politics

June 19 (UPI) — Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham scored a convincing victory for the ruling Labour Party in a by-election for the parliamentary seat of Makerfield on Friday, winning more seats than all the other parties combined.

The two-time former nominee for the leadership of the party saw off Reform UK in Thursday’s poll with 24,927 votes — 55% of the vote — against Reform’s 15,696, with the official opposition Conservative’s candidate pushed into a distant fourth place with only 997 votes.

Burnham’s return to parliament to mount an anticipated bid to oust Prime Minister Keir Starmer with Burnham’s supporters saying the scale of his win confirmed he was the best person to lead the party — and by extension — the country.

In his victory speech in the early hours in the constituency, 20 miles west of Manchester and on the outskirts of Wigan, Burnham said the win could be a “turning point” for Britain.

“Everyone knows that politics isn’t working. Everyone can feel that the country isn’t where it should be. Tonight could, just could, be the turning point. From here on, I will give everything I have got to make it so. To ensure that the name Makerfield is forever synonymous with bringing about the change this country needs,” said Burnham.

Starmer congratulated Burnham, saying voters had chosen the party’s vision of “hope and optimism over division and hate” but vowed he would not “walk away” from the leadership.

He stressed that there was no contest for the leadership of the party currently and that he didn’t think it was a good idea because it would “plunge the country into chaos — but said that if Burnham initiated a challenge after he returns to Parliament next week, he would fight.

“If there is a contest, then yes. I will run. I will stand. I’m not going to walk away from that.”

Any challenger needs the backing of a quarter of MPs — around 81 — but the incumbent gets a bye and is automatically entered into the contest, should they wish to participate.

Former Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who quit the cabinet on May 14 — the same day the sitting Makerfield MP stood down to make way for Burnham — is also tipped to enter the race.

Other candidates such as former Defense Secretary Jon Healey could also emerge in the interim.

It is understood Burnham will not move against Starmer immediately and his preference, along with others in the party who no longer back Starmer, is that given some breathing space he will stand aside without a fight.

Starmer’s problems began in summer 2025, less than a year into his government’s five-year term following a landslide election victory, after a poor showing in local elections and losing a by-election in the “safe” Labour seat of Runcorn and Helsby.

Rebellions by his own MPs forcing policy U-turns, the Peter Mandelson debacle, and more losses at the ballot box, culminating in a cataclysmic defeat to Reform UK in “mid-term” local elections in May, saw growing numbers of MPs call for him to quit and defections from his cabinet.

First elected as an MP representing the Greater Manchester seat of Leigh in 2001, Burnham unsuccessfully fought two contests for the Labour leadership when the party was in opposition, losing to Ed Miliband in 2010 and Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, before quitting the House of Commons in 2017.

He currently has two years still to run of his four-year term as mayor of Greater Manchester. His resignation to take up his seat in Parliament triggers a mayoral election in Britain’s second largest metro area after London scheduled for July 30.

California’s political watchdog commission on Thursday finalized a $31,500 fine against Gov. Gavin Newsom, alleging that the Democratic leader failed to report three dozen behested payments totaling $5.5 million mostly to support wildfire recovery by the deadline under state law.

The Political Reform Act requires elected officials to disclose payments of $5,000 or more that they solicit or direct others to give to a charitable, legislative or governmental purpose within 30 days.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission said 34 of the violations were for failing to report on time that Newsom and his staff directed outreach from companies and foundations that wanted to help after the Los Angeles wildfires to the California Fire Foundation. The nonprofit was started in 1987 by the California Professional Firefighters to support the families of fallen firefighters and communities impacted by fire.

The donations include $1 million from the Chuck Lorre Foundation and $500,000 apiece from Lockheed Martin, the Anthem Blue Cross Foundation and BlackRock, among others gifts.

The governor also failed in 2024 to report on time two behested payments, totaling $100,000 from the Schmidt Family Foundation and Schwab Charitable Funds to the Institute for Local Government, a nonprofit within the League of California Cities.

The commission said the governor reported all of the payments “prior to public discovery” or contact from its enforcement division, which it considered a mitigating factor. Newsom also signed the stipulation and agreed to the fine.

Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Newsom’s office, said the issue involved late paperwork at a time when the governor’s staff was focused on emergency response and supporting survivors. She also underscored the fact that the reports were filed before he was contact by the FPPC.

Gallegos said the fine is unrelated to an alleged investigation into the governor and his wife by the Department of Justice, which Newsom announced this week.

Newsom alleged Monday that Trump is using the government as political weapon to target him and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. Newsom announced the investigation after he learned that the FBI and Internal Revenue Service asked his associates questions about nonprofits and businesses related to the couple.

The governor’s office characterized the investigation as a fishing expedition. The Trump administration declined to comment.

A source familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly, said two federal probes have been going on for about a year, and that they originated not from Washington, D.C., but from conversations between whistleblowers and federal prosecutors based in Sacramento. The probes are linked to Newsom’s former chief-of-staff, Dana Williamson, and Siebel Newsom’s taxes, the source said.

The FPPC violations mark the second time Newsom has reported payments late, which increased his penalty for the new infractions. The commission fined Newsom in 2024 for failing to timely report 18 payments totaling $14.4 million.

Former US President Barack Obama opened his presidential centre in Chicago, using the occasion to call for unity, urging Americans to reject division and invest in the next generation.

Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has cruised to victory in a high-stakes by-election in northern England, paving the way for him to challenge Prime Minister Keir Starmer for the leadership of the Labour Party and the United Kingdom.

Burnham handily defeated his closest challenger, Robert Kenyon, the candidate for the anti-immigration Reform UK, in the seat of Makerfield, vote results showed early on Friday, securing the House of Commons seat he needs to mount a bid for the prime ministership.

Burnham won 24,927 votes, beating Kenyon by more than 9,000 votes.

Rebecca Shepherd of Restore Britain was a distant third, trailed by Michael Winstanley of the Conservative Party, Sarah Wakefield of the Green Party, and the Liberal Democrats’ Jake Austin.

“Everyone knows that politics is not working,” Burnham said in his victory speech.

“Everyone can feel that the country isn’t where it should be. Tonight could – just could – be the turning point. From here on, I will give everything that I have got to make it so, to ensure the name Makerfield is forever synonymous with bringing about the change this country needs.”

Burnham’s victory is likely to either precipitate Starmer’s resignation or set off a leadership contest pitting the prime minister against the outgoing mayor and Wes Streeting, the former health secretary.

Under the UK’s political system, MPs can choose a new prime minister without holding a general election.

Burnham is widely considered a strong favourite to become the next prime minister if he challenges Starmer.

In an Ipsos poll published earlier this week, Burnham was chosen by 25 percent of British adults as the preferred prime minister, compared with 12 percent for Starmer.

If he does succeed Starmer, Burnham, who was the early favourite in the 2015 Labour leadership race before coming second to Jeremy Corbyn, would be the UK’s seventh prime minister since the country voted for Brexit in 2016.

After leading Labour to a thumping election victory in 2024, Starmer has been under mounting pressure to step down amid widespread public dissatisfaction with his leadership.

Calls for his resignation within Labour have mounted since the party suffered crushing losses in local and regional elections in May.

Twenty ministers have resigned from Starmer’s government in less than two years, nearly half of whom expressed a loss of confidence in his leadership or clashed with him on policy, including Streeting.

Starmer has rebuffed calls to resign, pledging to fight any challenge to his leadership and insisting that such a contest would be a “bad thing for the country”.

