politics

Venezuela’s National Assembly President Jorge Rodriguez has said that the country will not hold presidential elections in the immediate future, emphasising that the government’s current focus is on national stability.

His comments came late on Monday in an interview published with the conservative outlet Newsmax in the United States.

Presidential terms run for six years in Venezuela, and the last election was controversially held in 2024. Newsmax host Rob Schmitt asked if that meant another election would not happen for another five years.

“The only thing I could say is that there will not be an election in this immediate period of time where the stabilisation has to be achieved,” Rodriguez replied.

He explained that the decision is tied to a wider effort to rebuild and strengthen Venezuela’s state institutions.

“What we’re working on at the moment is what we call the re-institutionalisation of the country, so that every single institution of the country can again be brought to full power and full recognition by everybody,” he said.

Rodriguez, who has led the National Assembly since 2021, added that Venezuelans are seeking a return to normalcy following the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro.

“The government of Delcy Rodriguez is actually looking for that, to stabilise the country completely and to make it all good and reconcile everybody, all the population of Venezuela,” he said.

The US abducted Maduro in a military action on January 3. In the weeks since, the Venezuelan Supreme Court has appointed Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, the National Assembly leader’s sister, as acting president.

She was formally sworn in on January 5, with support from both Venezuela’s military and the governing party, as well as the US.

Jorge Rodriguez told Newsmax that the current government would need to “reach an agreement with all sectors of the opposition” to create a “timetable” for new elections.

Amnesty law

Maduro’s abduction had initially inspired hope that a new election would be carried out after the controversy that accompanied the 2024 presidential race.

In that election, Maduro controversially claimed victory for a third straight term, despite the opposition publishing voter tallies that appeared to show its candidate won.

Protests broke out, and Maduro’s government responded with a violent crackdown. An estimated 25 people were killed, according to the US State Department.

In Monday’s interview, Rodriguez rejected the assertion that the 2024 race was not legitimate. Instead, he emphasised his push for national unity, saying, “We have been divided for a very long time.”

He highlighted the legislature’s efforts to pass a mass amnesty law, which would result in the release of all political prisoners and forgive any crimes related to political dissent since 1999.

The bill was approved unanimously in the first of two votes on Thursday and is expected to pass this week.

Still, questions have surrounded the bill. Critics fear that political repression could take other forms after the prisoners’ release.

Schmitt asked whether opposition leader Maria Corina Machado would be able to return to Venezuela and campaign freely in a future election, following the bill’s passage.

“So, allow me not to speak about only one single name, because there are many, many actors abroad that have to be included in this discussion,” Rodriguez responded.

“There is an amnesty law that is being done at the moment that contemplates working with people, but there are sectors of the opposition abroad which have promoted violence.”

He then indicated that the amnesty bill would not apply to the opposition leaders accused of violent crimes.

“Through this amnesty law, we are promoting for all the sections of the opposition who are abroad to comply with the law, so they can come back to the country,” Rodriguez said.

Opposition leaders, however, have long alleged that the government has peddled false accusations of violent crime to arrest and jail them.

Machado herself was accused of conspiring to assassinate Maduro in 2014, leading to her expulsion from the National Assembly.

Rodriguez’s comments also come amid developments in the case of former lawmaker Juan Pablo Guanipa.

The leader was released on Sunday after spending more than eight months in pretrial detention, but he was rearrested less than 12 hours later, after speaking with the media and supporters.

According to his family, he was detained by armed men without identification or a court order. His son, Ramon Guanipa, described the incident as an “abduction”.

Officials later stated that they had requested the revocation of his release order, citing his alleged failure to comply with the conditions imposed upon his release.

In the early hours of Tuesday, Guanipa was transferred to his residence in Maracaibo, where he remains under house arrest.

Machado condemned the actions, stating that Guanipa’s case demonstrates that the releases announced by the government do not guarantee the full exercise of political and civil rights.

“What was Juan Pablo’s crime? Telling the truth. So are these releases, or what are they?” Machado said on Monday.

She proceeded to question whether the released prisoners were truly free from what she described as the repressive machinery of the Venezuelan government.

“Can’t we talk in Venezuela about those who have been in prison? Can’t we recount what they have experienced? Can’t we describe the horror of what is happening in our country today?”

Los Angeles police officers must turn on their body cameras at the scene of federal immigration enforcement operations and preserve the footage, according to an executive directive issued by Mayor Karen Bass on Tuesday.

Since June, federal immigration raids have disrupted neighborhoods and communities across Los Angeles and around the nation, including at work sites, along neighborhood streets and in commercial areas.

Often, police officers have responded to the scene to try to keep order amid tensions between immigration agents and community members.

“The point that we’re trying to make here is that ICE enforcement is not welcome here,” Bass said at a news conference Tuesday morning. “We have resisted against it since this terror started, and we will continue to do that.”

In addition to recording the federal immigration agents’ actions, LAPD officers must document the name and badge number of the agents’ on-scene supervisor, summon emergency personnel if someone at a scene is injured and take reports from the public about federal agents’ alleged misconduct, Bass’ five-page directive states.

The directive also prohibits federal immigration agents from using city property and imposes a fee on owners who allow federal agents to use private property.

The effort builds on a previous Bass directive that aimed to restrict the city from assisting federal immigration agents. The LAPD has a long-standing policy that its officers should not be involved in immigration enforcement.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Bass noted that officers are supposed to turn on their body cameras anyway, including when they’re responding to a call from the public or when another law enforcement agency asks for assistance.

“We’re saying we really want you to do that, even if you are there and there’s not a disturbance that breaks out, if you’re there on the scene,” Bass said.

The LAPD did not immediately provide comment. The Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank-and-file LAPD officers, did not respond to a request for comment.

In Chicago, the mayor issued a similar directive in January, instructing the Police Department to “investigate and document” alleged illegal activity by federal agents, said Tania Unzueta, political director of Mijente, a national group that organizes within Latino and Chicano communities.

“ICE’s power must be challenged at every level, and local governments have a critical role to play in holding the line against federal enforcement,” Unzueta said.

But in Los Angeles, immigrant rights advocates expressed concerns about requiring the LAPD to police another agency.

Maegan Ortiz, executive director of the Institute of Popular Education of Southern California, or IDEPSCA, cited the LAPD’s history of using excessive force against civilians and said that in the recent immigration raids, officers have sometimes inflamed instead of defused tensions.

“Are they really the best people to determine what is excessive use of force, given the literal millions of dollars that we’re seeing paid out in settlement because of use of force by LAPD?” Ortiz said. “Can we trust this police department to police others when they can’t police themselves?”

James “Jim” Willis, a former LAPD detective who later worked for the L.A. Police Commission’s inspector general’s office, said he agreed with the directive’s intent: to bring greater accountability to Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. But he has questions about how it would work in practice.

For one thing, he said, it’s unclear whether LAPD officers are supposed to respond whenever an ICE operation is underway. Doing so would put further strain on a department that is down hundreds of officers from a few years ago, he said.

It’s also unclear what will happen with the recorded footage.

“Who’s going to audit this?” he asked. “Do you now create a new group, a new division and new section?”

Since rolling out the tiny recording devices in 2015, the city has spent millions of dollars, both on the body cameras themselves and data storage for the digital files. LAPD officials have conceded that the vast majority of the footage gathered by officers goes unwatched, since there isn’t enough manpower to review it.

