarizing policies.

A vote against Blanche could incur the wrath of Trump, while a vote for him could turn off moderate voters.

“It’s a Catch-22 for a lot of these candidates. They still need Trump’s voters to come out, but they still need a swing vote as well,” Taylor said.

Blanche worked earlier in his career as a federal prosecutor in New York but was more recently Trump’s criminal defense attorney in the lead-up to his second term in the White House.

Blanche faced questions about his independence from his former client throughout his nomination hearing earlier this month. But his answer to one seemingly friendly question, about whether he and Trump are friends, might have inadvertently hurt his case.

“I’m his lawyer,” Blanche replied, before correcting himself. “Was his lawyer.”

The Judiciary Committee currently has 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats. With all 10 Democrats firmly in opposition to Blanche, a vote against moving forward by Cornyn or Tillis would probably put an end to the nomination.

This isn’t the first time Tillis has wielded his political leverage during a high-stakes nomination process.

He briefly blocked the nomination of Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh until the Justice Department dropped a lawsuit against outgoing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

“Sen. Tillis has been unafraid to use his vote to extract concessions from the Trump administration,” said Brest, who is now president of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal nonprofit. “There’s a playbook for this and he has been effective with that playbook.”

Source link

FCC accused of ‘censorship’ by ABC after Trump administration complaints

July 30 (UPI) — The ABC network has accused the Federal Communications Commission of attempting to censor what it broadcasts by pressuring its local stations to apply for early renewal of their licenses.

In its regulatory filing, which is a response to the FCC’s request that ABC-owned broadcast stations reapply for their licenses, ABC alleged that FCC chair Brendan Carr’s criticism and actions at the agency have amounted to “attempted censorship,” Politico reported.

The network said in the filing that actions by the agency and Carr have been aimed at shaping news reports across the media in ways that violate U.S. Constitutional freedom of the press.

The FCC, in a statement on Thursday to The Hill, contended that it is operating in the public interest, based on what it said are “equal opportunity regulations” as it accused the network of operating “in the narrow or partisan interests of a political party.”

The Trump administration, and President Donald Trump, have long alleged that members of the media — print, online or television — who are critical or engage in satire of him during his two terms as president are violating federal law.

“The retaliation against ABC is a signal to every media company in the country: accommodate the administration’s view of what news coverage should look like or pay the price,” the network said in the filing.

“Across the government, regulatory and contracting carrots and sticks have been trained on other disfavored speakers,” ABC said. “The tools vary; the objective does not: a media industry too fearful of official reprisal to report the news freely.”

Source link

Labor organizers spearheading California billionaire tax rebuffed by parent union

One of California’s most powerful labor unions declined to endorse a proposed state billionaires tax, a blow to its backers and a sign of simmering divisions on the left over the controversial ballot measure.

The executive board for Service Employees International Union California voted Wednesday to take a neutral position on the tax, which will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 40. It would impose a one-time, 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who resided in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026.

In a statement, the 750,000-member union noted revenue from the “one-time tax proposal [is] dedicated 90% to healthcare,” echoing concerns from other unions opposed to the measure. Teacher, police and firefighter unions argue the tax would largely benefit the healthcare sector and fear it would destabilize the state budget and, along with it, services such as education and public safety.

SEIU California is a parent organization of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the union that crafted the measure and moved to put it on the ballot before securing broad support from other labor groups.

SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan said he pushed the tax to backfill an estimated $100 billion in cuts to healthcare and food assistance programs that California is expected to shoulder under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump last year.

“Trump’s ‘Big, Ugly Bill’ slashed funding for healthcare in California to pay for more billionaire tax breaks. Now, millions of Californians are losing their health coverage, and millions more are being forced to pay skyrocketing costs,” SEIU-UHW Press Secretary Renee Saldana wrote in a statement to The Times.

Saldana pointed to an internal poll showing 70% of union members in California would support the billionaire tax, adding: “We’re confident that SEIU members will be joining millions of their fellow Californians and voting YES on Prop. 40 this November to protect healthcare, keep hospitals and clinics open, and stand with California working families.”

In negotiations with Gov. Gavin Newsom last month, Regan offered to pull the tax from the ballot in exchange for concessions for his union, including help securing contracts at several medical facilities around the state, two sources told The Times. Regan denies making the demand, and said the proposal is meant to solve an impending “catastrophe in California’s healthcare system.”

Several unions and Democratic allies, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, argue the one-time tax is the wrong solution for the cuts, which are unlikely to be reversed while Republicans hold power in Washington.

SEIU California said its members are focused on “a multi-year campaign to secure California’s fiscal foundation with ongoing revenue,” including an effort to tax large companies that pay wages low enough that their workers rely on public benefits.

Surrounded by members of the SEIU California executive board, Newsom this month signed a bill punting the “Fair Share” measure to next year, when a new governor will take office.

Some labor unions and elected Democrats worry that, in the long run, the proposed billionaire tax will hurt the state budget — which raises more money from wealthy people taxed at higher rates — by pushing rich Californians to move to other states.

Some already have. Google co-founder Sergey Brin last year moved to the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe to preemptively avoid the tax, and has pumped $82 million into a committee fighting Proposition 40.

Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential contender, has begun arguing for a federal wealth tax that the rich could not escape by moving to a new state.

“You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do,” he wrote on Substack in June. “The fight belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place.”

SEIU California on Wednesday also announced “strong opposition” to Proposition 39, a proposed voter ID measure; and Proposition 43, which would make it harder for local governments to raise taxes.

Source link

Zawtar al-Gharbieh examplifies Israel’s destruction in southern Lebanon

Lebanese soldiers stand guard as the Army deploys to Zawtar al-Gharbiya in southern Lebanon on July 23. Lebanon sent troops to take control of so-called pilot zones in southern Lebanon from which Israeli troops are to withdraw. Photo by EPA

BEIRUT, Lebanon, July 30 (UPI) — The widespread destruction left behind by Israeli forces in Zawtar al-Gharbieh — the first U.S.-backed “pilot zone” in southern Lebanon — was beyond anything its returning displaced residents could have imagined, providing a glimpse of the devastation across the southern region and the extensive reconstruction needs ahead.

Situated in the central sector of southern Lebanon near the strategic Litani River, Zawtar al-Gharbieh represents the testing ground for the success of the pilot zones — the cornerstone of the U.S.-brokered framework agreement reached between Lebanon and Israel on June 26.

It was the first village designated by Israel to begin withdrawing its troops, allowing for the deployment of the Lebanese Army and return of displaced residents. Yet, it reveals the significant and complex challenges facing the process.

The residents rushed back to the village when the Lebanese Army moved in July 21, returning each morning and waiting at the entrance for five days before they were finally allowed to enter and inspect their homes and properties.

The army was carrying out security inspections of all homes and removing missiles and unexploded ordnance remaining from the Israeli military presence.

“We were shocked by the scale of the destruction. It was much, much more than we had expected,” Mayor Abed Ezzedine told UPI.

Ezzedine said Israeli forces “spared nothing,” destroying or damaging everything in their path — from homes and schools to places of worship, shops and the municipality building.

He said the water infrastructure was torn up, the electricity networks blown up and burned, and the village’s only water well destroyed.

“In this life, everything has limits. Even war should have limits,” he added. “They changed the face of the village beyond recognition.”

Some 250 housing units — representing up to 80% of the village’s homes — have been destroyed, while the remaining houses have suffered severe damage and are no longer habitable.

Several of Zawtar al-Gharbieh’s 4,500 to 5,000 residents were killed, including entire families, while others were injured as they fled Israeli attacks and advancing troops three months ago, according to Ezzedine, who said “they showed no mercy to anyone.”

Although Israel stopped targeting the village after the Lebanese Army deployment, he said its drones never left the sky, hoovering at very low altitude “over our heads.”

“What kind of cease-fire or arrangement this is?” Ezzedine asked rhetoically.

Very few residents were able to stay — those who were fortunate enough to still have one room in their homes standing and safe. However, they lacked the basic necessities to continue living, including water, electricity and even Internet access.

The vast majority, meanwhile, spent their days in the village and returned at night to their shelters.

Ezzedine struggled to locate his home among the rubble — one of 25 houses in his neighborhood that had been reduced to ruins.

The rapid reconstruction of Zawtar al-Gharbieh will be a key factor in determining the success of the pilot zones, easing residents’ suffering, restoring confidence in the Lebanese state and reducing the likelihood of them turning again to Hezbollah.