Burnham – dubbed the “king of the north” for his grassroots appeal across northern England and his willingness to challenge Westminster – ran on the promise to “change Labour” to “change politics and change the country”.

As mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham built an avid following across the UK’s less developed northern regions by channelling populist themes about elite apathy and industrial decline.

First elected mayor in 2017, and re-elected in 2021 and 2024, he has criticised the UK’s political system as “too London-centric” and taken aim at neoliberal economic policies and trickle-down economics that did not “trickle down very much at all”.

In his victory speech, Burnham said that Makerfield would be the “touchstone” for his politics.

“A Makerfield test at the heart of British politics will ensure that the places Westminster has neglected will now get fairness,” he said.

Burnham, who served in several ministerial portfolios under former Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, had been the narrow favourite in the race, holding a five-point lead over Kenyon in an opinion poll released on Saturday by pollster Opinium.

Labour’s Josh Simons, who previously held the seat of Makerfield, triggered the by-election last month by resigning his seat to allow Burnham to challenge Starmer.

About 75,000 people were entitled to vote in the constituency, which is located about 320km (200 miles) northwest of London.

Turnout was 58.75 percent, up from 52.4 percent at the 2024 general election.

Harare, Zimbabwe – Zimbabwean lawmakers have approved a bill that would replace direct presidential elections with a vote by parliament, a proposal that supporters say would promote policy continuity but that opponents fear could weaken democratic accountability and further entrench the ruling party’s grip on power.

“I just cannot believe that these are the people who want to elect a president on behalf of everyone,” Barnabas Gura, a 38-year-old from Harare’s Glen View suburb, told Al Jazeera.

“Only 210 members of parliament vote on behalf of a population of 15 million. It is preposterous.”

On Thursday, Constitutional Amendment Bill No 3 passed the National Assembly after 216 lawmakers voted in favour and 42 against. The bill now moves to the Senate, where it is also expected to secure the two-thirds majority required for constitutional amendments.

The bill seeks to amend Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution by replacing the direct election of the president with election by a joint sitting of the Senate and National Assembly.

Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, the bill’s sponsor, has rejected criticism that the proposed changes would undermine Zimbabwe’s constitutional order.

Speaking in parliament on June 3, Ziyambi said the bill was “not an abandonment of our constitutional order in any way, shape or form but a continuation of it”.

“It is a product of practical and experience of institutional reflection and of honesty that after more than a decade of implementation of certain provisions of the constitution requires refinement to enhance their functionality, coherence and their service to national progress,” he told lawmakers.

Ziyambi said there was considerable misinformation surrounding the bill, particularly on social media.

“This bill does not give the president a term extension or a third term. It does not take away the right to vote. It does not postpone elections. It does not concentrate power or the running of elections in the hands of the president,” he said.

Opponents, however, dispute that interpretation and argue the proposed changes would strengthen President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s influence over the political system and could pave the way for him to remain in office beyond the end of his constitutional term in 2028.

Bill threatens democracy

Supporters of the bill, including lawmakers from the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union–Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and the opposition Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), say the changes would promote long-term policy continuity and give Mnangagwa more time to complete his development agenda.

Gura is unconvinced.

He said two more years would not improve the lives of Zimbabweans struggling with poverty.

“Mnangagwa has failed for the past eight years. Only a few who are close to the ruling class are benefiting. More time will not make any difference,” he said.

ZANU-PF has been in power since Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980. Mnangagwa came to power in November 2017 after former President Robert Mugabe was removed from office following a military intervention.

Under the current constitution, Mnangagwa is due to leave office in 2028.

Pride Mkono, a social justice activist and human rights defender, said the proposed amendment would further entrench ZANU-PF’s dominance.

“Since independence, the ZANU-PF party has dominated politics until 2000, when it was challenged by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. However, the opposition is now comatose and lacks capacity to challenge it,” Mkono told Al Jazeera.

“So, we will effectively enter a one-party state, but one dominated by a cartel of individuals.”

He said the objective of the proposed changes was not to improve the lives of ordinary people.

“It means a continuation of economic and social services collapse and mass impoverishment of the masses,” Mkono said.

Obert Masaraure, a human rights defender and president of the Amalgamated Rural Teachers’ Union of Zimbabwe (ARTUZ), said the amendment would severely weaken the country’s fragile democracy.

“Power will be usurped from the people, and the executive acting in concert with the elites will freely loot national resources, exploit workers, destroy the environment and dehumanise our people without any restraint,” Masaraure told Al Jazeera.

Young people such as Gura say they have little reason to believe extending Mnangagwa’s tenure would improve their prospects.

He argues that removing direct presidential elections would strip citizens of one of the few mechanisms available to hold leaders accountable.

“This is a direct attack on accountability and transparency,” he said, adding that ZANU-PF had promised jobs ahead of the 2018 elections but failed to deliver.

Masaraure drew parallels with the colonial era.

“If you can not vote, you can not hold anyone accountable,” he said.

Violence and intimidation

A parliamentary committee report tabled in the National Assembly earlier this month said 99.4 percent of submissions received during nationwide consultations supported the proposed changes.

But the consultation process was marred by allegations of intimidation and violence.

Activists and rights groups say suspected state security agents abducted and tortured several opponents of the bill.

In Chiredzi, suspected ZANU-PF youths assaulted activist Gilbert Mutebuki after preventing him from speaking against the bill during a public hearing in late March.

Gura said he was also denied an opportunity to speak, along with other citizens opposed to the proposal.

Rawlings Magede, senior programme lead at Heal Zimbabwe Trust, disputed the parliamentary committee’s findings.

“It is not true that most people are in support of the bill. Those supporting it are only a few who think that by supporting the bill, they will get some rewards. People are desperate for gifts,” Magede told Al Jazeera.

He said the reported level of support was misleading and did not reflect the views of many Zimbabweans.

ZANU-PF controls parliament

The ruling party controls both the National Assembly and the Senate.

Its parliamentary dominance grew after the 2023 elections, when Senator Sengezo Tshabangu recalled a number of CCC legislators, strengthening ZANU-PF’s position in parliament.

Critics say many opposition lawmakers who remained in parliament are politically vulnerable because of Tshabangu’s influence.

The opposition remains fragmented and has struggled to mount a coordinated challenge to the ruling party.

Mkono said that although ZANU-PF enjoys a two-thirds majority in parliament, passage of the bill was never really in doubt.

To prevent individual lawmakers from voting independently, he said, the party wanted an open vote by show of hands.

“This is subtle intimidation and closes all avenues for genuine expression of MPs’ views. It is as archaic as it is diabolic,” he said.

Wicknell Chivayo, a controversial businessman and ally of Mnangagwa, has faced accusations from critics of attempting to influence lawmakers through gifts of cash and vehicles.

In April, he offered legislators $3.6m if they passed the bill before withdrawing the offer following public criticism, including from some ZANU-PF youths.

During debate on the bill, Chivayo gave vehicles and cash to MPs Remigious Matangira and Samantha Mureyani after they spoke in support of it in the National Assembly. Critics have described such gifts as inducements intended to influence support for the bill.

Tatenda Chikumbu, from Kambuzuma, another densely populated suburb of Harare, said he has little faith in lawmakers.

“If they can be bribed and vote for the bill, how can I trust them to vote for the president once the amendment is done?” Chikumbu asked Al Jazeera.

Susan Matsunga, an opposition MP who received a vehicle from Chivayo, supported the bill during debates last week.

During voting in the National Assembly on Thursday, more than 30 opposition lawmakers voted in favour of the bill.

Courts are the last line of defence

With the bill now headed to the Senate, opponents are increasingly looking to the courts.