At Tuesday’s news conference, Jocelyn Duarte, executive director of the Salvadoran American Leadership and Educational Fund, praised Bass’ directive and called on the Los Angeles Board of Commissioners, which provides civilian oversight of the LAPD, to ensure that officers “protect Angelenos from lawless federal conduct.”

“Local law enforcement must not be complicit through silence or inaction when federal agents overstep legal and ethical boundaries,” Duarte said. “Now it is imperative that our commission and LAPD fully implement this directive and make it clear that our city will not allow for fear-based enforcement to define life in our neighborhoods.”

Ortiz said she is excited that the directive imposes fees on private property owners who allow federal immigration agents to use their property. The Institute of Popular Education of Southern California has been a leader in calling for a boycott against Home Depot, which has not taken a public stance against repeated raids at the day labor centers that the organization runs at the stores.

“I do think that something does need to be done with these huge billion-dollar corporations who are allowing this and are choosing to stay silent while their customers are being dragged away and disappeared,” Ortiz said.

Feb. 10 (UPI) — The Food and Drug Administration announced Tuesday it’s undertaking a review of the chemical preservative butylated hydroxyanisole to determine if the potentially carcinogenic substance is safe for continued use.

Health officials have aired concerns about BHA since its use was approved, and the National Institute of Health’s National Toxicology Program describes it as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” based on studies using animals, according to the FDA.

The preservative, commonly referred to as BHA, is used to preserve food and as a food contact substance to prevent contamination for food packaging materials.

“BHA has remained in the food supply for decades despite being identified by the National Toxicology Program as ‘reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen’ based on animal studies,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. said Tuesday.

“This reassessment marks the end of the ‘trust us’ era in food safety,” Kennedy continued.

“If BHA cannot meet today’s gold-standard science for its current uses, we will remove it from the food supply and continue cleaning up food chemicals — starting where children face the greatest exposure,” he added.

The FDA has prioritized the study of BHA while the federal agency assesses various chemicals that are contained within the nation’s food supply.

It previously recognized BHA as safe in 1958 and approved its use as a food additive in 1961 to help preserve the oils and fats that commonly are found in many food products.

Such foods include frozen meals, breakfast cereals, meat products and many types of snacks.

The use of BHA has declined in recent years, but its use continues, including in food products that are marketed to children.

“The FDA is committed to ensuring the safety of chemicals in our food supply through rigorous, science-based evaluation,” said Kyle Diamantas, deputy commissioner for the FDA’s Human Foods Program.

“This comprehensive post-market assessment of BHA reflects our proactive approach to food safety and our dedication to protecting public health by continuously reviewing the latest scientific evidence,” he said.

The review is part of Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again effort, which seeks to remove potentially harmful chemicals and other substances from the nation’s food supply.

WASHINGTON — Public health experts warned Tuesday that $600 million in cuts to federal public health funding announced by the Trump administration would endanger one of California’s main early-warning systems for HIV outbreaks, leaving communities vulnerable to undetected disease spread.

The grant terminations affect funding for a number of disease control programs in California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota, but the vast majority target California, according to congressional Democrats who received the full list of affected programs Monday. The move is the latest in the White House’s campaign against what it called “radical gender ideology” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“These cuts will hurt vital efforts to prevent the spread of disease,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “It’s dangerous, and it’s deliberate.”

Under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the CDC has increasingly turned away from evidence-backed HIV monitoring and prevention programs, claiming they “undermined core American values.”

The stoppage will derail $1.1 million slated for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health’s National HIV Behavioral Surveillance Project, according to the president’s budget office.

The program is a “critical” tool used to detect emerging HIV trends, prevent outbreaks before they spread and reduce HIV incidence, said Dr. Paul Simon, an epidemiologist at the UCLA Fielding School and former chief science officer for the county’s public health department.

“Without this program, we’re flying blind. The first step in addressing any public health threat is understanding what’s happening on the ground,” Simon said. “With HIV in particular, people often have no symptoms for years and can unknowingly spread the virus.”

The White House gave little explanation for the move but claimed the programs it targeted “promote DEI and radical gender ideology.”

Simon pushed back on the claim, calling the move “dangerous” and “shortsighted.”

“It’s particularly dangerous to put your head in the sand and pretend there’s not a problem,” Simon said. “The success we’ve had over the past decades comes from finding cases early. … By treating people early, we can prevent transmission.”

Several local front-line service providers were targeted for cuts including the Los Angeles LGBT Center, which is set to lose $383,000 in investments for community HIV prevention programs.

The LGBT Center has not received official notice of the elimination but said the cuts would disproportionately affect LGBTQ+ communities and other underserved populations.

“These decisions are not guided by public health evidence, but by politics — and the consequences are real,” said LGBT Center spokesperson Brian De Los Santos. “Any reduction in funding directly affects our ability to provide care, prevention and lifesaving services to the people who rely on us.”

The Trump administration’s announced cuts are likely to face challenges from states and grant recipients.

The LGBT Center succeeded last year in blocking similar grant cancellations stemming from the president’s executive orders. A federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction ruling the administration could not use executive orders to “weaponize Congressionally appropriated funds” to bypass statutory funding obligations.

“We stand ready to bring more litigation against this administration if it is required in order to protect our community,” De Los Santos said.

The White House has repeatedly pushed to halt the flow of billions of dollars to California and other states led by Democrats, a strategy that has sharpened partisan tensions and expanded the scope of California’s legal fight against the administration.

In January, administration officials said they would freeze $10 billion in federal child care, welfare and social services funding for California and four other states, but a federal judge blocked the effort.

Trump later said he would begin blocking federal funds to “sanctuary” jurisdictions such as California and Los Angeles, which have long opposed cooperation with federal immigration agencies.

Last year, the administration made broad cuts to federal funding for minority-serving institutions, leaving California colleges scrambling to figure out how to replace or do without the money. Federal officials argued that such programs were racially discriminatory.

In June, California congressional Democrats demanded the release of $19.8 million in frozen HIV prevention grants to the L.A. County Department of Public Health. That freeze forced the county to terminate contracts with 39 community health providers and nearly shut down HIV testing and other services at the Los Angeles LGBT Center.

The administration reversed course after sustained pressure from Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Burbank) and 22 fellow House Democrats.

“These grants save lives,” Friedman said of recent terminations. “They connect homeless people to care, they support front-line organizations fighting HIV, and they build the public health infrastructure that protects my constituents. Just like I did last time the Trump Administration came after our communities, I won’t stop fighting back.”

In a letter to Kennedy last year, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) said that the Cabinet secretary has a history of peddling misinformation about the virus and disease.

Kennedy’s motivations are “grounded not in sound science, but in misinformation and disinformation you have spread previously about HIV and AIDS, including your repeated claim that HIV does not cause AIDS,” Garcia wrote.

Gov. Gavin Newsom called President Trump’s latest threats to public health funding “a familiar pattern,” and shed doubt on their long-term legal viability.

“The President publicly claims he will rip away public health funding from states that voted against him, while offering no details or formal notice,” Newsom said. “If or when the Trump administration takes action, we will respond appropriately. Until then, we will pass on participating in his attempt to chase headlines.”

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 (UPI) — Some seven months after a Supreme Court Case gave parents sweeping rights to remove their children from lessons that violate religious beliefs, Republicans expresses concern Tuesday about school districts ignoring the ruling, while Democrats voiced fears that the ruling condoned discrimination.

​”In a world where new and controversial types of content are finding their way into classrooms, it is essential that parents maintain control over their child’s education,” Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., said in a congressional hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, which he chairs.