“We want to see action on the ground. This is a test of good faith,” Ezzedine said.

According to a Lebanese official source, the main obstacle is the lack of necessary funding.

The source emphasized that rebuilding the village is an important step in supporting Lebanon’s diplomatic approach and consolidating the success of the pilot zones.

He told UPI that the government faces two options: organizing a reconstruction conference for southern Lebanon, which would require considerable time, or quickly rallying support from friendly states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar to rebuild the first pilot village.

However, success also largely depends on Israel, which has insisted that it will not withdraw from parts of southern Lebanon it is occupying — specifically its self-declared “yellow zone” — or from Gaza and Syria.

Lebanese and Israeli negotiating teams are scheduled to meet Aug. 4 to 5 to evaluate progress on the pilot zones, the U.S.-led verification mechanism and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from additional occupied Lebanese territories.

The official source told UPI that the United States, which does not want to have boots on the ground in southern Lebanon, would have to “find an acceptable formula for all parties” for the verification process, potentially involving countries such as Italy, France or Spain — proposals reportedly rejected by Israel — or others to carry out the mission.

The source confirmed Lebanon’s commitment to the framework deal, saying, “We will not back out of it,” despite knowing that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not prepared to withdraw from southern Lebanon at this stage, ahead of the October 17 Israeli elections.

Netanyahu remained firm that the disarmament of Hezbollah is a precondition for Israel’s complete withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

A well-informed source expects “tough negotiations” at next week’s Rome talks over the establishment of additional pilot zones, as Israel continues “its aggressions, infiltrations and systematic house demolitions” in violation of the framework agreement.

The Lebanese Army warned this week that Israeli aggressions are hindering completion of its deployment, delaying the return of displaced residents to their villages and undermining efforts to consolidate stability in southern Lebanon.

The source told UPI that the U.S. is exerting pressure on Israel, but “not enough,” adding that Israel “is trying to find an excuse” to withdraw from the framework agreement, which aims to end the nearly three-year war between Israel and Hezbollah and pave the way for peaceful relations between Lebanon and Israel.

Source link

Long-dormant court holds fits first public hearing as the U.S. seeks to deport an Afghan woman

The Trump administration’s activation of a long-dormant court to seek an Afghan woman’s deportation violates her constitutional rights, a defense lawyer argued Thursday at a hearing for the first case to be heard in the obscure court since its creation 30 years ago.

Attorney Matthew Farley urged the chief judge of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court to dismiss the case against Nazira Haji Zada and immediately release his client. Judge Joan Ericksen denied Farley’s requests but said Zada’s lawyers can renew them as the case proceeds in the nation’s capital.

“This entire scheme is in violation of due process and unconstitutional,” said Farley, an assistant federal public defender.

The court, established in 1996, had never received a petition until this month, when the Justice Department filed an application seeking Zada’s removal. The court has a specific authority to conduct deportation proceedings for individuals whom the Department of Justice classifies as “alien terrorists.”

FBI agents arrested her Tuesday at her Fort Worth home. She is not charged with any crimes.

An FBI memo dated July 15 said it “developed information” that she is an Islamic State supporter who had her children pledge their loyalty to the terrorist group. The memo says she “supported” a plot by relatives to carry out an ISIS-inspired attack in the United States.

Court filings identify her as the mother and mother-in-law of two Afghan men who were convicted in Oklahoma for their roles in the 2024 election day plot. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, was sentenced in November to 15 years in prison and court records show he previously agreed to be removed from the U.S. after his release.

Kunzelman and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

Source link

Trump running out of options to fix inflation, economic woes before election, experts say

With three months remaining until election day, there is now little the Trump administration can do to bring relief to Americans battered by years of stagnant wages and steep inflation before they hit the polls, experts say — complicating midterm campaigning for Republicans and sharpening the opportunity for Democrats to win back some control in Washington.

That’s in part because the Trump administration has very few levers to turn the tide in such a short period, and has shown little interest in using those it does have, experts said. Rather, President Trump has persisted in waging war in Iran and pushed forward with new tariffs on trade partners despite both contributing to soaring costs for food, gas and other basic necessities.

Other options, such as issuing rebate checks for consumers or releasing strategic oil reserves, would be costly in the long run, experts said.

“There isn’t much available on a 14-week clock that doesn’t cost more later than it delivers now,” said Patrick Harker, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School and former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday also declined to use its primary tool for reducing inflation — increasing interest rates — by instead holding rates steady. Trump had not supported a rate increase, instead pressuring the central bank to lower rates, which can lower borrowing costs but increase inflation.

Some factors driving up costs are virtually impossible to resolve in the near term, such as damage to oil refining capabilities in the Middle East as a result of the war in Iran. Others are already baked into pricing to come as a result of tariffs and fuel costs, including for groceries, experts said.

Incumbent parties often suffer midterm losses when voters are broadly pessimistic about the economy, as they are now despite remarkable resilience in the U.S. labor market and strong stock returns.

Consumer prices declined in June for the first time in six years, largely thanks to a decline in gas prices as the Iran war appeared headed toward a resolution — which is no longer the case.

New data Thursday showed the U.S. economy growing at a sluggish 1.5% pace from April through June. It also showed consumer spending and inflation slowing down. But slowing inflation has not meant lower costs.

As the Iran war entered its sixth month this week, average gas prices nationally climbed back above $4 a gallon. On Wednesday, the price of Brent crude oil rose to $90 a barrel as the U.S. and Iran carried out new strikes.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. However, Trump asserted Wednesday that the economy is strong — citing in part new U.S. automobile plants as evidence — while slamming the Federal Reserve’s decision to leave interest rates unchanged.

“They want to keep rates up, but we will fight through this,” Trump told reporters at an Oval Office event. “We have things that are going on in our country in the likes of which no one has ever seen.”

As Democrats have seized on the economy as the midterms’ defining issue, Trump has promised improvements but also called affordability concerns a “hoax.” Last week, he rejected the notion that he should rethink his unpopular Iran strategy because of the looming midterms.

“No, the election — I can’t think about that having to do with this,” he said before renewing attacks last week. “I think people are very impressed.”

Jonathan Nagler, a New York University professor who studies how the economy shapes politics, said it is impossible to predict how voters will feel about the economy three months from now, because there are so many variables.

But data make clear that “the better the economy is, the better the incumbent does,” and voters will blame Trump and his party for their economic woes if they persist, Nagler said — particularly with gas prices, which are “a non-trivial expense” that is “super directly tied to Trump.”

“Democrats can draw a very straight line from a decision by Trump to go to war with Iran, and gas prices rising. That is just very, very easy to explain to people in a pretty convincing way,” Nagler said. “Democrats can try to say, ‘Hey, there should be some accountability here.’”

Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG, said inflation has compounded for years “to make the level of prices too high for too many,” and is clearly the biggest economic issue facing many Americans.

“And that’s not likely to change in the next few months, where you still not only have some of the spillover effects of the war in Iran to play out — most notably in terms of the fall harvest and food prices, which will go well into 2027 — but also just the on-again, off-again truces and the damages to refining capacities,” she said.

All of that is adding to “simmering” service sector inflation and Trump’s latest tariffs, which mean “more paperwork, more costs, and another bump in prices in the pipeline,” Swonk said.

Harker said the administration has no good options for bringing down prices by November. Reducing tariffs takes time to filter down to shelf prices, so that can’t offer a quick fix even if Trump were to decide to cut them, he said.

The biggest variable between now and November is energy, Harker said, and no economic tool allows the administration to control what happens in the Persian Gulf. Even if Trump’s war with Iran were to end, economists say it would take a significant amount of time for gas prices to come down.

The Fed could decide to raise rates in September, but Harker said that would take time to filter through the economy and would do “nothing” ahead of November.

On the campaign trail, Trump promised to immediately “reverse the disastrous effects of [President] Biden’s inflation and rebuild the greatest economy in the history of the world,” one where “incomes will skyrocket, inflation will vanish completely, jobs will come roaring back, and the middle class will prosper like never, ever before.”

A recent CNN poll found that 65% of Americans believe Trump’s policies have worsened economic conditions in the country, while less than a quarter — 22% — said they had improved conditions, and that 67% believe Trump’s choices in Iran hurt the U.S.

The poll found Trump had a 34% approval rating, matching a career low from the end of his first term, and that his support fell even lower on key issues: to 28% on Iran, 25% on inflation and 21% on gas prices.