Mkono said legal challenges could slow the process, but argued that political mobilisation offered the strongest response.

“Social movements must be launched and all concerned Zimbabweans come together to fight this politically. That is the only viable option,” he said.

Several legal challenges are already before the courts.

Some citizens are suing their MPs for supporting the bill. Others are challenging proposals that could extend Mnangagwa’s tenure. Human rights activist Youngerson Matete has approached the High Court seeking to stop enactment of the bill without a referendum.

Many Zimbabweans, however, have lost confidence in the judiciary, which critics accuse of lacking independence. The Constitutional Court has already started dismissing some of the cases based on technicalities.

For Gura, the stakes extend beyond the next election cycle.

The proposed constitutional changes, he said, would shape the future of the country his children will inherit.

“This is a direct attack on accountability and transparency,” he said.

WASHINGTON — Tom Daschle, the former Democratic senator from South Dakota, remembers the exchange vividly.

The time was September 2002. The place was the White House, at a meeting in which President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney pressed congressional leaders for a quick vote on a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

But Daschle, who as Senate majority leader controlled the chamber’s schedule, recalled recently that he asked Bush to delay the vote until after the impending midterm election.

“I asked directly if we could delay this so we could depoliticize it. I said: ‘Mr. President, I know this is urgent, but why the rush? Why do we have to do this now?’ He looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: ‘We just have to do this now.’ ”

Daschle’s account, which White House officials said they could not confirm or deny, highlights a crucial factor that has drawn little attention amid rising controversy over the congressional vote that authorized the war in Iraq. The recent partisan dispute has focused almost entirely on the intelligence information legislators had as they cast their votes. But the debate may have been shaped as much by when Congress voted as by what it knew.

Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, did not call for a vote authorizing the Persian Gulf War until after the 1990 midterm election. But the vote paving the way for the second war with Iraq came in mid-October of 2002 — at the height of an election campaign in which Republicans were systematically portraying Democrats as weak on national security.

Few candidates sparred over the war resolution itself. But Republicans in states including Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota and Georgia strafed Democratic senators seeking reelection who had supported military spending cutbacks in the 1990s, accepted money from a liberal arms-control group, opposed Bush’s preferred approach for organizing the new Department of Homeland Security, and voted in 1991 against the Persian Gulf War.

With national security then such a flashpoint in so many campaigns, many Democrats believe, the vote’s timing enormously increased pressure on their party’s wavering senators to back the president, whose approval rating approached 70% at the time.

“There was a sense I had from the very beginning that this was in part politically motivated, and they were going to maximize the timing to affect those who were having some doubt about this right before the election,” Daschle said.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett denied that charge, saying the vote’s timing represented a desire to increase pressure on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, not Democrats.

“The president, during the run-up to the war, went out of his way not to make it political,” Bartlett said.

Whatever the motivation for the vote’s timing, the effect was to produce a clear contrast between the Democratic senators who sought reelection that November and those who did not.

The Democrats not on the ballot split almost evenly, with 19 supporting the war resolution and 17 opposing it. Among those facing the voters, 10 voted for the resolution while only four opposed it. And of those four, only one — Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, who died in a plane crash a few weeks after the resolution vote — was in a seriously competitive race.

“The political currents were extraordinarily strong for everybody involved,” said Jim Jordan, then executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “I’m certainly not implying that Democrats had their finger to the wind and didn’t make votes of conscience, but it was a piece of the puzzle, clearly.”

It is, of course, impossible to say whether more Democrats would have opposed the war resolution — which passed the Senate 77 to 23 on Oct. 11, just hours after the House approved it 296 to 133 — if the vote had occurred after the 2002 election.

Daschle, who voted for the resolution and was not up for reelection that year, said he did not think so, “given the circumstances, the environment, the sense that we were responding to 9/11, and all of the urgency that was created by the rhetoric and cajoling of the administration.”

But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said recently that a delay might have prompted more Democrats to vote no by increasing the time available to study the evidence for war and by dissipating the political pressures surrounding the decision.

“There was a stampede to vote on this,” Kennedy said. “A lot of our people got caught up in it.”

Bartlett said that if some Democrats felt “like they would have made a different decision before the election or after, that doesn’t speak very well of them, because the facts didn’t change in the course of one month.”

Democrats themselves were divided over the vote’s timing. Kennedy, Wellstone and Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) were among those who passionately urged Daschle to defer the vote until after the election, said several sources who requested anonymity when discussing the party’s internal debate.

The sources said that other Democratic senators supported Bush’s push, in part because the senators believed an early vote might help the party shift attention to domestic issues it wanted to spotlight before election day. Democrats also felt more pressure to act because they recognized that the GOP-controlled House would agree to Bush’s request on the vote’s timing.

Against this backdrop, Republicans across the country were escalating attacks on their Democratic opponents on defense issues.

Starting in mid-September, for instance, then-Rep. John Thune (R-S.D.) issued statements and organized news conferences by veterans to criticize Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson for voting against the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

On Oct. 4, one week before the Senate vote, Thune released an ad that used images of Hussein and terrorist leader Osama bin Laden to criticize Johnson for voting against missile defense systems.

In Minnesota beginning in mid-September, Republican Norm Coleman organized retired military officials to hold news conferences charging that Wellstone “didn’t just vote to devastate our defense; he voted to dismantle it.” In late September, the National Republican Senatorial Committee ran ads attacking Wellstone over votes to reduce military spending.

The committee ran similar ads against Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) one week before the vote.

Although he did not criticize Democrats over Iraq, Bush stoked the overall security debate during a series of appearances between Sept. 23 and Oct. 4. He criticized Senate Democrats who were blocking the administration’s preferred version of legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security because, they said, it gave the president too much freedom to suspend workers’ civil service protections.

“The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people,” Bush said in New Jersey.

Bush’s comments reverberated most powerfully in the Senate race in Georgia, where Saxby Chambliss, then a Republican House member, began criticizing incumbent Democrat Max Cleland over the Homeland Security issue.

Less than a day after the Senate authorized the use of force in Iraq, Chambliss aired what became the most talked-about ad of the 2002 election: a sharply worded jab that used pictures of Hussein and Bin Laden to accuse Cleland of voting “against the president’s vital Homeland Security efforts.”

Cleland, Johnson and Harkin were among the Democrats who voted for the war resolution; Wellstone voted no.

Less than a month later, Johnson and Harkin were reelected, Cleland was defeated and Coleman beat former Vice President Walter F. Mondale for Wellstone’s seat after the senator’s death. Overall, Republicans widened their majority in the House and swept back into control of the Senate.

WASHINGTON — The 101st Congress convened its second session today, facing an agenda suddenly expanded by the emergence of democracy in Eastern Europe and a plan to cut Social Security taxes at home.

Lingering issues also abound, including child care, capital-gains taxes and deficit reduction.

Not waiting for President Bush to send up his own budget and legislative proposals, the Senate almost immediately began debating a far-reaching plan for cleaning up the air–a bill that is more costly and more sweeping than the President wants. Opposition is based more on geography and competing regional interests than on party lines.

The first day of the session was marked by friendly reunions. Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex.) told colleagues he’d nearly died of a pancreas ailment during the long break, and he accepted hugs and applause on the House floor.

Outside, a half dozen House members arrived on bicycles after a two-block trip from a congressional office building to call attention to plans for Earth Day in the spring.

On a more substantive matter, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) formally introduced a bill to reduce Social Security taxes–an idea that prompted a full-scale White House attack when he proposed it last month. Moynihan says workers are being deceived because their Social Security taxes are being used to make the federal deficit appear far smaller than it is.