​In Mahmoud vs. Taylor, the high court ruled in June that Maryland parents had a First Amendment right to opt out their children from public school lessons involving LGBTQ+ themed storybooks that conflict with their religion. Tuesday’s hearing provided a venue for House members to reflect on how the ruling has changed classrooms.

Democrats, for example, voiced worries about the dangerous precedent it sets for censorship and exclusion.

​”Inclusion is not indoctrination,” said the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore. “Differences exist in the world around us. and part of a good education includes teaching students about tolerance and understanding.”

Bonamici said Republicans are using parental rights as another means to undermine public education.

One witness, Yeshiva University Assistant Professor of Law Zalman Rothschild, said he fears the decision could have broad implications and could be disruptive for education.

​”I have no idea how in any sense this can be bounded,” Rothschild said.

“For example, say a teacher tries to teach the value of nondiscrimination against religion and specifies its wrong to discriminate against Jews or against Muslims, and some parents have a problem with that because of their sincerely held religious beliefs, because Chapter 16 of Mark says that those who are not baptized are condemned,” he said.

Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., urged her Republican colleagues not take the ruling as permission to turn public schools into the “latest front in a culture war.”​

Grijalva said Republicans were hypocritical to encourage federal involvement in education when they call themselves “the party that wants things to go back to the local level.”​

“I want us to continue to support our duly locally elected school districts to make decisions about school curriculum,” Grijalva said.

Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., held up a children’s picture book from the Montgomery Area School District curriculum, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” while she questioned witnesses. The story follows a young girl as she learns that her favorite uncle is getting married to his male partner, Jamie.

Lee said providing holistic education to American children became harder after the ruling.

“It’s about exploiting religious exemptions to shield children from the reality of queer people existing,” he said.

​Conservative education groups, however, applauded the power shift in schools after the ruling.

“Two of the story books, not only “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” but “Pride Puppy!” addressed non-binary individuals, drag queens and pride parades. These are individuals who don’t have a clear sense of their identity regarding whether they want to be a firefighter or a fairy when they grow up. What we’re dealing with is a designed attempt to change minds on perspectives,” said Sarah Perry, vice president of Defending Education, a national advocacy group that supports more parental involvement in schools.

​Throughout the hearing, Bonamici tried to steer the conversation to “hearing topics that actually matter,” including ICE allegedly inflicting trauma in schools and the effects of the dismantling of the Department of Education.

She pointed out that the committee had yet to hold a hearing on gun violence in schools and that just Monday, a 16-year-old was shot at a Montgomery County Public School.

​”No one is arguing that parents should not be involved in their children’s education. We all agree on that,” Bonamici said. “Banning books or preventing students from learning about differences only serves to perpetuate a culture of hatred and fear.”

United States President Donald Trump has continued to threaten Iran with possible military attacks if Tehran does not accede to his demands on issues ranging from nuclear enrichment to ballistic missiles.

In comments to the Israeli outlet Channel 12, published on Tuesday, Trump hinted at aggressive actions if no deal comes together with Iran.

“Either we reach a deal, or we’ll have to do something very tough,” Trump told the news outlet.

The remarks come as Iran’s security chief Ali Larijani meets with the sultan of Oman, Haitham bin Tariq Al Said, to discuss the results of talks between US and Iranian officials last week.

In recent weeks, Trump has touted an increase in US military forces in the region, having sent a “massive armada” to nearby waters. That deployment includes the USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier.

Channel 12 and the news outlet Axios reported on Tuesday that Trump is also thinking about sending a second aircraft carrier to the Middle East.

That military build-up has spurred fears of an impending US strike against Iran. Critics fear such an attack could destabilise the region.

Already, on Monday, the US has issued guidelines to US-flagged commercial ships, warning them to stay “as far as possible” from Iranian territorial waters.

‘With speed and violence’

Since January, Trump has heightened US pressure on Iran, warning that his country’s military is “locked and loaded and ready to go”.

Trump has also compared Iran’s situation to that of Venezuela, where a US military operation on January 3 resulted in the abduction and removal of deposed President Nicolas Maduro.

“Like with Venezuela, [the US military] is ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary. Hopefully Iran will quickly ‘Come to the Table’ and negotiate a fair and equitable deal,” Trump wrote on social media on January 28.

Late last month, his administration issued three overarching demands. They include an end to Iran’s uranium enrichment, a requirement to sever ties with regional proxies, and limits on the country’s ballistic missile stockpiles, a goal long sought by Israel.

During his first term, Trump pulled the US out of a 2015 deal that placed strict limits on Iran’s nuclear activities, in exchange for sanctions relief.

Now, Trump has resumed his “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran since taking office for a second term in January 2025.

That campaign has included severe sanctions and pressure to dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme, which Tehran insists is for civilian energy purposes only.

Already, last June, Trump authorised a military strike on three Iranian nuclear facilities, as part of a 12-day war between Iran and Israel.

Focus on anti-government protests

Trump’s renewed threats in January have coincided with a recent wave of anti-government protests in Iran.

The government in Tehran reacted to those demonstrations with a violent crackdown that reportedly killed thousands of people, drawing widespread condemnation from rights groups.

Reports have found that state security forces opened fire on crowds of protesters as the country was under an internet blackout.

On January 2 — one day before his military operation in Venezuela — Trump threatened to intervene on behalf of the protesters and “come to their rescue“, although he ultimately declined to do so.

Some analysts have pointed out that the proposed strikes on Iran would do little to aid the protesters, but would align with longstanding US and Israeli goals of reducing Iran’s military capacity.

The Iranian government has argued that the protests included the violent targeting of security forces by armed groups, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of officers. It has also accused outside powers like the US and Israel of backing the anti-government demonstrations.

Details around the protests and their crackdown remain difficult to verify, but Iranian officials have conceded that the government’s response killed thousands of people.

Feb. 10 (UPI) — Officials for the Environmental Protection Agency said they are working to end a 2009 declaration that says climate change is a danger to public health.

During the weekend, EPA officials submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a proposed rule revoking the 2009 endangerment finding that guided U.S. climate and greenhouse gas regulations.

The EPA did not say when the endangerment finding officially would be revoked, but White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested it would happen this week.

“This week at the White House, President [Donald] Trump will be taking the most significant deregulatory actions in history to further unleash American energy dominance and drive down costs,” Leavitt said in a prepared statement.

Revoking the endangerment finding removes the EPA’s statutory authority to regulate motor vehicle emissions that was provided via Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act of 1970, an EPA spokesperson told The Hill.

The endangerment finding is “one of the most damaging decisions in modern history,” the Leavitt said.

The Clean Air Act forces the EPA to regulate vehicle emissions that produce any pollutant that are reasonably thought to pose a danger to public health or welfare.

A 2007 Supreme Court ruling determined that greenhouse gas emissions that are thought to contribute to global warming meet the standard for air pollutants that require regulation due to their potential for harming public health.

The Obama administration in 2009 issued the endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions, which the prior Supreme Court ruling said requires the EPA to regulate them.

The EPA that year decided that greenhouse gas emissions likely would cause widespread “serious adverse health effects in large-population areas” due to increased ambient ozone over many areas of the United States.

“The impact on mortality and morbidity associated with increases in average temperatures, which increase the likelihood of heat waves, also provides support for a public health endangerment finding,” the EPA said in its endangerment finding.

“The evidence concerning how human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events also clearly supports a finding of endangerment,” the EPA said, while acknowledging that the conclusion was based on “consensus.”

The finding said carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases are fueling storms, drought, heat waves, wildfires and rising seas, which pose a threat to public health.