A recent Pew Research Center survey found most Americans aren’t feeling great about the economy — with 24% rating economic conditions as excellent or good, 41% rating them as “only fair,” and 35% rating them as poor. It also found that voters want candidates running for Congress in November to talk about economic issues.

Democrats see the poll numbers as an opportunity to win over swing voters, which becomes more urgent as the campaign enters its fall stretch.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) last week placed blame for rising costs squarely on Trump‘s tariffs, his “reckless war of choice” in Iran, and cuts to healthcare made in last year’s federal spending package.

Vidhya Jeyadev, a spokesperson for Majority Democrats, which is focused on growing the party, said Democrats now have an opportunity to bring in Republican voters disillusioned with the president’s handling of the economy.

“We need to tie what people are feeling day to day — rising rent, groceries, utility costs — directly to the choices that Trump and Republicans have made,” Jeyadev said.

Many Republican leaders have acknowledged economic challenges while defending Trump’s policy decisions.

They have broadly backed the war in Iran as a necessary step to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) recently defended Trump’s tariffs, too, acknowledging some sectors have experienced “challenges” as a result, but saying “all that’s settling out as we go into this election cycle.”

Swonk said some economic indicators do show a surprisingly strong economy that benefits the rich.

However, “there’s a reason people are upset, and that’s because inflation, much like stock returns, has compounded — but not everybody has stock returns. Everybody feels inflation. And that drives a larger wedge between the haves and the have-nots,” she said.

“What anyone really cares about is the prices that went up didn’t come back down, and their wages didn’t keep up with it,” Swonk said. “It doesn’t feel like you can do as many things as you once did. And that’s hard.”

Source link

‘To play God’: Cuba’s healthcare system collapses under US pressure | Donald Trump News

A spike in mortality

The tightening restrictions have forced the Cuban government to effectively ration care.

In February, Havana announced a package of emergency energy-saving measures. Among them was the suspension of all non-essential medical services across the island.

But non-essential does not mean unimportant. Fernandez, the paediatric anaesthesiologist, explained that preventive healthcare plays a major role in saving lives.

Under normal conditions, he said, preventive healthcare helps doctors catch potentially fatal conditions like appendicitis sooner.

But in recent months, Fernandez has observed patients arriving at his hospital in a “worsened” condition than they might otherwise have had.

“All the appendicitis cases we treat now present complications,” he said. “They demand more resources and antibiotics – supplies we don’t have.”

Deaths in Cuba have also escalated as years of increasing restrictions take effect.

Just last month, the Cuban Ministry of Public Health (MINSAP) reported that survival rates for childhood cancer dropped from 85 percent to 65 percent amid the oil blockade.

Infant mortality has also steadily climbed. In 2017, at the start of Trump’s first term, Cuba had an infant mortality rate of four for every 1,000 live births. That figure climbed to 7.7 in 2024, just before Trump’s second term, and reached 9.9 in 2025.

The maternal mortality rate similarly rose to 44.1 deaths for every 100,000 live births by the end of 2025, up from 40.6 the previous year.

Lilian Delgado, an obstetrician and gynaecologist at Cuba’s main maternity hospital, explained that the escalating humanitarian crisis has triggered a sharp rise in premature births and severe morbidity among pregnant women.

“Conditions are far from ideal at all the levels of the system,” Delgado noted. “There are shortages everywhere.”

The decision to prioritise emergency care can be deceptive. A wide range of medical procedures are considered “elective”. But just because they do not rise to the level of an emergency does not mean they are optional.

Typically, in Cuba, emergency surgeries are those that need to be urgently completed within 48 hours. Other necessary surgeries often fall into the “elective” category.

Mastectomies – a common breast cancer treatment – are among the surgeries often categorised as elective. So too are some organ transplants.

Healthcare advocates point out that, if certain elective surgeries are postponed too long, they too can result in deadly conditions.

More than 100,000 Cubans are currently on waiting lists for elective or reconstructive surgeries, a backlog MINSAP credited to the US sanctions.

Among those waiting are 5,152 cancer patients and approximately 12,000 children. Delgado said some of her patients have been languishing on such lists for months.

“Our surgical services are severely hampered by a lack of supplies,” she explained. “We have more women suffering from serious complications, and our operating rooms have become tied up with emergency cases, making it impossible to perform elective surgeries.”

Hospitals in Cuba largely have backup generators to weather the increasingly frequent power outages. But accessing even emergency medical care is tough when the fuel blockade is affecting basic services like transportation.

“Ultimately, if you have a cancer patient and cannot operate due to a number of factors – such as a nationwide blackout forcing the suspension of surgeries – then, whether you intend to or not, you are directly condemning that patient to death,” Delgado said.

The oil embargo has cost “human lives, both directly and indirectly”, she added.

Source link

Urban League report says Trump administration is harming Black Americans’ chances at American Dream

The American Dream may not be dead for many Black Americans, but it is further away than at any point since the Civil Rights Movement, warns a report by the National Urban League.

Released on Thursday, the annual “State of Black America” report grimly describes Black Americans ‘ economic and political prospects as having worsened due to policy changes from President Trump’s administration, according to a copy obtained by the Associated Press.

The report contends that the challenges it highlights for Black communities are warning signs for the prosperity of all Americans.

“It may be the focus is us, but the impact is not just us,” said Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League. “While they have targeted and focused on Black Americans, these attacks are going to impact broadly working Americans, poor Americans, aspirational middle-class Americans, and this is what this report points to.”

Tracing the arc of American history, the Urban League describes Black Americans’ struggle for emancipation from slavery and equal economic and political rights as a gruesome but optimistic part of the American story.

Now, the report says, the Trump administration is at odds with the goals and achievements of the Civil Rights Movement, citing the overhaul of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as the president’s focus on overhauling voting laws through the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, as examples of rollbacks of long-sought civil rights policies.

The report’s authors offer policy and strategy recommendations for civil rights groups aiming to combat the Trump administration.

“The civil rights community must consolidate its legal resistance and turn courtroom wins into durable policy,” the report says. “The movement must build economic infrastructure that doesn’t depend on the goodwill of any one administration.”

The AP reached out to the White House for comment on the report.

Report contributors include a potential Democratic presidential contender

This year’s report includes contributions from members of Congress, and policy and legal experts, as well as some media personalities.

U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks, Lisa Blunt Rochester and Raphael Warnock all contributed to the report, as well as Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey contributed a video message to the report.

Moore, who is widely viewed as a potential 2028 presidential contender, submitted an essay focused on closing the racial wealth gap and Black Americans’ history of economic advancement in the face of adversity.

“With wisdom and grit, my mom was able to lift me and my family to a higher rung on the economic ladder. But too often wisdom and grit aren’t enough,” Moore wrote.

He later called closing the racial wealth gap “a matter of moral clarity” but cautioned that “government alone cannot close the racial wealth gap. It’s going to take all of us,” referencing the private sector and civil society.

Report blasts ‘economic assault’ on Black Americans

Whether corporate America and major nonprofits are still willing to participate is an open question. The report condemns the Trump administration’s efforts to roll back diversity initiatives and economic advancement projects in the private sector, and expresses frustration with companies that cooperated with an “economic assault” on Americans, especially Black Americans.

“This has been a campaign of coercion and oppression directed at these institutions who have been out here working hard to, if you will, change America,” Morial said. “The important thing about companies is that every company has not bent the knee. Some may have done some cosmetic changes. Some have been in full and complete retreat.”

The DEI rollbacks are a jarring reversal for the Urban League, which held sway in the Biden White House on economic and social policies. The report lauds President Biden’s administration for signing a sweeping COVID-19 stimulus package, as well as laws supporting minority small businesses and a bipartisan infrastructure bill.

“Not every promise was kept, and the current administration is pushing to roll our wins back, but these wins serve as a blueprint for what is possible through sustained advocacy and a clear vision,” the authors write. The agenda, the Urban League declares, was “the most consequential federal investments in Black America since the Great Society.”

The organization and its civil rights allies now find themselves in a strikingly different political environment under the Trump administration.

“Looking at our current political landscape, the calls for racial healing and righting of this nation’s wrongs in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd feel like a fever dream,” the report reads.

But the study also acknowledges that Black Americans have overcome more dire and discriminatory moments.