“These are insurance contributions, they are premiums paid,” Moynihan told a news conference. “They do not belong to the government. If we are not going to save them, we should return them.”

His bill, which has drawn widespread interest but few sponsors, would roll back the tax increase that took effect Jan. 1 and reduce another scheduled for next year. That would save a worker with income over $51,300 about $600 and leave the Social Security system with just enough money to pay retirees’ checks, Moynihan said.

The Bush Administration says such cuts would lead to reductions in benefits or to efforts to raise other taxes.

Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), a member of the Budget Committee, did what is seldom done in Congress these days: He introduced a bill proposing a tax increase. He recommended a 5% national sales tax that would exempt food, health care and housing.

The New York Knicks celebrated their first NBA title in 53 years with a frenzied ticker-tape parade through Manhattan. The Knicks, along with finals MVP Jalen Brunson were awarded keys to the city by Mayor Zohran Mamdani in front of thousands of fans.

WASHINGTON — The White House pushed back Thursday against growing bipartisan criticism of a negotiated settlement to the war with Iran, arguing its concessions to the Islamic Republic were contingent on its conduct and essential to securing peace.

The administration’s defensive posture came as details of the framework agreement, known as a memorandum of understanding, were finally shared with the public, revealing a raft of compromises with Tehran long opposed by Republicans.

Vice President JD Vance, who helped negotiate the deal, told reporters Thursday that the deal was structured to reward Iran for good behavior. But the text of the agreement suggests otherwise.

The Trump administration agreed to release billions of dollars in Iranian assets that were frozen and restricted by the United States “upon the implementation” of the memorandum — before any further actions are taken or additional negotiations begin. The president will issue sanctions waivers on Iranian oil, allowing Tehran to resume trading its most valuable export and breaking with decades of policy. And to facilitate that trade, boosting Tehran’s revenues, Trump agreed to immediately end a U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Still more concessions were offered to the Iranians, including a commitment by the U.S. administration to establish a fund of “at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic” — in effect providing reparations for the war Trump started.

“All required licenses, waivers and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America,” the memorandum reads.

Taken together, the document reads as a stunning reversal of U.S. policy toward Iran after decades of concern across administrations in Washington — including throughout Trump’s two terms — that the Islamic Republic represents the nation’s greatest security threats as the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Criticism from Republican senators, in particular, has been sharp and swift.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the $300-billion fund “would make Iran’s payoff under President Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison.” And Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) accused the Trump administration of giving Iran money it would use to kill Americans.

“History demonstrates that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is an exceptionally bad idea, and I think, unfortunately, the president is receiving some really bad advice on this deal,” Cruz said. “I don’t want to see us send a penny to the ayatollah. And I hope that we don’t.”

The Obama-era deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, included structured sanctions relief for Iran in exchange for concrete and verifiable steps by Tehran to dismantle much of its nuclear program — a framework that Republicans broadly criticized at the time.

By contrast, Trump’s agreement commits the United States to pursuing economic relief for Iran while providing no clarity about the future of Iran’s nuclear program — the very issue Trump cited as the rationale for launching the war.

The memorandum includes a pledge by Iran to never purchase or construct nuclear weapons — a vow the Islamic Republic has made multiple times before, including by signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in a religious edict issued by the late supreme leader and in the Obama-era nuclear accord.

Vice President JD Vance speaks to reporters at the White House on June 18, 2026.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

Detailed negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program — including whether Tehran could continue domestic uranium enrichment, at what level, and under what monitoring regime — were left for another day.

For more than a decade, the U.S. intelligence community has assessed that Iran sought a threshold nuclear capability, securing the strategic advantages of a nuclear power without incurring the costs of openly pursuing a bomb.

The agreement does include a commitment by Iran to do its “best” to bring commercial shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital international waterway, back to prewar levels. But critics of the president said he had to make deep, historic concessions just to secure a status quo ante upended by the war he started. And in the document, Tehran agreed to refrain from imposing a toll on ships transiting the strait for only a 60-day period.

“Unless you were homeschooled by a day drinker, no one’s confident that Iran is going to do anything,” Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, told reporters this week.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, Kennedy’s Republican counterpart from Louisiana, called the deal “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades” that would have President Reagan “rolling over in his grave.”

“Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal,” Cassidy said.

“Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive,” he added. “Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped.”

Despite mounting criticism, Trump put his signature to the memorandum on Wednesday night while attending a dinner with the French president in Versailles, a palace infamous for hosting a treaty signing that disgraced Germany at the end of the First World War.

He defended the agreement while in Europe and suggested further concessions might be forthcoming, including recognition of Iran’s claimed right to enrich uranium and a new willingness to tolerate its continued ballistic missile development — another program that Trump had vowed to eliminate as a central war aim.

“He took America to war — killing 13 soldiers, thousands of Iranian civilians and costing taxpayers $60 billion — to get rid of Iran’s missile program. And now that he’s lost the war, he pretends like it’s no big deal,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut.

“Just unforgivable,” he added. “What a charlatan.”

United States President Donald Trump has taken to social media to boast about the state of the economy amid a looming peace deal between the US and Iran, which yesterday signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to end the US-Israel war on Iran.

In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, the president claimed that “OIL IS FLOWING” and added that “THE STOCK MARKETS ARE ROARING, JOBS ARE AT RECORDS, AND PRICES ARE DROPPING (AFFORDABILITY!)”

While some of his claims are accurate, others are misleading. Al Jazeera takes a look:

‘Stock Market Just Hit A RECORD High’

That is true specifically for the Dow Jones Industrial Average. That index hit a record high of 51,999.67 for its close on Tuesday amid the potential of a ceasefire and a rally for the newly listed SpaceX.

The Dow slipped from that high on Wednesday amid the US Federal Reserve’s announcement that it would maintain the benchmark interest rate in the target range of 3.5-3.75 percent, and closed down on Wednesday at 51,494.99. The Dow has since jumped 0.35 percent in midday trading on Thursday at 51,671.

The Nasdaq Composite Index and S&P 500 both slipped.

However, this may not directly impact the 38 percent of Americans who do not invest in the stock market.

“The idea that the stock market is doing well does not reflect people’s experiences. There’s a saying that the stock market is not the economy, and that’s an important thing to keep in mind,” Michael Klein, professor of international economic affairs at The Fletcher School at Tufts University, told Al Jazeera.

And that lived experience is at the petrol station and at the grocery store.

‘Prices are dropping’

Petrol prices have started to tumble in the last few days. The average price of a gallon of petrol (3.78 litres) on Thursday is at $3.99, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks daily gas prices. That’s down from a high of $4.48 in May, but still well above $2.98, where prices were on February 28 when the US and Israel first struck Iran.

Despite the deal, experts believe that a petrol price decline will plateau for general consumers as the US strategic petroleum reserve, which earlier this week reached its lowest level since 1983, is refilled, all while oil extraction and shipping bottlenecks weigh on supply chains.

“The persistence of the price spikes is the key issue. Transportation, rerouting, insurance premiums, and manufacturing costs don’t normalise overnight, so even when oil stabilises, the cost base across the supply chain will stay elevated,” Tammy Kulesa, director of product marketing for supply chain execution at Blue Yonder, a supply chain management firm, said in remarks provided to Al Jazeera.

Mark Jones, professor of political science at Rice University in Houston, Texas, says prices will not return to prewar levels until the last quarter or close of 2027.