Because the finding determined emissions from the burning of coal, gas and oil were said to contribute to climate change, the EPA undertook regulations of power plants, vehicles and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, including gas stoves, ovens, water heaters and heating systems.

Revoking the endangerment finding ends those regulations, which could be reversed if a future administration reinstates the finding.

WASHINGTON — The leaders of the agencies enforcing President Trump’s immigration crackdown faced tough questioning on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, with one Democratic lawmaker asking the head of ICE if he would apologize to the families of two U.S. citizens killed by federal agents and called domestic terrorists by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Todd Lyons, acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, declined to apologize to the families of Renee Good and Alex Pretti during the hearing but said he welcomed the opportunity to speak to Good’s family in private.

“I’m not going to speak to any ongoing investigation,” Lyons said.

For the first time since the federal operation in Minneapolis led to the deaths of Good and Pretti, the heads of three immigration agencies testified before the House Homeland Security Committee.

Along with Lyons, the other witnesses were Joseph Edlow, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Rodney Scott, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection. Their agencies fall under the Department of Homeland Security.

Democrats and some Republicans have called for increased oversight of the Trump administration’s immigration operations since the shootings last month of Good and Pretti, both 37, by federal agents.

In the aftermath of the shootings, the administration replaced Gregory Bovino, a Border Patrol official who led the charge in Minneapolis, with border policy advisor Tom Homan, a former ICE official. Officials also withdrew some agents and began requiring those in Minneapolis to wear body cameras.

“We must take the temperature down and look at the record of enforcement actions through rational eyes,” said the committee’s chair, Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.).

Garbarino asked for commitment from the ICE and CBP leaders to give the committee the full reports and findings of the investigations into the shootings of Good and Pretti once those conclude. Scott and Lyons agreed.

Scott, the CBP commissioner, told the committee members that officers face an unprecedented increase in attacks by people who interfere with law enforcement action. He said these actions are “coordinated and well-funded.”

“This is not peaceful protest,” he said.

Lyons, the ICE leader, told lawmakers that his agency has removed more than 475,000 people from the U.S. and conducted nearly 379,000 arrests since President Trump returned to the White House. He said the agency has hired more than 12,000 officers and agents.

He condemned so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, which limit the collaboration between local law enforcement and ICE, as well as the rhetoric from public officials against ICE.

Lyons testified that 3,000 out of 13,000 ICE agents wear body cameras. Scott estimated that about 10,000 of 20,000 Border Patrol agents wear cameras, adding that “we’re building that program out.”

The agency heads faced intense questioning from Democrats on the committee, including those from California.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) asked Lyons about his comment last year that the deportation process should work “like Amazon Prime, but with human beings.”

Lyons said the comment had been taken out of context.

“I did say that we need to be more efficient when it comes to removing individuals from the United States, because ICE doesn’t detain people punitively — we detain to remove,” he said. “I don’t want to see people in custody.”

“Well, speaking of human beings, how many times has Amazon Prime shot a nurse 10 times in the back?” Swalwell responded.

Swalwell asked how many agents have been fired for their conduct under Lyons’ leadership. Lyons said he would get that data.

“Can you tell us if, at least — God, I hope at least one person has been fired for their conduct since these operations have begun,” Swalwell said.

Lyons said he wouldn’t talk about personnel.

Swalwell was the one who asked Lyons if he would apologize to the families of Good and Pretti. He also asked if Lyons would resign from ICE. Lyons declined.

Rep. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) questioned Lyons about whether carrying a U.S. passport is enough for people to avoid being detained or deported. An October report by ProPublica identified more than 170 instances of U.S. citizens who were detained at raids or protests.

Lyons said U.S. citizens shouldn’t feel the need to carry their passports.

“No American citizen will be arrested for being an American citizen,” Lyons said.

Correa said a number of U.S. citizens in his district, which is majority Latino, have been detained, some for several days.

Lyons said he wasn’t aware of any cases of detained American citizens.

“Are you surveilling U.S. citizens today?” Correa asked.

Lyons said there is no database for protesters.

“I can assure you there is no database that’s tracking down citizens,” he said.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

February’s first weekend produced a flurry of gestures that were quickly read as progress. A deeply flawed amnesty law was approved in the first round without even being seen, high-profile prisoners were released after months of disappearance, and the tone of official politics softened, at least on the surface. What emerged, however, was not a clearer transition but a clearer struggle over authorship, over who gets to define what this process is, and what it is allowed to become.

What the weekend revealed is that Venezuela’s transition is not being negotiated in a single place or under a single logic. It is being contested simultaneously across different arenas, each operating on its own incentives, timelines, and definitions of success.

The least visible of these battles is unfolding inside the governing coalition itself. Here, the question is not democracy versus repression but something more technical, and more cynical, how much openness can be performed without relinquishing control over coercion, adjudication, and resources.

Seen from this angle, the weekend’s choreography makes sense. Political prisoners were not simply released, their freedom was folded into a legislative ritual authored by the same political actors responsible for their detention, complete with announced deadlines, speeches heavy with the language of forgiveness, and even calls for applause. This was not the state binding itself, but an attempt to convert discretion into legitimacy.

Political prisoners in Venezuela could have been freed at any moment by executive decision. By embedding their release in a process the government controls, the regime preserved its core advantage, the ability to decide not just when to give, but what the giving means. The Guanipa episode made that logic explicit. A release could function as a signal, and its reversal or legal redefinition could function as discipline. Freedom, in this model, is not a right restored but a condition granted. Arbitrariness is not eliminated, it is rebranded.

If political prisoners are released into silence, surveillance, or renewed legal jeopardy, as we have already seen, then the transition exists largely on paper.

The later revelation that the families Jorge Rodríguez met outside Zona 7 were staged only reinforces the point. Real families introduce uncertainty, anger, memory, demands that do not respect sequencing. Staged ones deliver predictability and allow reconciliation to be performed rather than negotiated. That choice suggests a lack of confidence. A government secure in its legitimacy would not need to simulate social consent at the moment consent matters most.

A second battle is unfolding far from Caracas, inside Washington. It is not a fight over tactics so much as over objectives.

Recent reporting and congressional testimony suggest growing tension over what the Venezuela file is supposed to deliver. Is the goal stabilization, the appearance of calm streets, predictable governance, reduced migration pressure, reopened markets, or is it a democratic transition, with all the uncertainty and volatility that implies.

Those two goals are often rhetorically conflated. In practice, they can diverge.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s testimony is revealing here. By emphasizing that the United States will pay attention not only to the release of political prisoners but to how they are treated after, whether they return to political life, whether they speak freely, whether they are harassed or re-detained, Rubio shifted the metric from gestures to behavior over time. That distinction matters. Releasing prisoners is a signal, allowing them to act politically afterwards is a concession.

The regime’s strategy appears aimed at satisfying the former while containing the latter. Speed becomes an asset. If the appearance of a transition advances quickly enough, attention fades, diplomatic costs accumulate, and renewed pressure begins to look disruptive rather than principled.

But stabilization without a genuine transfer of political authority is a fragile equilibrium. It depends on discretionary power remaining benevolent, conditional freedoms remaining honored, and social legitimacy remaining dormant. The events of this weekend, reversible releases, staged consent, selective recognition, suggest none of those conditions can be safely assumed.

This is where the US debate becomes consequential. A Venezuela that is calmer but still politically closed begins to resemble not a democratic transition but a familiar Pinochet-style authoritarian compromise, technocratic opening, crony capitalism, and political repression wrapped in legal form. Whether that outcome is treated as acceptable stabilization or failed transition remains an open question in Washington.