Latest Black America report is the Urban League’s 50th edition

The Urban League’s inaugural 1976 report on the state of Black America was described by the New York Times at the time as “a profoundly depressing document” that laid out the persistent disparities between the economic outlooks of Black and white Americans, a decade after the Civil Rights Movement’s crowning achievements were signed into law.

The report was established as a response to that year’s State of the Union address by President Ford and the Democratic response, neither of which mentioned the economic outlooks for Black Americans. The report offered policy recommendations on crime, education, housing, social services and general economic policy.

“It is a document that does not attempt to cover up the seriousness of the situation black people find themselves in,” the authors wrote at the time. Several of its recommendations were later taken up by President Carter, who was elected to the White House months after the report’s release.

This year’s 50th anniversary document echoes the frustration found in the inaugural report. While Morial acknowledged that the Urban League’s assessments may lead to pessimism, he urged Americans concerned about civil rights and economic progress to respond at the ballot box and with their pocketbooks.

“We cannot be dejected. We cannot be cynical. We must act,” Morial said. “We have to fight to make sure that those that are really trying to kill the essence of the American dream don’t win.”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

US GDP growth dips as inflation and trade deficits pressure economy | Business and Economy News

GDP grew by 1.5 percent in the second quarter following a 2.1 percent increase in first quarter.

Economic growth in the United States slowed in the second quarter amid a growing trade deficit and tensions between the US and Iran which weighed on global fuel prices.

The US Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measure of goods and services, grew by 1.5 percent between April and June, marking a slowdown from 2.1 percent growth in the first quarter of 2026, according to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis report released on Thursday.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Consumer spending saw a bump of 3.2 percent for the quarter, both on the back of generous tax refunds from US President Donald Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ as well as heightened petrol prices that cost consumers.

Fuel prices are on the upswing after a brief reprieve. The average price for a gallon of petrol (3.78 litres) is $4.09, up from $3.84 this time last month, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks daily petrol prices. By comparison, the average price was $2.98 when the US and Israel first struck Iran on February 28 .

Analysts also point to the artificial intelligence spending boom as a reason for the surge, even as those are heavily import reliant and contributing to trade deficits.

“Overall, the economy continues to rely on technology investment,” Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Al Jazeera.

That will likely continue into third-quarter reports, which will take into account the month of July. On Monday, it was reported that Nvidia is in talks to make a $250m investment in OpenAI.

However, there are concerns about how long such investments will last amid questions over circular financing propping up the sector.

“Data centres continue to drive investment and economic growth, increasing the sector’s role in the economy while raising questions about its sustainability,” Ziemba said.

Meanwhile, the Personal Consumption Expenditure Price (PCE) Index report, one of the US Federal Reserve’s key metrics for gauging the rate of inflation, increased 3.7 percent on an annual basis for the month of June after a 4.1 percent surge in May.

The slowdown was marked by a brief retreat in petrol prices last month before they climbed higher again over the past month.

“Today’s report is a snapshot of an economy under a ceasefire that no longer exists. Even with last month’s temporary inflation relief, prices are still elevated and families are saving less as they try to keep up,” Alex Jacquez, a member of the National Economic Council under former US President Joe Biden, said in a note provided to Al Jazeera.

On Wednesday, the US Federal Reserve opted to maintain interest rates at 3.5-3.75 percent.

US markets are on the upswing in midday trading, largely driven by an increase in Microsoft stock amid better-than-expected sales and growth in cloud services. Markets have also risen following the PCE and GDP reports.

The tech-heavy Nasdaq is up 2.6 percent, with the S&P 500 following at 1.2 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average up 0.5 percent.

Gold prices, which are typically considered a safe investment during economic uncertainty, extended their gains by 1.9 percent to $4,108.30 per ounce after rising 2 percent on Wednesday.

Source link

EastEnders star told to stay at home by BBC after ‘red alert’ death threats over storyline

Ted Lasso star Annette Badland played villain Babe Smith in EastEnders for three years, and her portrayal was so convincing that the BBC received serious death threats on her behalf

BBC bosses issued a rare “red alert” safety warning to former EastEnders actress Annette Badland after a crazed fan sent death threats that were deemed credible by security experts.

The individual behind the chilling threats was never definitively identified, Annette said. Speaking on Sally Lindsay’s podcast, Annette explained on Sally Lindsay’s podcast: “Because I was leaving, they racked up my villainy and I actually got thrown out of, literally, thrown out of the pub by Danny and cursed them.

“But I had death threats. I got the call from the BBC security saying, ‘We’re getting death threats. There are red alert code words in this, so we have to take it seriously’.”

She was warned that she should only leave her house if it was absolutely necessary, and that if she did go out, she shouldn’t tell anyone where she was going.

Annette says she was effectively under house arrest throughout the six-week investigation: “They eventually traced it to just outside Liverpool. It was in a school, but they didn’t think it was a child. But because it was a public computer they didn’t feel they could get much further.”

Despite that harrowing conclusion to her EastEnders tenure, Annette says she cherished her time on the BBC soap. She holds particularly warm memories of Danny Dyer, whom she describes as “bright, kind-hearted…and daft.”

She recalled Danny’s extraordinary generosity, revealing he taught her to “say the C-word,” which proved tremendously useful when she moved on to Ted Lasso and was handed a script riddled with crude language. She joked: “I said to myself, ‘I’ve worked with Danny Dyer, I can do this’.”

Ironically, however, that “very funny” scene ended up on the cutting-room floor and has never been seen by the public.

It was an unscripted moment, early in her EastEnders stint, that made the show’s writers recognise that in Babe Smith, they had the foundations of a truly iconic villain: “I had a scene with Tim [Timothy West, who played Stan Carter on the show] and he was watching the television.

“I’d been in love with him when I was young and he’d married my sister and I didn’t like that – that was the cause of all my pain and anguish.

“It wasn’t scripted,” Annette added, “but I picked up the remote control and turned the television off. I told him what I thought, put the telly back on, and left. And I think they thought, ‘Ooh, she can be nasty’.”

What followed was three years packed with drama, reaching its peak when Babe was locked inside a freezer and left for dead by an unknown attacker, who was ultimately unmasked as Lorna Fitzgerald’s Abi Branning.

In a dramatic farewell, Babe was caught red-handed stealing from the Queen Vic’s safe, but it was her savage outburst at Linda [Kellie Bright] – branding her a “stuck-up cow” – that saw Mick Carter finally remove her from the pub, and banish her from Walford for good.

Source link

The August Talks Are All About Managing Defeat

Dinorah Figuera has a signature with limited value

“Venezuela cannot stand another communiqué” has become something of a political meme, but it captures the central problem with the process beginning on August 1. Washington has assembled a negotiation between an interim president whose continued rule it chose to preserve and an opposition counterpart it helped revive, hoping to combine Delcy Rodríguez’s control of the state with the residual democratic legitimacy of the 2015 National Assembly. The question is not merely whether they can reach an agreement. It is whether two actors whose authority is partial, externally enabled and detached from the country’s current popular leadership can legitimize a transition roadmap whose broad contours appear to have already been decided in Washington—and whether anything they sign can survive without María Corina Machado’s endorsement.

Everyone involved acknowledges that the mechanism was promoted by the United States. What nobody has explained clearly is what kind of mechanism it actually is. Is this a negotiation between two autonomous Venezuelan parties? Is it a broader national dialogue? Or is it an implementation process for a transition whose direction Donald Trump and Marco Rubio have already chosen?

The distinction matters because both sides are selling versions of the process that exaggerate their freedom to negotiate. The opposition presents it as the beginning of a democratic transition. Primero Justicia has listed substantial objectives: a new electoral authority and calendar, the restoration of political parties, an end to political disqualifications, the liberation of political prisoners, the dismantling of the repressive apparatus, freedom of expression and an independent Supreme Court.

Chavismo presents the same process as a necessary concession to preserve peace, obtain sanctions relief and protect the revolution. In its telling, sitting down with the opposition is not surrender but adaptation. “Dialogue does not mean capitulation,” Diosdado Cabello has insisted.

Neither story is entirely realistic.

The opposition may negotiate how political life is reopened and how future elections are organized. Still, it does not appear free to reopen Washington’s decision that stabilization and institutional reconstruction will precede an electoral transfer. Trump accepted Delcy’s continued presidency and has publicly argued that Venezuela is not yet prepared for another election, so the opposition is unlikely to be permitted to demand the immediate transfer of power it once said had already been decided by the 2024 presidential election.  