“Even once everybody believes the truce is going to hold [and] there’s no danger going through the Strait of Hormuz, those tankers take months to reach their final destination and come back,” Jones told Al Jazeera. “So the ability to replenish the stocks is going to take until, I think, the early fall [third quarter].”

Consumer inflation, which has jumped at the fastest pace in three years and is at 4.2 percent, has driven prices up on several key goods and has weighed on consumers. While energy prices have risen by nearly eight percent in the last two months alone, prices at the supermarket have jumped by 0.1 percent in May from the month prior after a 0.7 percent increase in April, with the highest increases in goods like bakery products, cereals, nonalcoholic beverages, as well as fruit and vegetables.

“There are real problems facing a lot of people. Prices are high, and wages have not kept up with prices. So people’s real purchasing power has fallen,” Klein said.

Supermarket chains have taken notice. Kroger, the largest supermarket chain in the US, said on Thursday that it will cut prices on thousands of products within its roughly 3,000 stores nationwide. This comes amid increased pressure from Costco and Walmart for value shoppers.

“Customers are being more deliberate with their spending and at times, shopping us selectively. We’re getting too many promotional trips and not enough of the full basket,” Kroger CEO Greg Foran said in a statement.

‘Jobs are at records’

Jobs are not at record levels, despite Trump’s assertions.

The US economy added 172,000 jobs in May. The highest during the second Trump term was 214,000, in March. By comparison, on average, 300,000 jobs were added monthly under his predecessor, former US President Joe Biden, a Democrat, with some months much higher – including July 2021, when the economy added 943,000 jobs, albeit that was on the back of the COVID-19 pandemic as businesses rushed to hire after massive layoffs.

Under Trump, there have been several months of limited job growth that have been hyper-focused on specific sectors like healthcare. On average, employers added only 15,000 jobs a month in 2025. Meanwhile, the US economy lost 92,000 jobs this year in February.

Layoffs are also on the upswing. Job cuts jumped 16 percent between April and May, marking the most layoffs since May 2020 during the height of the pandemic, according to Challenger, Gray and Christmas, with artificial intelligence (AI) as a driving force behind the cuts. Slightly more than 97,000 people lost their jobs in May.

‘Oil is flowing’

Overnight, 12.5 million barrels of crude oil travelled through the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil is normally shipped, according to US Vice President JD Vance. However, data from Kpler shows that travel through the strait is still low, with six verified crossings on June 17.

With the strait starting to open, oil prices tumbled to their lowest levels since the early days of the war as the temporary deal to end fighting and pull back sanctions elevated pressure on global supply.

Brent crude futures LCOc1 dropped $0.78 or one percent to $76.51 in midday trading.

Shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG) have also ramped up, and a QatarEnergy LNG vessel has returned to Ras Laffan, where it has loaded more than 209,000 cubic metres, according to Kplr.

PHOENIX — Arizona Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes is dismissing a sprawling criminal case that alleged President Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and others tried to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss in the state.

The decision, announced Thursday, marks the third such fake elector case filed by states to be dismissed, though the Democratic attorney general is vowing to bring it back to a grand jury in hopes of securing another indictment.

The legal maneuver is aimed at getting around a Friday deadline for starting new grand jury proceedings after Mayes lost an appeal earlier this month. The appeal was filed after defense attorneys argued successfully that the original grand jury hadn’t been shown the relevant parts of a law that governs how presidential contests are certified.

Courts have dismissed similar cases in Michigan and Georgia, and a special prosecutor dropped a federal case in late 2024 that charged Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Those cases ended after Trump defeated Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024. Cases related to the fake elector scheme remain in Nevada and Wisconsin.

The Nevada charges were dismissed in 2024 after a judge concluded Clark County, the state’s most populous county and home to Las Vegas, was the wrong venue for the case. Later that year, though, the case was refiled in Carson City, Nevada’s capital.

The Arizona case had been stalled for well over a year while Mayes pursued the appeal.

In Arizona, defense lawyers argued the law allowed for multiple slates of electors to be submitted to Congress in case the results were disputed. Federal law was amended in 2022 to specify that any given state could put forward only one slate of electors and that state governors are responsible for signing off.

Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes.

The state attorney general has faced steep challenges in making her case.

It was filed nearly three and a half years after the 2020 election and levels complicated conspiracy charges against the 18 defendants. A dozen dismissal requests filed by defense attorneys have slowed progress in court.

The first judge on the case recused himself in late 2024 after an email surfaced in which he told fellow judges to speak out against attacks on Harris’ campaign for the presidency. The next judge ordered the case to be sent back to a grand jury.

Of the 18 Arizona defendants, two were former Trump aides, five were lawyers working for Trump and 11 were Republicans who submitted a document falsely claiming Trump won Arizona.

Three defendants have resolved their cases, including one who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge.

The rest pleaded not guilty. Some said they signed the certificate in case Trump won court challenges and a new slate of electors was needed urgently before Congress’ Jan. 6 deadline to tally votes.

The case has factored into Arizona’s attorney general race, where both Republican challengers to Mayes have publicly said they will dismiss the charges if they were elected to the post.

Billeaud writes for The Associated Press.

June 18 (UPI) — The U.S. military on Thursday lifted naval blockades in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, with reports showing that shipping vessels have departed the region through the Strait of Hormuz.

U.S. Central Command said in a series of posts on X that, following direction from President Donald Trump, blockades on maritime traffic along the coasts of Iran have ended.

Centcom noted, however, that the U.S. Navy will stay in the “general area” to be sure that “all aspects” of the peace agreement signed by the United States and Iran “are adhered to, obeyed and in full force and effect.”

Trump signed the agreement Wednesday at the Palace of Versailles in France after the G7 Summit wrapped up, which included among its 14 points reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which is a vital shipping route for the region and much of the world.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had signed the deal earlier in the day.

“American forces are not impeding the transit of vessels to or from Iranian ports,” Centcom said in one of the posts on X on Thursday.

“All U.S. military blockade efforts have ceased,” it said.

At least 12 energy tankers transited the Strait on Thursday, reopening a sailing route through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply is shipped around the globe, CNBC and the New York Post reported.

Among the vessels that transited the Strait were three Saudi Arabian supertankers, which together are carrying six million barrels of crude oil and are the kingdom’s first tankers to sail the shipping route since before the three-month-long U.S.-Iran war launched in February.

Vice President JD Vance also told reporters that more than 12 million barrels of oil had shipped through the Strait overnight Wednesday after the deal had been signed.

June 18 (UPI) — Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., introduced a bill Thursday called the Protect Our Polls Act that would block the president from sending soldiers or federal agents to voting sites during elections.

The bill comes after President Donald Trump said he wouldn’t rule out sending the National Guard or Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to polling places in November.

“I’d do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections,” The Hill reported Trump told reporters in May.

Slotkin said the bill would prevent Trump from “weaponizing our military and armed federal officers to interfere in our elections.”

The legislation, if passed, would require approval from Congress before a president could send uniformed military or federal law enforcement to polling sites. It would also require 48 hours’ notice to lawmakers, intel, legal justification and evidence that proves a state can’t handle a threat on its own.

The bill is backed by senators Tammy Baldwin, Wis.; Ruben Gallego, Ariz.; Mark Kelly, Ariz.; Amy Klobuchar, Minn.; Alex Padilla, Calif.; Jacky Rosen, Nev.; and Raphael Warnock, Ga.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told NBC, “If Democrats really cared about securing our elections, they would pass the SAVE America Act which includes commonsense election integrity measures supported by the vast majority of Americans.”