A transition conducted under regime terms prioritizes closure over accountability and order over pluralism. One conducted under society’s terms is slower, messier, and harder to manage, but it is also the only path to durable stability.

The third battle is the most visible and the most familiar. It is the struggle inside Venezuela itself over whether this moment produces a real political opening or merely a rearrangement of control.

Here, the opposition’s internal divide matters. One faction, already seated in the National Assembly, is pursuing legitimacy from the top down. Its wager is that institutional participation, procedural wins, and international recognition will eventually cascade downward to society.

Another current rests on the opposite theory, that legitimacy flows from society upward, and that institutions rebuilt without social consent remain hollow. It is no accident that this current is not attacked head-on but bracketed out of the official narrative. It is easier to exclude than to incorporate.

The treatment of released prisoners will be the clearest test of which logic prevails. If those freed are able to speak, organize, and contest power without fear, then something real is shifting. If they are released into silence, surveillance, or renewed legal jeopardy, as we have already seen, then the transition exists largely on paper.

What the February weekend demonstrated is not that Venezuela is transitioning, but that the fight over who gets to define that transition has intensified.

Inside chavismo, the battle is over how much can be conceded without surrender. In Washington, it is over whether stability is an acceptable substitute for democracy. Inside Venezuela, it is over whether political life will be genuinely reopened or carefully contained.

These battles are related, but they are not the same. They may not even resolve on the same timeline.

A transition conducted under regime terms prioritizes closure over accountability and order over pluralism. One conducted under society’s terms is slower, messier, and harder to manage, but it is also the only path to durable stability. The events of this weekend, far from settling that question, have made it unavoidable.

Feb. 10 (UPI) — Air Canada became the first scheduled airline to withdraw services to Cuba due to shortages of jet fuel as the United States tightened its energy embargo on the Caribbean island.

Canada’s Montreal-headquartered flag-carrier announced Monday it was suspending its 16 weekly flights serving Havana and three other cities, effectively immediately, but said it would send aircraft to bring home 3,000 customers already in Cuba.

“For remaining flights, Air Canada will tanker in extra fuel and make technical stops as necessary to refuel on the return journey, if necessary,” the airline said.

Airlines in Russia, where Cuba is also a top holiday destination, said they had no plans to change their schedules, but Russian media reported at least one Rossiya Airlines flight was canceled with the carrier instead dispatching an empty aircraft to collect Russian tourists.

As many as 4,700 Russians on package holidays were thought to be on the island currently, according to the Association of Tour Operators of Russia.

Spain’s Iberia and Air Europa said flights from Madrid to Havana would now stopover in the Dominican Republic to refuel but would otherwise continue as normal.

American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and Aeromexico said they would continue flying the route, with American telling CNN that the aircraft it used on the route could carry enough fuel for the round trip without refueling.

On Sunday, an international NOTAM system notice confirmed that no A-1 jet fuel, the standard for commercial aviation, would be available at Havana’s Jose Marti International Airport for one month between Tuesday and March 11.

The aviation fuel shortage and its knock-on effect on tourism was the most visible economic casualty of additional measures imposed 10 days ago by U.S. President Donald Trump aimed at shutting off all oil shipments to the island.

Accusing Cuba of harboring terrorist groups, Trump threatened any country supplying oil to Cuba with tariffs in a move principally aimed at Mexico, one of the only remaining points of supply since the United States severed the economic lifeline provided by Venezuela in January.

Venezuela was the source of most of Cuba’s oil imports until the United States’ Jan. 3 military operation to remove President Nicolas Maduro, seize control of the country’s oil and turn off the tap to Cuba.

The move was in line with the Trump administration’s efforts to ratchet up a six-decade-long U.S. trade embargo with the energy blockade exacerbating rolling blackouts and forcing the communist government to ration health and transport, shorten hours in schools and state-owned workplaces, and close some hotels as it scrambles to conserve fuel.

Official Cuban government data shows Canada was the number one source of tourists to the island with more than 754,000 Canadians traveled there in 2025, compared with 110,000 from the United States, 56,000 from Mexico and 46,000 from Spain.

Feb. 9 (UPI) — Prince William and Princess Catherine have said they are “deeply concerned” by the latest information coming out of the Epstein files in their first public statement about the scandal.

A Kensington Palace spokesperson said the Prince and Princess of Wales were “focused on the victims” after new information released showed an increased number of mentions of William’s uncle Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson.

The spokesperson said: “I can confirm The Prince and Princess have been deeply concerned by the continuing revelations. Their thoughts remain focused on the victims.”

William is in Saudi Arabia on the first day of an official three-day visit.

Mountbatten-Windsor, 65, has been stripped of his royal titles and was forced to leave the Royal Lodge residence by King Charles III. He now lives on Charles’ privately owned Sandringham Estate. The late Queen Elizabeth II stripped him of his military titles and patronages in January 2022.

Charles faced hecklers Monday during a visit to Clitheroe train station in Lancashire. One person shouted, “How long have you known about Andrew and Epstein?” the BBC reported.

The Justice Department’s Epstein files drop on Jan. 30 included many from a suit against Mountbatten-Windsor that he settled with Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre in 2022.

Giuffre, in a lawsuit, accused the then-prince of sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager and employed by Epstein. Mountbatten-Windsor has denied the allegation.

The release included photos of Mountbatten-Windsor, including one showing him leaning over the body of a woman who was lying on the ground and another of him on all fours while next to the same woman, whose face was redacted.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a political hero among liberals and populists, next week will formally kick off the campaign to place a new tax on billionaires on California’s November ballot.

The controversial proposal, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of the state’s wealthiest residents, is critical to backfilling federal funding cuts to healthcare enacted by the Trump administration, Sanders said in a statement.

“This initiative would provide the necessary funding to prevent over 3 million working-class Californians from losing the healthcare they currently have — and would help prevent the closures of California hospitals and emergency rooms,” he said. “It should be common sense that the billionaires pay just slightly more so that entire communities can preserve access to life-saving medical care. Our country needs access to hospitals and emergency rooms, not more tax breaks for billionaires.”

The independent senator from Vermont, who caucuses with Democrats in the nation’s Capitol, will appear Feb. 18 at the Wiltern in Los Angeles alongside prominent musical acts. Sanders has a deep base of support among California Democrats, winning the state’s 2020 presidential primary over Joe Biden by eight points, and narrowly losing the 2016 primary to Hillary Clinton. In both elections, he won the votes of more than 2 million Californians, who were also a major source of the small-dollar donations that fueled his insurgent campaigns.

The tax proposal, which Sanders previously endorsed on social media, is proposed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West. The supporters need to gather the signatures of nearly 875,000 registered voters and submit them to county elections officials by June 24 for the measure to qualify for the November ballot. They began gathering signatures in January.

Supporters of the tax argue it is one of the few ways the state can backfill major federal cuts to healthcare services for California’s most vulnerable residents. Opponents warn it would kill the innovation that has made the state rich and prompt an exodus of wealthy entrepreneurs.

More than 200 billionaires in Californians would be affected if the proposal qualifies for the ballot and is approved. Some prominent billionaires have already left the state, notably PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and venture capitalist David Sacks.

Both men were major supporters of President Trump.

Democrats are divided about the issue. Notably, Gov. Gavin Newsom and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who is among a dozen candidates running in November to replace the termed-out governor, oppose the proposal.