Delcy’s room for maneuver is also limited. She cannot seriously defend all the old red lines of chavismo: no foreign supervision, no negotiated reform of state institutions, no conditions on sanctions relief and no binding electoral horizon. The existence of an American-sponsored process involving the 2015 Assembly already violates much of the sovereignty theater through which the revolution previously justified itself.

Her real prohibitions are more practical. She cannot accept a settlement that fractures the military, dismantles the governing coalition, exposes its leadership without guarantees, or leaves chavismo incapable of competing in the order that follows. This is regime learning: not preserving the revolution exactly as it existed, but reducing the meaning of survival till it becomes achievable. If chavismo retains its organization, protects much of its elite and remains a viable electoral force, it can describe retreat as continuity.

The opposition is conducting a retreat of its own. It once insisted that the sovereignty expressed in 2024 had already resolved who should govern Venezuela. It is now negotiating the conditions under which Venezuelans may be allowed to decide that question again.

The two sides are not choosing freely between victory and defeat. They are negotiating the distance between two defeats and deciding which concessions each can successfully rename as victory.

Washington’s role goes well beyond providing the room and the refreshments. Delcy Rodríguez is interim president because the United States chose continuity under Maduro’s vice president over an immediate transfer of power to the leadership produced by the 2024 election. Venezuelan institutions administered the oath, but American recognition made that continuity politically viable.

Dinorah Figuera’s return to relevance followed an equally American route. She did not reemerge because a renewed domestic constituency demanded her leadership or because the forces behind the 2024 campaign selected her as their representative. One of her first consequential official appearances after years of political obscurity was a meeting with Michael Kozak at the State Department. She later returned to Venezuela at Washington’s invitation and became Jorge Rodríguez’s counterpart.

Washington helped produce both sides of the table. It accepted Delcy as the administrator of the interim order and activated Dinorah as the institutional representative needed to negotiate with it.

That does not make either woman a simple American puppet. Delcy controls the state machinery required to implement or sabotage any agreement. Dinorah can withhold the opposition stamp Washington needs to sell Trump’s latest South American peace project. But both operate inside a structure whose outer limits appear to have been drawn elsewhere.

The revival of the 2015 National Assembly is understandable. Delcy possesses effective authority but lacks democratic legitimacy. Her government can implement reforms and enforce agreements. What it cannot provide by itself is a convincing democratic chain of authorization.

The 2015 Assembly offers the missing signature. It remains, at least internationally, Venezuela’s last legitimately constituted national institution. Its participation can make institutional appointments, economic agreements and the broader reopening of the country look less like arrangements reached exclusively between Washington and the surviving chavista elite. That matters to governments, creditors and corporations seeking reassurance that future democratic authorities will not repudiate everything agreed during the interim.

But legal usefulness is not political legitimacy.

The Assembly elected in 2015 was a broad and plural legislature supported by millions of Venezuelans. The body negotiating today is a diminished delegated commission represented by only part of the coalition that originally composed it. Its leaders possess little independent national recognition, and the institution itself is deeply unpopular.

Its problem is not merely that it cannot enforce its decisions. For years, it often declined to act at all. It preserved itself as a constitutional necessity while withdrawing from political life, avoiding renewal and becoming increasingly detached from the society it claimed to represent. It remained alive enough to retain recognition and administer assets, but too frozen to lead.

It has now thawed itself back into relevance because Washington needs its pedigree.

Democratic legitimacy cannot simply be placed in constitutional cryogenic storage and reheated intact. The 2015 Assembly survived by refusing to die. It did not spend those years proving that it knew what to do next.

Primero Justicia has tried to bridge that gap by claiming that the delegated commission represents the sovereignty expressed in the 2024 election. But the commission was not elected in 2024, was not selected by the leadership of that campaign and does not represent the full coalition that supported it. The same communiqué reaffirms the leadership of María Corina Machado and Edmundo González while welcoming their willingness to observe a process they have publicly refused to buy into sight unseen.

The contradiction is striking. The people said to embody the country’s current democratic mandate are assigned the role of observers while an older institutional remnant claims to negotiate in their name.

Yet María Corina is not simply outside the process. She may be formally locked out of the negotiating room, but continues to have a relationship with both Trump and Rubio, based at least on her perceived importance. Dinorah has procedural access to the table. María Corina retains strategic access to the people who arranged it.

That may be intentional. Keeping Machado outside allows the delegated commission to absorb the least attractive compromises over sequencing, guarantees and appointments. It preserves her political capital for the moment when the settlement requires popular endorsement. If the process succeeds, she can validate its results without defending every concession. If it fails, she can truthfully say that she neither designed nor controlled it.

But Washington may be delusional if it believes Dinorah Figuera and Jorge Rodríguez can emerge from a closed room, announce an agreement and expect Venezuelan society to accept it without Machado’s endorsement. Their signatures may produce legal validity. Washington may provide international recognition. Foreign corporations may decide that the arrangement offers enough reassurance to begin investing.

Neither Dinorah nor Jorge can manufacture a national constituency.

The mechanism is an attempt to assemble a legitimacy that none of its participants possesses alone. Delcy supplies control of the state. The 2015 Assembly supplies constitutional pedigree. Washington supplies leverage and guarantees. María Corina supplies contemporary popular legitimacy. The problem is that the last component remains outside the formal process and has not promised to endorse whatever it produces.

August 1 does not need to resolve Venezuela’s political crisis. It does need to establish whether this mechanism can produce anything beyond the language of its communiqués. Its credibility will not come from another declaration of democratic intentions, but from evidence that someone can compel chavismo to share power with forces outside its orbit. The first test is not simply whether the parties promise another election. As chavismo reminds us at every opportunity, Venezuela has held plenty of those. The real test is whether the country can move credibly beyond replacing red chavismo with a poorly disguised blue version of the same political order.

The first meaningful agreement should not merely tell Venezuelans when they might vote. It should begin dismantling the police state we somehow cannot escape, even under American tutelage. Without the freedom to speak, organize, report and return without fear, another election would merely place a democratic label over the same machinery of control.

The organizers must also explain what they are asking the country to trust. If this is a negotiation, they should say what remains negotiable. If it is a dialogue, they should identify who participates and what authority the table possesses. If it is an implementation mechanism, Washington should disclose the roadmap being implemented. And if it is genuinely a transition, someone must eventually announce the date on which the interim order ends.

Venezuela cannot stand another communiqué because communiqués allow everyone to declare intentions without assuming ownership. Dinorah Figuera and Jorge Rodríguez may be able to sign an agreement. Washington may guarantee it. María Corina Machado may eventually persuade Venezuelans to give it a chance.

But only results can turn it into a transition.

Hope may be vigilant. Legitimacy is less patient.

Source link

Is Pakistan ‘using India’s playbook’ in Kashmir? | Politics

NewsFeed

Pakistan is facing accusations that its security forces have killed dozens of unarmed protesters in the past week of demonstrations in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Al Jazeera’s James Bays asked panellists on Inside Story if Islamabad is borrowing tactics from Indian-administered Kashmir.

Source link

‘Go back to your own country’: NZ foreign minister faces backlash | Politics News

NewsFeed

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters is facing backlash after telling a Chinese-born MP to ‘go back to your own country’ during a parliamentary debate. The remarks drew criticism at home, while China urged New Zealand politicians not to invoke Beijing in domestic disputes.

Source link

Detained Ugandan opposition leader Besigye in intensive care, wife says | Politics News

Kizza Besigye, who faces treason charges, is reported to be ‘unconscious’ in hospital after collapsing in court.

Detained Ugandan opposition leader Kizza Besigye has been hospitalised in an unresponsive state after he collapsed during a court hearing on Wednesday, according to his wife.

Besigye, who has been in prison since late 2024 on treason charges, is now “unconscious, unable to speak, and unresponsive”, his wife, Winnie Byanyima, said in a post on X on Thursday.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

He has been admitted to the intensive care unit at Mulago National Referral Hospital in the capital, Kampala, added Winnie Byanyima, who also ‌heads the United Nations AIDS programme UNAIDS.

Byanyima has called for her husband to be transferred out of Mulago hospital, a public facility, and into a private facility where he can be treated by his personal physician.

“[Besigye’s] family is saying he needs special treatment and they do not trust the government hospital,” reported Al Jazeera’s Catherine Soi from Nairobi in neighbouring Kenya.

“There’s a lot of frustration. The court has not granted that permission for him to be transferred.”