Federal and state laws already ban deployment of troops and agents from elections, except “to repel armed enemies of the United States.”

“The idea that a president would send troops or armed agents to polling places to intimidate voters is un-American and illegal,” Kelly said in a statement. “Federal law has protected polling places from military interference since the Civil War for a reason. President Trump has made clear he thinks he can ignore those limits. We’re making sure he can’t.”

Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin said in March that he wouldn’t send agents to polling places without good reason.

“The only reason why my officers would be there is if there was a specific threat for them to be there, not for intimidation,” Mullin said. “There will be a reason for us to be there, and it’ll be known why we’re there.”

China’s foreign minister says that emerging economies remain underrepresented in global governance institutions.

Presenting China’s new white paper on making global governance more equitable, minister Wang Yi argued that the role of the United Nations should be strengthened and developing countries should have a stronger voice in the world body.

In Beijing’s stated view, all countries should have an equal voice in global affairs, which means the Global South should have more representation.

China’s call comes as the world is engulfed in many armed conflicts and facing serious economic challenges.

But is Beijing now presenting itself as a leader of the Global South? And will it be able to garner enough support to play that role?

Presenter: Sami Zeidan

Guests:

Steve Tsang – Director of the SOAS China Institute

Cobus van Staden – Head of research at the China-Global South Project

Allen Carlson – Associate professor in the Government Department at Cornell University

A bitter battle that exposed deep divisions over the direction of America’s conservation movement reached culmination with the announcement Wednesday that Sierra Club members had overwhelmingly rejected a campaign by immigration control advocates to control the venerable environmental group.

In what was termed the largest voter turnout in the Sierra Club’s 112-year history, more than 22% of the group’s 757,000 members cast ballots to select its governing board. The votes, which were submitted by members in March and April, were tallied Wednesday. The members elected a slate backed by the club’s leaders and which received more than 110,000 votes apiece.

By contrast, a slate of candidates seeking to bring a strong immigration control agenda to the club garnered only minimal support — former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm, the best known, received 13,090 votes.

“I never argue with the voters. My congratulations to the winners,” Lamm said in an e-mail shortly after the results were announced. He declined to be interviewed.

Five seats were up for grabs on the club’s 15-member governing board. The election took place via mail and the Internet starting in March.

The election was the second time in less than a decade that the Sierra Club, arguably the nation’s most influential environmental group, has publicly wrestled with the issue of restricting immigration. Members voted to remain neutral on the issue in 1998, following a campaign that featured accusations that conservationists were resorting to immigrant bashing, and counterclaims that political correctness was leading to environmental cowardice. The same accusations were raised this year.

Despite the 1998 vote, an increasingly vocal group of environmentalists continued to argue that the Sierra Club needed to aggressively support strict immigration controls, citing the destructive effect of unchecked U.S. population growth on the nation’s natural resources.

Three prominent immigration control advocates — UCLA astronomy professor Ben Zuckerman, Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug LaFollette, and Paul Watson, leader of the group Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, already had won seats to the board in recent years, putting majority control within the grasp of the dissidents in this year’s election.

Sierra Club leaders said after the landslide vote that they hoped the rancorous dispute had finally been resolved.

“I thought the issue should have been laid to rest after 1998, and I certainly don’t see anything in these results to suggest [members] have had a change of heart,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope.

“We are delighted that the turnout was so strong. This may have been the largest election turnout ever for a nonprofit organization other than the NRA,” the National Rifle Assn.

However, it quickly became clear on Wednesday that the losing side considered the issue far from resolved. Rather than seeing the results as evidence that Sierra Club members did not support an immigration platform, critics called it proof that dirty tactics by the status quo to promote their favorites had unfairly tipped the scales.

Some dissidents said they were holding out hope that a lawsuit filed recently in San Francisco Superior Court would result in a new election. The suit alleges that Sierra Club leaders violated state laws governing nonprofits by using club funds to promote candidates they had endorsed.

Club officials called the claims groundless. A similar suit by Lamm was withdrawn when Pope and other club officials threatened a countersuit.

“The Sierra Club just elected the best new directors money can buy — but with a lawsuit pending over unfair election practices, justice and truth may yet prevail,” said a losing candidate, Karyn Strickler.

Strickler, who said she did not advocate curbing immigration and was running as an independent reformer, said all candidates who collected petitions to be on the ballot were damaged by an “urgent election notice” to Sierra Club members that accompanied the ballot and warned of “outside groups” seeking to influence the club’s agenda. Under Sierra Club bylaws, some candidates are automatically placed on the ballot by current leaders; others can collect signatures to run.

The ballot notice referred to racist and anti-immigrant websites that had posted stories urging their visitors to vote for immigration-control candidates in the Sierra Club elections, and made similar links to animal rights groups and hemp proponents. As a result of the notice, critics argued that voters were pressured to stick with the candidates endorsed by the current leadership.

During the dawn of the modern environmental movement four decades ago, conservationists widely embraced the goal of global population control. Books such as “The Population Bomb” by Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich painted a dire portrait of a planet straining under man’s increasingly wide footprint.

Yet although many environmentalists still call for worldwide curbs on population, they are increasingly divided over the less-abstract issue of restricting the flood of newcomers to America. According to the U.S. census, the U.S. population, now more than 292 million, could surge by 50% over the next 50 years, largely because of immigrants and their children.

Former Wisconsin Democratic U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, one of the founders of Earth Day, sided with immigration control advocates, supporting Cornell University professor David Pimentel.

The two had been active in the Carrying Capacity Network, a population control organization that advocates strict curbs on immigration.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the founder of Waterkeeper Alliance, lent his name to the election campaign to defeat Pimentel and the other insurgents. Actor Robert Redford and MoveOn.Org, the liberal activist network known for helping propel former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean to prominence, also opposed the anti-immigration candidates.

“I think the agenda of those looking to bring immigration to our organization was soundly defeated,” said Sierra Club President Larry Fahn. “We should now focus on reuniting the membership and getting back to our core mission: to protect the planet. And this year, we should focus on the mission most of us consider most important this year: defeating President Bush and his horrendous environmental policies.”

Yet Fahn conceded that anti-immigration candidates were unlikely to give up their fight.

“The debate will continue,” he said. “Many of them feel so passionate that they will continue agitating and never be pacified.”

June 18 (UPI) — Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar announced Thursday that he is cutting all contact with Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, after she compared Israel to South Africa under apartheid.

The two had a public argument on X. Sa’ar said Kallas “has for some time now been acting obsessively and with blatant unfairness toward the State of Israel,” and pointed to a report that she made the apartheid comment in May.

Sa’ar accused Kallas of directing a “blood libel” at Israel and said he would “sever all contact with Ms. Kallas” until she took back what she said.

Kallas has not confirmed or denied the comments but tried to defuse the spat on Thursday.

“Dialogue is the foundation of diplomacy, especially when differences arise. The EU is always committed to a constructive relationship with Israel,” Kallas said on X.

“To bring peace to the Middle East, the Two-State Solution remains the only viable path. The EU has condemned the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank that make it increasingly difficult to get to that goal. That is the EU position,” she said.

But Sa’ar wasn’t buying it.

“With all due respect, even in your remarks here you refrain from denying or condemning what has been attributed to you and published publicly,” Sa’ar said. “If you did indeed make these vile and defamatory statements, stand behind them. If you did not make them, deny it. Until this matter is cleared up, my decision will remain unchanged.”

EU leaders are in Brussels for a European Council summit, and divisions over Israel are likely to be discussed. Some countries want to sanction Israel, while others vow to block stronger actions against it, Politico reported.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has signed a US-Iran memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the war between the two countries. US President Donald Trump and Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian signed on Wednesday.