United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer has emerged rattled but ultimately unscathed after a day and night of drama during which a key member of his Labour Party called for him to resign over revelations about a former ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, in the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Starmer has faced more than a week of mounting pressure since the release of the latest tranche of documents from the US Department of Justice relating to the criminal cases against the late sex offender. They revealed that Mandelson had maintained a close friendship with the disgraced financier even after Epstein had pleaded guilty to solicitation of sex with a minor and was jailed in 2008.

They include documents and emails that suggest Mandelson may have received payments from Epstein and passed sensitive information to him during the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

Since then, Starmer has admitted that he knew of the pair’s friendship when he appointed Mandelson as ambassador but said the peer had lied about the extent of it. The affair has caused outrage in parliament. Two key members of Starmer’s inner circle have resigned and a third is under pressure to go. On Monday, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar called for the prime minister to do the same.

While Starmer’s position has been shored up for now by a rally of support from his cabinet on Monday night, just how badly has this affair shaken his government?

Why did Anas Sarwar call for Starmer to resign?

Sarwar said at a news conference early on Monday afternoon that he had called Starmer and told him it was time for him to resign. “I spoke to the prime minister earlier today, and I think it’s safe to say he and I disagreed,” Sarwar said.

He said “too many mistakes” had been made in relation to the appointment of Mandelson.

“The distraction needs to end, and the leadership in Downing Street has to change,” Sarwar said as he became the first Labour heavyweight to stand against the prime minister.

While Sarwar said he believed Starmer to be a “decent man”, the fury over the Epstein files had severely damaged the government’s support and wrecked its chances in the upcoming Scottish parliament elections. Opinion polls put Scottish Labour some distance behind the Scottish National Party, followed by the far-right Reform party, led by Nigel Farage.

But cabinet members came out in support of Starmer, ultimately ending the coup that never was. Angela Rayner, former deputy prime minister and a senior member of the Labour Party, was the first to show him support. She said in a post on X that while she did not defend Starmer’s judgement, “the worst possible response [to the scandal] would be to play party politics or factional games.”

“I urge all my colleagues to come together, remember our values and put them into practice as a team,” she wrote on X. “The Prime Minister has my full support in leading us to that end.”

Within hours, nearly every minister had followed suit. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, urged people to “give Keir a chance”. Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, said he hoped the prime minister would stay on, and Douglas Alexander, Scotland secretary, said he “respected” Sarwar’s stance but backed the prime minister.

On Monday night, Starmer addressed more than 400 MPs and peers at a Labour Party meeting. “I have won every fight I’ve ever been in. I fought to change the Labour Party to allow us to win an election again,” he told them.

“But I’ll tell you this, after having fought so hard for the chance to change our country, I’m not prepared to walk away from my mandate and my responsibility to my country or to plunge us into chaos as others have done.”

Who has resigned from Starmer’s team and why?

Two key figures have already resigned, and a third is under pressure to do so, UK media has reported.

Amid growing outrage over the new revelations about Mandelson and Epstein, Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, resigned on Sunday, taking “full responsibility” for advising the prime minister to appoint Mandelson to the ambassadorship, which he took up in 2025, despite the risks.

“The decision to appoint Mandelson was wrong,” McSweeney said. “He has damaged our party. … I advised the prime minister to make that appointment and I take full responsibility for that.”

Mandelson was dismissed from the post in September after serving seven months after the UK daily The Sun obtained other emails between him and Epstein that showed the depth of their friendship.

After the release of the latest tranche of Epstein documents on January 30, Mandelson resigned from the Labour Party and the House of Lords.

Tim Allan, Starmer’s communications chief, resigned on Monday, saying he was leaving to pave the way for a “new No 10 team” to be built as Starmer tries to reset his government.

Allan, who founded the Portland Communications firm specialising in reputation management, had been in the job for only five months, and Starmer is now looking to hire his fifth communications chief since taking office in 2024.

Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary and senior-most civil servant in Downing Street, is also reportedly under pressure to resign and is said to be currently negotiating his exit from the role, which he has been in for less than a year.

The UK’s Guardian newspaper reported that some people close to Starmer view him as a “disastrous” appointment.

What did the Epstein files reveal about Mandelson?

The latest release of files showed Mandelson maintained his relationship with Epstein after the latter was jailed in 2008.

They also suggested Mandelson received payments from the late financier and may have shared market-sensitive information with him that was of financial interest to Epstein.

Leaks of sensitive information by Mandelson allegedly took place in 2009 while he was serving as the UK’s business secretary.

The UK police have launched a criminal investigation over suspected misconduct in public office linked to Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein.

In one of the emails revealed in the most recent tranche of documents released from the US Justice Department, Mandelson told Epstein to “fight for early release” shortly before he was sentenced in 2008.

“I think the world of you,” Mandelson told Epstein, adding about his prosecution: “I can still barely understand it. It just could not happen in Britain. You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can.”

How damaging has this all been for Starmer?

Starmer has apologised publicly for appointing Mandelson as ambassador to the US despite knowing of his ties – but not the extent of them, he said – to the disgraced financier.

“None of us knew the depth and the darkness of that relationship,” Starmer said on Thursday as he apologised to Epstein’s victims.

“I am sorry – sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed you, sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointing him.”

But this has not been enough to let him off the hook entirely, experts said.

Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, said the scandal has been hugely damaging for Starmer. “A more popular PM might have been able to ride it out, but he was already facing a good deal of hostility from voters before it blew up,” Bale told Al Jazeera. “He’s managed so far to hold on to his cabinet, but he’s completely lost the trust of the electorate – and that’s hard to get back.”

Bale said “people are disgusted by” Starmer’s decision to appoint Mandelson “despite knowing that he’d stayed friends with Epstein after he’d been convicted”.

Can Starmer’s leadership still be challenged?

While Starmer has survived Monday night, his position is still weak with low approval ratings, experts said.

Labour is expected to suffer losses in crucial Scottish elections in May. A parliamentary by-election is also due on February 26.

“The immediate danger [to Starmer] is that [Labour] suffers catastrophic losses in a by-election and then a big set of elections in May,” Bale said. “That will reignite calls for Starmer to resign and, if he doesn’t, a challenge from one or more of his colleagues.”

Among the top runners to replace Starmer are Rayner, his former deputy prime minister who resigned from the cabinet last year over a tax scandal.

A website pitching Rayner as leader, angelaforleader.co.uk, went live in January briefly, The Guardian newspaper reported. Rayner has denied any links to the website.

Another politician gearing up to replace Starmer is Wes Streeting, the health secretary.

Streeting, 43, has also been called out for his ties with Mandelson. In a bid to distance himself from the former ambassador, Streeting this week shared private chats he had with Mandelson that questioned the government’s growth plan.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, 45, is another possible successor to Starmer. She has grown popular among several right-aligned leaders of the Labour Party with her moves to tighten border controls and crack down on unauthorised immigration.

What other issues has Labour faced under Starmer?

The Labour Party swept to power in July 2024, ending nearly 14 years of Conservative rule. However, the prime minister has since had a difficult time in Downing Street.

In the 2024 elections, Reform UK, the right-wing, populist, anti-immigration party led by Farage, won just five of the 650 seats in parliament. However, it has gone on to become one of the best polling British parties. In July, a YouGov poll put Reform in the lead, predicting it could win 271 seats if elections were held then.

In his speech on Monday, Starmer called the challenge posed by the rise of the Reform party, which has won over a number of high-profile defectors from the Conservative Party in recent weeks, “a fight for our lives”.