‘Not responding to anything’

Besigye, 70, was seen falling into the dock during his Wednesday courtroom session while protesting against his trial without lawyers of his own choosing, after authorities also detained and charged his main lawyer, Erias Lukwago.

“Before he collapsed, he cried out that he was being injured,” said Byanyima.

Ingrid Turinawe, a close confidant of Besigye, told The Associated Press that she and others were not allowed to see Besigye at Mulago hospital.

“He is in the ICU, and he is not responding to anything,” she said, adding that Besigye’s personal physician was able to see him several hours after he collapsed.

Besigye, a former ally-turned-critic of longtime President Yoweri ‌Museveni, has been in custody since November 2024. He was jailed together with his aide Obeid Lutale in Kenya and ⁠both were repatriated to Uganda where they were subsequently charged with treason.

Besigye’s lawyers, ⁠supporters and rights activists say ⁠that the charges are politically motivated and that his prolonged detention is part of an ongoing crackdown on opponents by ‌Museveni.

Both Museveni and his son, military chief Muhoozi Kainerugaba, have already weighed in against Besigye.

Kainerugaba, alleging that Besigye plotted to kill his father, has previously described the opposition figure as “a dead man walking”. And Museveni himself has said Besigye must answer for “the very serious offences he is alleged to have been planning”.

In recent days, prosecutors have moved to present evidence they say will prove Besigye and others plotted to overthrow the government

Museveni, 81, was declared winner of the last election in January although the results were rejected by ‌runner-up ‌Bobi Wine, who has since gone into exile in the United States.

Source link

Ban of forever chemicals for California farms nixed by state lawmakers

California lawmakers rejected legislation that would have banned pesticides with so-called “forever” chemicals from use on California’s farms, a restriction strongly opposed by the state’s billion-dollar agriculture community.

Assembly Bill 1603 by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) would have phased out the use of pesticides that contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS chemicals, a family of compounds that can be lasting and harmful to humans.

Representatives for agricultural groups argued at committee hearings last month that banning the chemicals was an overreach that would result in higher numbers of imports of food from other states and stifle innovation in developing new pesticides.

The latest version of the bill, which will be considered when the state legislature resumes its session next month, requires the state to list pesticides with PFAS in its public database.

“I’m disappointed,” Schultz said in an interview with the Times, adding that he intends to still push to phase out PFAS chemicals.

The bill marks the latest back-and-forth over PFAS, chemicals that are found in many different consumer, commercial and industrial products and are known as forever chemicals because some of their components don’t easily break down.

State regulators and environmental groups disagree on the definition of the chemicals, making it difficult to find a consensus on regulations or health risks.

Gov. Gavin Newsom last year vetoed a bill that would have prohibited the sale and distribution of popular consumer products, including cookware, dental floss and cleaning products, that contain PFAS chemicals.

The governor, in his veto message, cited affordability concerns. At the same time, the state has passed various laws intended to protect people from PFAS, including banning them in food packaging and firefighting foam.

Studies show that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to decreased fertility and developmental delays in children and increase the risk of cancers, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, and the vast majority of PFAS chemicals have not been tested for human health effects.

The Environmental Working Group, or EWG, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., released a study in March that found that nearly 40% of California’s conventionally grown fruits and vegetables tested contained PFAS residues, including 90% of peaches and nectarines.

The EWG, one of the bill’s supporters, uses a broader criteria to define PFAS than the state and federal authorities.

A spokesperson for California’s Dept. of Pesticide Regulation, which oversees pesticide use, said the EWG report looked at detections of the PFAS, but the state “looks at how the detections compare to federal tolerance levels.”

At a June Senate committee hearing on Schultz’s bill, EWG’s chief science officer, David Andrews, said that PFAS pesticides “fall into a regulatory blind spot.” He also said regulators, including the state, have “been inadequate with respect to evaluating immune system harm or the cumulative impacts of these very small PFAS.”

A spokesperson for the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation declined to comment on Schultz’s bill.

Taylor Triffo, a representative for a coalition of California agricultural associations, said at a different Senate hearing in June that the bill’s original language to ban new PFAS chemicals “would deny California farmers access to [the] next generation of crop protection tools that are safer, more targeted, require lower use rates and help address emerging pests and diseases.”

Representatives for agriculture groups said at hearings last month that they don’t object to the state flagging PFAS chemicals in the state database.

Nearly half of the country’s vegetables and more than three-quarters of its fruits and nuts come from California, according to the state.

Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Merced), chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, called pesticide use a “balance” at the June hearing before voting for the amended version.

“Part of the challenge agriculture is facing right now is pest invasion from other countries where the critters have moved on plants and in soil and have come into the state,” she said. “We’ve got to do everything, I think, we can to maintain our agricultural production, because we produce products that are produced almost nowhere else in the country.”

Isabella Quinonez, assistant director of Public Affairs at the California Farm Bureau, said her group objected to the original bill because it would have restricted products based on their chemical class rather than on a pesticide’s scientific evaluation of risk.

“We’re confident in the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s rigorous, science-based regulatory process, which includes residue studies, groundwater monitoring, and ongoing reevaluations,” Quinonez said.

Schultz told The Times he hopes to work with the Dept. of Pesticide Regulation on oversight in the coming years. He rejected any premise that there is “absolutely nothing to worry about, nothing off [with PFAS], because that’s just inconsistent with the science.”

Times staff writer Susanne Rust contributed to this report.

Source link

Tariff war with Canada is hurting California’s wine industry

It’s hard to hate on Canada. It’s like cursing a cotton ball, or raging about tapioca.

The friendliest of neighbors, the country has fought alongside the U.S. in conflicts going back to World War I, purchased many trillions of dollars worth of American goods and blessed this country with, among other gifts, ice hockey, Drake, Joni Mitchell and Alex Trebek.

While you can question the nation’s culinary sensibility — the unofficial dish, poutine, is an abomination consisting of French fries, cheese curds and hot gravy — Canada is basically a very large, very pretty country filled with a lot of very nice, extremely polite people.

But for reasons only he can fathom, President Trump has declared economic war on our amiable northern neighbor.

After more than a year of trading tit-for-tat tariffs, Trump recently escalated the conflict by slapping a new 50% tax on a variety of Canadian exports, including cement, furniture, dairy products and, most iconically, hockey sticks. The added levy, which will further burden inflation-weary U.S. consumers, is set to take effect in mid-August.

The move makes little sense from an economic or foreign policy standpoint. It’s best to regard Trump’s trade moves as a wind gauge charts a blustery storm; his on-again, off-again tariffs are not the result of some carefully thought-out policy but, rather, a measure of the president’s shifting moods and pique toward certain foreign leaders.

And they carry a not-inconsiderable price tag — California’s struggling wine industry being just one example.

You’re reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter

George Skelton and other analysts cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.

For decades, the industry has been a vital and growing part of California’s agricultural economy. Recent years, however, have seen a number of setbacks.

Costs are rising. Sales are falling, as younger generations favor hard seltzers, canned cocktails or premium beers over crushed grapes. At the same time, climate change and the growing incidence of wildfire threaten the viability of some of California’s premier wine-growing regions.

A Canadian ban on alcohol imports

Then there’s the trade war with Canada, the industry’s largest export market and formerly a major customer of California wines. Until recently, the Canadian market accounted for more than a third of the state’s exports.

But last year, several provinces stopped purchasing U.S. alcohol in response to Trump’s tariffs and his threats — more slapstick than real — to annex the country and make Canada the 51st American state. While two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, soon lifted their bans, the two most populous, Ontario and Quebec, have not.

As a result of this “geopolitical friction,” to use the words of University of California researchers, California wine exports to Canada fell by nearly 80% in 2025 compared with the year before. Unsurprisingly, Canadian sales of homegrown wines have soared.

Stick that in your terroir!

In response to the dramatic drop in exports, more than a dozen California members of Congress wrote last month to Quebec’s premier, Christine Fréchette, urging her to lift the retaliatory ban on U.S. wine and spirits.

“Reopening the market to American wine would restore consumer choice and signal a commitment to restoring fair and balanced trade for Québecois consumers and American wineries who have no connection to the underlying trade disputes,” the letter read.

Sen. Adam Schiff also wrote Fréchette asking her to resume the sale of California wine and U.S. spirits.

“The restriction on American wine has had damaging consequences for regional consumers, businesses, and producers who have no influence over national policies,” the California Democrat stated. “In fact, I have repeatedly voiced my opposition to and voted against the President’s harmful trade policies, including as they pertain to Canada.”