Former President Obama, joined by three former presidents, celebrated the opening of his presidential museum in Chicago in an extraordinary event Thursday that brought together world leaders, A-list celebrities, athletes and other internationally known figures.

Bruce Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Christina Aguilera and Bono were all slated to perform at the dedication ceremony.

Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama and their daughters shared the stage with former Presidents Biden, George W. Bush and Clinton, along with former First Ladies Jill Biden, Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Former Vice President Kamala Harris was also in attendance.

Obama and Michelle Obama are both expected to give remarks. The invite-only celebration was livestreamed and kicks off a weekend of events centered around the Obama Presidential Center, which opens to the general public on Friday, which is Juneteenth.

President Trump was not in attendance. He called the $850-million center a “total disaster” in a social media post in February.

Those at the event included California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate; civil rights leaders Andrew Young and Al Sharpton; Oprah Winfrey; comedians David Letterman, Conan O’Brien and Stephen Colbert; actor Tom Hanks; tennis legend Billie Jean King and Chicago Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts.

Former world leaders in attendance included former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Jennifer Hudson sang the national anthem. Other musicians slated to perform include Common, Eddie Vedder, Marc Anthony and the Roots, which was serving as the house band.

The Thursday celebration “will reflect a spirit of inspiration and joy, with a big boost from the performers who are sharing their talent with us,” said Valerie Jarrett, the Obama Foundation’s chief executive and former Obama top advisor. “We hope to inspire people everywhere to believe in their power to bring change home.”

General admission tickets for the center are sold out through the end of October. But tens of thousands of people have already been offered a sneak peek of the nearly 20-acre campus on Chicago’s South Side in Jackson Park.

The center, located near where Obama lived and began his political career, is expected to attract more than 1 million visitors annually. It is adjacent to the Griffin Museum of Science and Industry in the lakefront park, and not far from the University of Chicago.

The campus includes a towering museum that covers the political and personal realms of the nation’s first Black president and first lady, while public spaces include a branch of the Chicago Public Library, a playground and athletic center, basketball courts and a picnic area with grills.

The tower’s design is meant to depict four hands coming together in solidarity. Wrapped around one side are 5-foot tall concrete capital letters, an excerpt of Obama’s 2015 speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Selma-to-Montgomery march. It begins, “You are America.”

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

June 18 (UPI) — Brazilian Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, a presidential hopeful and son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, unveiled a public security plan that includes chemical castration for convicted rapists and the construction of maximum-security prisons modeled after those implemented by Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.

Bolsonaro presented the proposals during an event on Faria Lima Avenue in São Paulo, where he launched “Brasil Sem Medo” (“Brazil Without Fear”), a package of 12 measures he described as “urgent” to combat organized crime if elected president.

“I support chemical castration for those convicted of sexual crimes,” the senator said during the event, according to Brazilian media reports.

Brazilian press reports confirmed that the lawmaker also proposed building five new maximum-security prisons based on the penitentiary model adopted by El Salvador, better known as the “Bukele model,” which has become a reference for conservative sectors across Latin America because of its crackdown on gangs.

“We will build five new maximum-security prisons based on the El Salvador model,” Bolsonaro said, noting that allied politicians have visited that country to gain firsthand knowledge of the security policies promoted by its president.

Other measures presented include lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 16 and to 14 for crimes considered heinous, increasing penalties and classifying criminal organizations as narco-terrorist groups, SBT News reported.

During the event, the senator was accompanied by former judge and Sen. Sergio Moro and Rep. Guilherme Derrite, the former public security secretary of the state of São Paulo.

Bolsonaro also called for support from the financial sector to combat money-laundering networks linked to organized crime.

“I want to ask the entire financial market for unity so that we can suffocate these narco-terrorist organizations,” he said.

Bolsonaro said that, if elected president, he would seek to designate the First Capital Command, known as PCC, Comando Vermelho and militias as narco-terrorist organizations, according to UOL Brasil.

“We will declare PCC, Comando Vermelho and the militias to be narco-terrorist organizations,” he said. “Any criminal armed with a rifle will be taken down by the security forces.”

The proposal comes weeks after the United States designated PCC and Comando Vermelho as international terrorist organizations.

The decision was formalized in early June by the administration of President Donald Trump and was welcomed by Flávio Bolsonaro, who held meetings in Washington before the announcement.

The government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has opposed adopting a similar classification in Brazil.

The issue comes amid growing tensions between Lula’s government and Bolsonaro allies in the United States.

During a news conference following the Group of Seven summit in France, Lula asked President Donald Trump not to intervene in Brazil’s elections and said the electoral process is exclusively a Brazilian matter.

“I think he knows very little about Brazil. If he knows it through his relationship with the Bolsonaro family, he knows very little about Brazil,” Lula said when asked about recent comments by Trump related to Brazil and the conviction of Eduardo Bolsonaro.

Brazil will hold general elections in October 2026. Lula da Silva remains one of the leading contenders and is tied in opinion polls with Flávio Bolsonaro.

WASHINGTON  — A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Thursday for gun rights and against drug laws.

In a 9-0 ruling, the justices struck down part of the longstanding federal gun control law that makes it a crime for an “unlawful user” of illegal drugs to possess a gun.

The Trump administration had urged the court to uphold the conviction of a Texas man who was investigated for alleged terrorist ties and admitted to being a regular user of marijuana.

Rejecting that claim, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, speaking for the court, said the law was far too broad and overly harsh.

“The law automatically bans an individual from possessing a gun from the moment he becomes an unlawful user of any controlled substance until he ceases being one,” he wrote. “It doesn’t matter what controlled substance an individual uses, in what amounts he does so, or whether his drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others.”

And it can lead to a 15-year prison term, he added.

He noted, however, the court was not ruling on “addicts” or people who were under the influence of drugs when they were arrested.

The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the ruling.

“Today’s unanimous 9-0 decision makes it clear that the government cannot make it crime for people to own a gun, which the Supreme Court has held is a fundamental constitutional right, simply because they use marijuana,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union. “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties.”

Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by felons, fugitives and other persons deemed to be dangerous. Included was anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a Texas case this restriction on guns violated the 2nd Amendment. It said “there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”

Appealing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration urged the justices to uphold the law.

“Habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society—especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired,” said Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

He asked the court to rule in the case of a Pakistani native who was investigated by the FBI for his suspected ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

In 2020, Ali Danial Hemani and his parents “traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before,” the administration told the court last year.

The FBI obtained a warrant to search Hemani’s family home.

Agents found a Glock 9mm pistol, 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine.

Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.

A federal grand jury in Texas charged him with possessing a firearm as an unlawful habitual user of marijuana.

June 18 (UPI) — The Obama Presidential Center will open Thursday in Chicago with a long list of celebrities attending.

The grand opening will be livestreamed starting at 11 a.m. CDT Thursday on Obama.org and on the Obama Foundation’s social media accounts. The opening is invitation-only, and there are no more tickets for the Midway Plaisance Park watch party in Chicago.

The center will be open to the public beginning Friday, and it’s expected to see up to 1 million visitors per year. Tickets, which are $30, are sold out through October.

The center is a 19-acre space on the south side of Chicago that features a tall building that includes a museum of the Obamas’ lives. It shows what life was like in the Obama White House.

The campus also has a branch of the Chicago Public Library, an NBA regulation-size basketball court and Women’s Garden dedicated to women leaders in Chicago. It also has an auditorium, a media suite that visitors can use, a Wetland Walk, a fruit and vegetable garden and a playground.