Starmer is also facing domestic pressure to put a stop to undocumented immigration to the UK. More than 32,000 people tried to cross the English Channel from France in small boats last year. These crossings are dangerous and have resulted in many deaths.

The UK and France have laid the blame on each other for the rising numbers. This led to a “one-in-one-out” migrant deal signed between the UK and France last year, under which the UK returns one migrant to France for each accepted refugee. The scheme has had little success, however, with only a handful of migrants returned.

Starmer himself has dropped in popularity by 20 percentage points from July 2024 to January this year, according to YouGov.

“Reform has obviously spooked some in the Labour Party,” Bale said, adding, however, that Reform is eating into the Conservatives’ base more. “And Labour probably needs to worry more about the Greens and the Liberal Democrats at this stage.”

“The break-up of the two-party duopoly that has dominated British politics for a century is no longer simply an aspiration among challenger parties but an ongoing reality,” Bale said.

Transparency International says the average global score in its report is at its lowest level in more than a decade.

An anticorruption watchdog has warned in its latest report of worsening corruption in democracies around the world, with the score of the United States slipping to its lowest, raising concerns about developments in the US and the impact of its funding cuts around the world.

Berlin-based Transparency International (TI) said on Tuesday that the average global score in its 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) had hit 42 on a scale of zero to 100, its lowest level in more than a decade.

The group’s index assigns a score between zero (highly corrupt) and 100 (very clean), based on data reflecting the assessments of experts and business executives.

US President Donald Trump, since returning to the White House early last year, has upended domestic and foreign politics while ramping up pressure on institutions ranging from universities to the Federal Reserve – the US central bank.

Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is currently under investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) after resisting pressure from Trump to reduce interest rates.

TI raised concerns over “actions targeting independent voices and undermining judicial independence” in the US.

“The temporary freeze and weakening of enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act signal tolerance for corrupt business practices,” it said.

US ranking drops

The Trump administration’s gutting of overseas aid has also “weakened global anticorruption efforts”, it said.

The US’s CPI score has dropped to 64 from 65 in 2024, with the report noting that its “political climate has been deteriorating for more than a decade”. In the past 10 years, it has seen a drop of 10 points.

The report also said “the vast majority of countries are failing to keep corruption under control”, with 122 countries out of 180 posting scores less than 50.

However, it said 31 countries have improved significantly, highlighting Estonia (76 points), the Seychelles (68) and South Korea (63).

The US case illustrates a trend in democracies experiencing a “decline in performance” in battling corruption, according to the report, a phenomenon it also said was apparent in the United Kingdom and France.

While such countries are still near the top of the index, “corruption risks have increased” due to weakening independent checks, gaps in legislation and inadequate enforcement.

“Several have also experienced strains to their democracies, including political polarisation and the growing influence of private money on decision-making,” the report noted.

The worst-performing EU nations

The worst-performing countries in the European Union were Bulgaria and Hungary, both scoring just 40.

The report said the government of Hungary’s nationalist leader Viktor Orban, in power since 2010 and facing a tough battle for re-election in April, “has systematically weakened the rule of law, civic space and electoral integrity for over 10 years”.

“This has enabled impunity for channelling billions – including from European Union funds – to groups of cronies through dirty public contracting and other methods,” the report said.

The highest-ranked nation in the index for the eighth year running was Denmark with a score of 89, followed by Finland and Singapore. At the bottom were South Sudan and Somalia with nine points apiece, followed by Venezuela.

Among the more positive stories of progress in the report was Ukraine, which scored 36.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government has faced widespread public anger over corruption allegations against those close to him, even as the country has been at war with Russia for nearly four years.

However, the watchdog noted that “the fact that these and many other scandals are being uncovered … shows that Ukraine’s new anticorruption architecture is making a difference”.

It hailed the “civil society mobilisation” last year, which prompted Zelenskyy to backtrack in an attempt to curb the independence of anticorruption bodies.

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers on Monday approved a one-time infusion of $90 million for Planned Parenthood and other women’s health clinics, a direct respond to the Trump administration’s cuts to reproductive healthcare and access to abortion providers.

“Trump is tearing down healthcare and increasing costs,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said in a statement. “Democrats are building it up — investing millions in women’s health and maternal care, because families come first in California.”

The legislation providing the funding, SB 106, carried by Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), is intended to help offset the losses from federal cuts that targeted abortion providers. The Republican-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed last year by President Trump, prohibited federal Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood.

The bill now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

California and a coalition of other Democrat-led states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration last year over the provision. More than 80% of the nearly 1.3 million annual patient visits to Planned Parenthood in California previously were reimbursed by Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid, which provides healthcare coverage to low-income Americans.

Assemblyman David Tangipa (R-Clovis) voiced opposition to the legislation Monday.

“Why does Planned Parenthood get a $90-million grant when right now over 60 hospitals in the state of California are on the verge of shutting down?” Tangipa asked, speaking on the Assembly floor. “Hospitals across our state that deliver high quality care to women are on the brink of closure.”

Planned Parenthood offers a range of services, including abortions, birth control and cancer screenings.

A federal judge on Monday struck down a new California law that banned federal immigration agents and other law enforcement officers from wearing masks in the state, but an effort already is underway to revive the statute.

U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder in Los Angeles ruled that the No Secret Police Act does not apply equally to all law enforcement officers because it excludes state law enforcement, and therefore “unlawfully discriminates against federal officers.”

But, Snyder said, the ban does not impede federal officers from performing their federal functions, indicating that a revised law that remedies that discrimination may be constitutional.

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), the author of the legislation, on Monday proposed a new prohibition on mask-wearing by all law enforcement officers in California, a change he argued would bring the ban into compliance with Snyder’s ruling.

Wiener said he will immediately file his updated bill in order to unmask U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents conducting unconstitutional enforcement in the state as soon as possible.

“We will unmask these thugs and hold them accountable. Full stop,” Wiener said, calling Snyder’s ruling a “huge win.”

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, who sued California to block the law from taking effect, cast the ruling in starkly different terms, as a win for the federal government and immigration agents doing a difficult job under intense scrutiny.

“ANOTHER key court victory thanks to our outstanding [Justice Department] attorneys,” Bondi wrote on X.

“Following our arguments, a district court in California BLOCKED the enforcement of a law that would have banned federal agents from wearing masks to protect their identities,” Bondi wrote. “These federal agents are harassed, doxxed, obstructed, and attacked on a regular basis just for doing their jobs.”

Wiener helped push two new California laws last year — the No Secret Police Act and the No Vigilantes Act — in the wake of intense and aggressive immigration enforcement by masked ICE and other federal agents in California and around the country.

The No Secret Police Act banned local law enforcement officers, officers from other states and federal law enforcement personnel from wearing masks except in specific circumstances — such as in tactical, SWAT or undercover operations. It did not apply those restrictions on California’s state law enforcement officers.

The No Vigilantes Act required any law enforcement officer operating in California to visibly display identification, including the name of their agency and their name or badge number, except in undercover and other specific scenarios.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measures into law in September, though the state agreed to not enforce the measures against federal agents in the state while the Justice Department’s challenge was heard in court.

In her ruling Monday, Snyder blocked only the ban on masking by federal agents, and on seemingly narrow grounds.

Snyder said that the court “finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks. However, because the No Secret Police Act, as presently enacted, does not apply equally to all law enforcement officers in the state, it unlawfully discriminates against federal officers.”

“Because such discrimination violates the Supremacy Clause, the Court is constrained to enjoin the facial covering prohibition,” she wrote.