Fréchette’s response was, in a word: “Non!”

“In the context of the ongoing trade war, the premier continues to defend Quebec’s economic interests,” a spokesperson for Fréchette told CBC Radio. “This measure will remain in place as long as the United States maintains these unjustified tariffs. Our government will re-evaluate its position when the American administration reverses these measures.”

And that statement came before Trump upped the ante, along with the tariffs on Canada, which, presumably, doesn’t help matters.

Red or white?

Mike Thompson has seen the damage of Trump’s economic warfare firsthand. The St. Helena Democrat represents the heart of Wine Country and spearheaded, along with Democratic Rep. Jimmy Panetta of Carmel and Republican Rep. David Valadao of Hanford, the bipartisan overture to Quebec’s premier.

“I talked to a vintner today,” Thompson said during a drive this week through his sprawling Northern California district. “They went from an $11-million annual wine export to a $2-million annual wine export to Canada because of this.”

Thompson has introduced legislation, including a measure to reimburse wine producers for the money they’ve lost due to Trump’s tariffs, but the proposals have stalled in the House despite bipartisan support. His effort, Thompson dryly noted, “has not been warmly embraced by the administration.”

Meanwhile, the cross-border hostilities continue. Neither Trump nor Fréchette seems ready to budge, with California vintners still stuck in the middle.

So the question in Montreal and Toronto remains: What pairs best with poutine? Canadian white or red?

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump administration targeted California and other blue states for clean energy cuts
The deep dive: Justice Kennedy reflects on his time deciding the Constitution’s promise of liberty and equality
The L.A. Times Special: His nickname was ‘Satan.’ His political influence was immense
Until next time,
mzb

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Source link

Protest group says 30 dead in Pakistan-administered Kashmir vote unrest | Elections News

Deadly clashes reported in Pakistan-administered Kashmir amid first round of voting for regional elections on July 27.

Watchdogs have raised concerns over mounting reports of deadly clashes during regional elections in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, where a banned activist group has boycotted the vote and staged protests.

The clashes between police and protesters earlier this week killed more than 30 people in the region, according to the leaders of the Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC).

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

In a video statement on Wednesday shared by Arab News Pakistan, JAAC committee member Sardar Umar Nazir claimed 20 of the group’s supporters had been killed during a march on Monday, when the first round of voting took place.

He listed reports of at least 10 other protesters being killed the following day in the towns of Rawalakot, Mirpur and elsewhere, including during sit-ins.

“Our demand was peaceful, it was peaceful, we tried to keep it non-violent and bullets were fired at it,” said Nazir in the video statement.

Pakistani authorities said a member of the security personnel was killed and five more were injured in clashes on Monday.

Rights group Amnesty International called the reports of lethal force against protesters in the area “disturbing” and urged an investigation.

Pear Pandya, a senior analyst at conflict monitor ACLED, said the violence in Pakistan-administered Kashmir “is bound to overshadow the legitimacy of the entire electoral exercise”.

Monday’s first-round vote – covering the districts of Mirpur, Kotli and Bhimber – will be followed by two more rounds on August 2 and August 10.

Pakistan’s primary governing party, ⁠the PML-N, won nine out of the 13 seats that were up for election on Monday.

No justification to ‘mete out violence’

JAAC was banned by the local government under “anti-terrorism laws” in June, causing deadly protests to erupt in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Banking, roads and internet services have largely been disrupted since then, hindering the flow of information.

Pakistani officials have justified the crackdown by alleging that armed and India-backed fighters joined the Kashmiri protesters. India has rejected similar accusations in the past.

Amnesty has called the ban on JAAC unlawful and said it does not provide justification for authorities to “mete out deadly violence against protesters”.

The rights group has also urged Pakistani authorities to ”restore all communications access and allow media and independent observers into the area”, its acting regional director for South Asia, Isabelle Lassee, said.

‘Controversial’ seats

One of JAAC’s central demands regarding the regional elections is the abolition of 12 assembly seats reserved for Kashmiri refugees.

JAAC supporters say the seats are used by major Pakistani political parties to tip the composition of the local parliament in their favour with those who mostly live outside the region.

To form a regional government, the PML-N would likely need the support of some of the 12 representatives, said Hasan Askari, ‌a political analyst.

“But when their government is dependent on those 12 controversial seats, how would it be able to find a solution for this issue?” Askari told the Reuters news agency.

Even among the candidates that did not boycott the vote on Monday, the results were contested. Parties accused each other of ballot ‌box ‌stealing and vote rigging.

Source link

Why did Anthony Fauci invoke the Fifth Amendment? Senate hearing explained | Coronavirus pandemic News

Dr Anthony Fauci, a former top United States public health official, has declined to answer questions at a Republican-led Senate committee hearing into the origins of COVID-19 and the handling of the pandemic.

The former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination on Wednesday.

Recommended Stories

list of 1 itemend of list

Fauci was called to testify by Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who accuses him of misleading Congress and questions whether US-funded research in China played a role in the pandemic, allegations Fauci denies.

Although former President Joe Biden granted Fauci a preemptive pardon in 2025, Republicans claim it does not protect him from any alleged crimes committed after it was issued, such as perjuring himself at a Senate hearing.

Fauci’s lawyers advised him not to testify, arguing that anything he said under oath could expose him to new legal risks.

Here is what to know:

Who is Anthony Fauci?

Fauci, 85, is a physician and immunologist who led the US NIAID for 38 years, advising seven presidents, both Republican and Democratic.

He became the public face of the US response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, after helping lead the country’s response to health crises including HIV/AIDS, Ebola and the 2001 anthrax attacks.

He became a target of conservative criticism over pandemic policies, including mask recommendations, vaccines and school closures.

During his last year in government, Fauci was also chief medical adviser to Biden until he retired in 2022.

During the pandemic, between 2019 and 2022, he kept more than 1,000 pages of diary entries documenting his work advising the White House and responding to the pandemic.

The notes chronicle his interactions with senior officials and the media.

Why is Fauci being questioned?

He was subpoenaed to testify over his handling of the pandemic and its origins before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The hearing, led by Paul, focused on several issues:

  • COVID-19’s origins: Paul has long argued that the coronavirus that causes COVID may have leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, and questioned whether US-funded research played a role in the outbreak.
  • Gain-of-function research: Republicans say Fauci misled Congress about whether the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, involving modifying viruses to understand how they evolve and assess pandemic risks. Fauci says the NIH did not fund research that caused COVID-19.
  • Allegations of a cover-up: Paul accused Fauci of making false statements to Congress and concealing the NIH’s involvement in research in Wuhan. Fauci denies that.
  • Fauci’s diary: Before the hearing, Paul released more than 1,100 pages of Fauci’s typewritten diary. Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr said the notes were government record because they were written by a federal employee on a government computer during a public health emergency and they were found on government property.
  • Paul said the diary showed differences between Fauci’s private discussions and his public statements. Fauci’s supporters say the entries reflect the uncertainty scientists faced as they learned more about a new virus.
Dr. Anthony Fauci appears before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee at the Capitol, Wednesday, July 29, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Allison Robbert)
Dr Anthony Fauci appears before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee at the Capitol on July 29, 2026 [Allison Robbert/AP]

What happened at the hearing?

The tense hearing lasted about three hours.

After a brief opening statement, Fauci repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and declined to answer more than 100 questions.

He accused committee chairman Paul of having an “obsession” with prosecuting him.

Committee chairman Senator Rand Paul, Reublican from Kentucky, takes his seat as he arrives for a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee hearing with Dr. Anthony Fauci on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on July 29, 2026.
Committee chairman Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky [AFP]

The hearing included several tense moments:

  • Contempt vote: Paul said the committee would vote next week on whether to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress over his refusal to answer questions, threatening “consequences for refusing to answer”.
  • Lawyer removed: Paul directed Capitol Police to remove Fauci’s lawyer, David Schertler, after he tried to speak without being recognised by the committee. “This testimony is from Anthony Fauci. This is not a game with his lawyers,” Paul said. Schertler later described the hearing as an “obsessive vendetta”.
  • Democrats defend Fauci: Democratic senators said the hearing was politically motivated. Senator Gary Peters called it “a partisan exercise” designed to support “a predetermined conclusion” rather than offering legitimate oversight.

Closing the hearing, Paul asked rhetorically: “Did [Fauci’s] actions lead to the largest man-made plague in history?”