But it’s not a presidential library and doesn’t house the Obama presidential documents. Those are in the mostly digital Barack Obama Presidential Library run by the National Archives, though the center does have some artifacts on display that are on loan.

Some of the celebrities planning to perform are Bruce Springsteen, Christina Aguilera, John Legend, Stevie Wonder, Jennifer Hudson, Marc Anthony, The Roots, Common, Eddie Vedder, Bono and The Edge, Tems and Marsai Martin.

Every living president will be there except President Donald Trump.

CEO of the Obama Foundation Valerie Jarrett has said Trump is welcome to visit the museum, and they’d love to give him a tour. She said he simply was not invited to the dedication.

“I can tell you that this is a celebration for those who helped get President Obama where he is. And this is a gift to them,” Jarrett said. “And so the people who will be here are the people who’ve been helpful along the way.”

The photo is from Workers’ Day in Venezuela, when Delcy Rodríguez, wearing a blue Ronald Acuña baseball jersey, announced a long-awaited minimum income increase after several days touring the country, campaigning for a land of peace and prosperity, free of sanctions.

Us Venezuelans know that chavismo loves a propaganda makeover. They can be good at it too, in all honesty. The aftermath of the capture of one of the world’s most loathed autocrats, and the takeover by his supposedly pragmatic, corporate-like vice president was never going to be an exception when it comes to PR reinvention.

Media outlets have noticed the changes in the Caracas landscape: the image of Nicolás Maduro (and to some extent, that of former First Combatant Cilia Flores) is starting to disappear from view. Large billboards featuring the couple, including the phrase “we want them back” (los queremos de vuelta), are getting withdrawn.

This occurs as there’s serious discomfort inside chavismo about how close the Delcy-Trump relationship has become: from the drastic U-turn in the Alex Saab case to increased “supervision” from the US embassy in Caracas and the joint military operation targeting the Tren de Aragua leader, it looks like Washington’s tutelage keeps expanding and deepening at great speed.

Delcy herself is not the main focus. The idea is to convince Venezuelans that things are improving, to encourage them to imagine how the country could thrive if sanctions are lifted.

The official strategy now seems to put Maduro on the back burner, letting him fade away from short-term memory. Getting rid of his image entirely won’t be easy, of course. After all, his face and personal brand—his Super Mustache, and the tricolor M letter from his 2018 presidential campaign which became an official emblem of sorts—can still be seen on public signs, painted in walls and even in official vehicles.

This mirrors what happened earlier with the visual trademarks of the late Hugo Chávez, like his famous eyes and rabo e’ cochino signature. Maduro had reduced their public use and replaced them with his own iconography, for better or for worse. 

Blue-hued efficiency

This sudden shift in dropping Maduro’s image brings an important question to mind: what will replace it? 

One option would be to have Delcy’s face in huge billboards across avenues and highways. But that has not been the case so far. 

Two elements are noticeable. First, Delcy herself is not the main focus. Instead, the idea is to convince the Venezuelan people that things are improving, and to encourage them to imagine how the country could thrive if (more) US sanctions are lifted.

She has embraced a more traditional “head of state” role, prioritizing highly-publicized formal meetings where she signs letters of understanding (often disguised as actual contracts) with foreign investors as signs that the country is back on track and open for business. That completely aligns with how the Trump administration and POTUS himself sell their role here.

Political advertising from the Delcy Rodríguez government tries to project a nation of diverse, forward-looking citizens, which is a huge departure from the Chávez-era exaltation of the all-red masses. Note the Star of David on the left-hand side of the image above, a nod to both the US and a Jewish community famously insulted by Chávez. 

Even Miraflores Palace got its own new styling for such occasions: the Cabinet Room was stripped of not only anything related to both Chávez and Maduro but also the pictures of the late Argentine President Néstor Kirchner. The room was named in his honor in 2011. In its place there’s now a large, White House-styled logo for Miraflores, which has been in use since 2018.

Then there’ the blatant decision of dropping chavismo’s traditional rojo-rojito red for a dark blue. 

Curiously enough, the Rodrigato has taken advantage of the full visual rebrand of the government launched last year by Maduro, which dropped the term Gobierno Bolivariano and related symbols used since the mid 2000s. 

The national flag and formal country name are front and center. The use of a broader institutional look is another stark contrast with the more personalized presentation from the Maduro years.

Delcy has used social media and trips both inside and outside the country in order to compensate for her brand-new stateswoman persona. But she doesn’t go as far as doing an Aló Presidente-style TV show or starting her own podcast like Maduro did with Con Maduro + (where Delcy was once a guest).

Delcy probably knows she is not exactly the most marketable presidential candidate. This rebrand is also an attempt to push her image in that direction while her aides and consultants still have time to sketch something viable.

So far, Delcy´s deeper involvement in mass events this year happened in late April, during the so-called “Great National Pilgrimage for a Venezuela Free of Sanctions,” better known for its shorter slogan Venezuela vuela libre (Venezuela flies free). At its core, it looks like an early balloon trial for what her campaign could look like in a snap election. On the surface, it seemed like an appropriation of the religious frenzy around the canonization of two Venezuelan saints—several months after that event, when Maduro was not in Brooklyn—and of the symbols and rituals of the Machado campaign: rosaries, people embracing a politician’s caravan across a village, blue and white clothes.

This particular change didn’t go unnoticed by former state television host Mario Silva, a longtime supporter of the revolución who has become Delcy’s most outspoken critic within chavismo. Silva recently told the Wall Street Journal: “Red used to mean combat… The pale blue is to put the masses to sleep.” The campaign itself became part of a heated debate between Silva and other figures related to the chavismo’s media ecosystem, such as Indira Urbaneja and the Argentine influencer known as Michelo last month.

Its launch was linked with the grand minimum wage announcement on May 1^st after a four-year wait. It wasn’t really the real wage increase that teachers, healthcare workers and public officials were hoping for. Since January 3rd, Jorge Rodríguez regularly takes over for her sister in public events. By the looks of the recent lack of activity in the official YouTube channel, it’s currently not at the same level of the spring period. The amount of related outdoor ads and street banners seemingly will do heavy lifting this summer.

Presidential disguise

Uncertainty hangs over Venezuela’s political future for the second half of 2026, but Delcy Rodríguez is clearly capitalizing on her position, using every resource at her disposal without facing any pushback from Washington. Yet, when it comes to the raw talent of a traditional politician, her shortcomings are no secret. Her speeches tend to be quite brief and dry. She has sounded nervous when caught off guard. She lacks the charismatic oratory of Chávez and the brazen rhetoric of her brother or her predecessor. She probably knows she is not exactly the most marketable presidential candidate. This rebrand is an attempt to push her image in that direction while her aides and consultants still have time to sketch something viable.

Coming back to Maduro, the little sympathy he had outside the most hardcore chavista supporters won’t improve. People are not missing him, never mind care that Delcy is shedding his old propaganda. Ordinary Venezuelans are generally too busy, dealing with their everyday problems, to pay attention to the politics of chavista PR.

In the end, this stealth attempt to erase Maduro’s image isn’t as simple as turning the page and moving on. Delcy needs to build a whole new persona that fits both the mainstream chavismo she wants to rally (and that still represents her voter base), and the one Donald Trump can be happy with.

She may not be able to deliver the rousing speeches of Chávez in his prime, or pull off the theatrical antics that Maduro leaned on for years, but playing the dignified role of “the President” may just work for her. At least for the foreseeable future.