Why did Fauci invoke the Fifth Amendment?

Fauci said he invoked the Fifth Amendment on the advice of his lawyers because he believed his answers could expose him to new legal risks.

He argued that Paul was trying to build a criminal case against him rather than conduct legitimate congressional oversight.

Although Biden’s pardon protects Fauci from prosecution for actions before January 2025, Republicans say any false statements made under oath during this hearing could still expose him to perjury charges.

The Fifth Amendment protects people from being forced to give evidence that could incriminate them in a criminal case. Invoking it is a constitutional right and does not imply guilt.

What do scientists believe about COVID-19’s origins?

Most scientists believe COVID-19 likely spread naturally from animals to humans, known as zoonotic spillover, pointing to a wildlife market in Wuhan as the most likely place where it first spread.

Fauci has consistently said he believes that scientific evidence points to a natural origin, while remaining open to other possibilities.

Notes from his diary detail a January 2020 call with 11 top virologists and evolutionary biologists – only two were convinced the virus had a natural origin, while the rest debated whether it could have been engineered.

Today, most scientists favour a natural origin, while the US intelligence community is divided.

The FBI said in 2023 that a laboratory-related incident is the most likely origin of the pandemic. The CIA reached the same conclusion in 2025, but with low confidence. Other agencies and the National Intelligence Council continue to favour a natural origin or remain undecided.

Does Biden’s pardon protect Fauci?

Yes, but only what happened before the pardon was issued.

On January 19, 2025, Biden granted Fauci a full and unconditional pardon covering any federal offences he may have committed since 2014, saying the move aimed to protect Fauci from “politically motivated prosecutions”.

The pardon does not cover actions taken after it was issued. Fauci could face legal consequences if he were accused of committing a new crime, such as making false statements under oath during Wednesday’s Senate hearing.

Paul and other Republicans also argue that because Biden’s pardon shields Fauci from criminal liability for his past actions, he can no longer claim that his testimony about those actions would incriminate him and should not be able to invoke his Fifth Amendment.

The legal standing of this argument is not clear, and Paul has acknowledged that it is a novel “legal question that the courts may have to decide”.

Can Fauci be held in contempt or prosecuted?

Potentially, but it remains unclear whether either will happen.

Paul said the Senate committee will vote next week on whether to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress after he refused to answer more than 100 questions.

Being held in contempt means lawmakers believe a witness has refused to cooperate with a lawful investigation. It does not automatically lead to criminal charges, but can trigger further legal action.

If the committee approves the measure, it could refer the case to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution, ask a federal court to pursue a civil action, or, in the rarest case, ask the Senate to use its powers to detain a witness through the Senate sergeant-at-arms.

Paul has not said which option, if any, he plans to pursue.

Source link

Sam Altman meets lawmakers on back of OpenAI agents hacking companies | Business and Economy News

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has met with US senators to discuss his company’s upcoming models, as President Donald Trump said he is considering AI “controls” following OpenAI’s disclosure that one of its AI systems escaped containment during a security test.

“We’re looking at controls,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office in response to a question about OpenAI’s rogue agent, adding that he did not want to “restrict” AI developers from building new products.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

A rogue agent escaped the handling of ChatGPT maker OpenAI and hacked the AI firm Hugging Face last week. Then, on Tuesday, it was revealed that a second company had been a target, too – Modal Labs, a New York City-based AI infrastructure firm.

The company itself was not hacked but an account of a customer hosted on Modal’s infrastructure. Modal’s chief technology officer, Akshat Bubna, did not confirm which customer was the target. The hack escaped a contained environment during a security test.

“We’re aware a Modal customer published an unauthenticated endpoint that allowed anyone on the internet to use their sandboxes for code execution,” Bubna said in a statement. “This was used by the rogue agent. Modal’s platform or isolation were not compromised in any way.”

Altman has long been accused of dismissing concerns that his products and the AI industry impact society at large, including in a recent lawsuit brought by the State of Florida that alleged the company put profits ahead of user safety.

Now, he appears to be walking back some of his past enthusiasm around AI’s pace of growth.

In a podcast called Invest Like the Best, Altman called the Hugging Face hack an “extremely sci-fi cyber incident” and later said that it was the “first security incident that I have felt very viscerally”.

“We may have to pace the rate of AI development to give ourselves enough time for society to harden around some of these new capability levels,” he said on the podcast.

On Saturday, Altman said that AI has reached “the singularity”, when AI surpasses human intelligence and becomes harder to control. He had previously said this would not be reached by 2030.

Washington meetings

Altman was in Washington, DC, this week, meeting with US Senators Raphael Warnock, a Democrat from Georgia, and Bernie Moreno, a Republican from Ohio on Wednesday. Altman told reporters that the hacking was discussed but was not the focus of the meeting.

Altman is also set to meet with Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the chamber’s Intelligence Committee.

CNBC reported that Altman is also to make a trip to the White House to meet with Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles. Last month, the president signed an executive order requesting that AI companies assess their models before full release.

Financing concerns

The hacking and meetings come alongside pressure from Wall Street amid renewed concerns about potential circular financing, following reports that semiconductor chip giant Nvidia is undergoing talks with OpenAI to provide funding guarantees for a data centre in Ohio.

The $250bn deal would help the ChatGPT owner lease a 10-gigawatt project that SB Energy, a subsidiary of SoftBank, is building in Piketon, Ohio, 109km (68 miles) south of Columbus, Ohio. It is part of a public-private partnership that allowed SoftBank to build the world’s largest AI data centre on government land owned by the US Department of Energy.

“The demand is not as big as it appears to be because, again, the companies are buying from each other using their own money to some degree, as opposed to, say, OpenAI having such tremendous demand from customers, monetising it properly, and then using customers’ money to buy Nvidia chips. They’re essentially using Nvidia’s money to buy Nvidia chips,” said Aleksandar Tomic, associate dean at Boston College.

The development comes as the Altman-led company is leaning towards an initial public offering, which, according to reporting from The New York Times last month, could be in 2027.

Source link

Wisconsin judge says voters who have returned absentee ballot for state primary cannot get a new one

Wisconsin voters who have already returned their absentee ballots for the state’s primary are not allowed to void those and request a new one, a judge ruled Wednesday.

The ruling deals a blow to Democrats, who filed a lawsuit seeking to give voters a do-over because of a chaotic party primary in the governor’s race.

The ruling is almost certain to be appealed with voting already underway in the state’s primary for governor. It creates another level of uncertainty in the waning days of a primary season that saw Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, who had been seen as a Democratic front-runner, drop out on July 17. A day later, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who had bowed out on July 8, reentered the race.

Rodriguez’s name remains on the ballot, along with former state economic development director Missy Hughes, who dropped out in June.

More than 117,000 absentee ballots had been returned by Wednesday. Democrats were concerned that many of those might have been cast for Rodriguez.

The attorney for voters who filed the lawsuit with support from the Wisconsin Democratic Party argued in a Tuesday hearing that state law allows voters who have submitted absentee ballots to change their mind before those ballots are counted on election day.

“Voters across Wisconsin will be disenfranchised” if not allowed to do that, attorney Eduardo Castro argued before Dane County Circuit Judge David Conway.

The bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission had voted on July 9 to distribute guidance to clerks saying absentee voters cannot change their ballot after it has been returned. The rarely used process is known as ballot spoiling.

But Conway on Wednesday ruled that “the unambiguous language of the statute does not allow a voter to spoil an absentee ballot after it is returned.” He said the guidance issued by the elections commission to the roughly 2,000 clerks who run elections at the local level was consistent with the law.

The judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order sought by Democrats. They had wanted the judge to order the state elections commission to rescind its guidance.

Spokespeople for the Wisconsin Democratic Party and the state elections commission did not immediately return messages seeking comment on the ruling.

Ballot spoiling was the subject of a 2022 lawsuit brought by a Republican group. In that case, a Waukesha County judge agreed that the elections commission must rescind its guidance that allowed voters to cast a second ballot. But the state appeals court earlier this year vacated that ruling on technical grounds and did not rule on the merits.

The winner of the Democratic primary will advance to November’s general election, most likely against Republican U.S. Rep. Thomas P. Tiffany, who has only token opposition in his party’s primary. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers is not seeking a third term.

Democrats hope to keep the governor’s office and flip both chambers of the Legislature to gain full control of state government for the first time since 2010.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

Source link