Weiner said it was “hard to overstate how important this ruling is for our efforts to ensure full accountability for ICE and Border Patrol’s terror campaign.”

Wiener said he and colleagues had crafted the No Secret Police Act in consultation with constitutional law experts, but had “removed state police from the bill” based on conversations with Newsom’s office.

“Now that the Court has made clear that state officers must be included, I am immediately introducing new legislation to include state officers,” Wiener said. “I will do everything in my power to expedite passage of this adjustment to the No Secret Police Act.”

He said ICE and Customs and Border Protection officers were “covering their faces to maximize their terror campaign and to insulate themselves from accountability. We won’t let them get away with it.”

Wiener is also pushing new legislation — called the No Kings Act — that would allow people in California to sue federal agents for violating their rights. Democrats in Congress are also demanding that immigration agents stop wearing masks as a condition for extending Department of Homeland Security funding.

In response to Wiener’s suggestion that he had removed state officers from the bill based on conversations with the governor’s office, Newsom’s office posted on X that Wiener “rejected our proposed fixes to his bill” and “chose a different approach, and today the court found his approach unlawful.”

In a separate statement, Newsom hailed Snyder’s upholding the identification requirement for officers as “a clear win for the rule of law.”

“No badge and no name mean no accountability. California will keep standing up for civil rights and our democracy.”

Bondi said her office would continue defending federal agents from such state action.

“We will continue fighting and winning in court for President Trump’s law-and-order agenda — and we will ALWAYS have the backs of our great federal law enforcement officers,” she said.

After decades of being largely immune to political upheaval, Portugal is witnessing what many consider an accelerated shift to the right.

This week’s presidential election is seen as a wake-up call.

It brought to power a centre-left politician – with a big win.

But the strong showing of his rival, the far-right candidate, signals that Portugal could be on a path to joining other European countries in a political move to the right.

The president of this European country is largely a figurehead, but he still wields considerable power.

So, how will this vote shape Portugal’s political future? And how has it been watched across Europe?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Miguel Poiares Maduro – Director of the School of Transnational Governance at the European University Institute

Karel Lannoo – CEO of the Centre for European Policy Studies

Rui Gomes da Silva – Lawyer and former Portuguese parliamentary affairs minister

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has endorsed Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) for California governor, the Swalwell campaign and a Schiff spokesperson said Monday.

Schiff, one of the state’s most prominent Democrats, previously served with Swalwell on the House Intelligence Committee, where they riled Republicans by investigating President Trump during his first term.

They also both worked to impeach Trump during his first term, with Schiff serving as the lead manager of Trump’s first impeachment and Swalwell as a manager of Trump’s second impeachment.

Schiff, in a statement, said Swalwell “has the vision and strength to take on our state’s biggest challenges and make real progress, from lowering costs for families to protecting our democracy from Donald Trump.”

“Congressman Swalwell and I worked together to investigate Trump during his first presidency, and Eric played a leadership role in the impeachment trial after the President incited a violent mob to attack the capitol on January 6th,” Schiff said. “What I saw then, and what I know now, is that Eric is fully prepared to get things done and deliver for the Golden State, even as he will fight to protect our values, rights and freedoms.”

Swalwell announced in November his bid to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is termed out next year — entering a crowded field of candidates without a clear front-runner.

Both Swalwell and Schiff have been targeted by Trump and the Trump administration with allegations of committing mortgage fraud. They have both denied those accusations — calling them part of a political retribution campaign against Trump’s critics and chief political opponents.

Swalwell has sued Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte over the accusations, accusing him of of criminally misusing government databases to target Trump’s political opponents.

Feb. 9 (UPI) — A rubber boat capsized in the Mediterranean Sea last week after taking on water, leaving 53 people migrating from North Africa presumed dead, a United Nations-affiliated migration organization said Monday.

The boat capsized off the coast of Libya, north of the city Zuwara, on Friday while traveling along a migration route through the Central Mediterranean that has potentially claimed the lives of nearly 500 people since Jan. 1.

In coordination with Libyan authorities, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) said it provided emergency medical care to two Nigerian women who were the only survivors of the when the vessel flipped — one who reported losing her husband and the other losing her two babies.

“In January alone, at least 375 migrants were reported or missing following multiple ‘invisible’ shipwrecks in the Central Mediterranean amid extreme weather, with hundreds more deaths believed to be unrecorded,” IOM said in a press release.

“These repeated incidents underscore the persistent and deadly risks faced by migrants and refugees attempting the dangerous crossing,” the organization said.

The boat that capsized Friday left Al-Zawiya, Libya, around 11 p.m. local time on Jan. 5 heading north but started to take on water and, six hours into the journey, the rubber craft capsized, the survivors told IOM officials.

Libya has over the past decade and a half been used as a stopgap for migrants to leave African nations for Europe, though the United Nations has reported torture, forced labor and extortion, among other abuses, by trafficking and smuggling networks offering opportunities to travel.

From Libya, migrants can reach Italy, which is less than 200 miles away across the Mediterranean. Other paths through the sea, which have been no less deadly, include those between Turkey and Greece and Morocco and Spain.

IOM’s director general, Amy Pope, met with leaders in Libya in December to discuss efforts to combat trafficking through the Central Mediterranean, as well as to enhance safe and voluntary return and migration methods.

“Every life lost on this route is a tragedy — one that we can prevent,” she said after the mid-December visit. “Saving lives requires shared responsibility and real cooperation.”

Since 2014, IOM reports that nearly 34,000 people are believed to be dead or missing while attempting to migrate to Europe from the northern coast of Africa.

In contexts of war, pacification means a ceasefire achieved through agreements. In its most literal sense, pacification refers to the act of becoming peaceful. In Venezuela, however, pacification cannot be reduced to simply “returning to peace.” The concept acquires a political meaning because violence is neither symmetrical nor bilateral. Pacification in Venezuela means dismantling state violence and opening the political system to all actors.

In this sense, amnesty laws are conceived as a form of special justice for contexts in which pacification is necessary. They are legal instruments that States use exceptionally to close cycles of conflict. Amnesty is not about pardoning isolated acts, but about ending the criminal consequences derived from conflicts in which justice operated selectively and became a tool of political persecution.

In transitional contexts, amnesty has been used repeatedly. Spain, Chile, and Colombia are among the closest examples for Venezuela, and in all of them amnesty served as a bridge between a past of persecution and a future of democratic political competition.

Amnesty must pursue a single goal: preventing the repetition of abuses. For this reason, although amnesties may be decreed, they are not limitless instruments. On the contrary, they must exclude human rights violations and prevent impunity. From this perspective, the draft bill approved in first discussion by the National Assembly is insufficient for the moment the country is facing and for dismantling the regime’s repressive apparatus.

Article 6 does not mention events from 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and part of 2024. As a result, it excludes cases involving military personnel unjustly imprisoned.

Let us begin with one of the basic principles of the legislative process: transparency. The way the bill was introduced failed to inspire confidence among political actors and civil society. At the time of the debate in the chamber, the text of the bill was not publicly available. Only unofficial versions circulated on social media. It was not until 24 hours later that the approved draft was informally released via X, undermining the principle of publicity that should govern lawmaking.

Deliberate vagueness

Setting aside procedural flaws, we must examine the substance of the law. To begin with, Delcy Rodríguez and the National Assembly do not need an amnesty law to release the more than 600 political prisoners who, as of the morning of February 9, remained detained in Venezuela. An amnesty law should aim to correct structural failures in the justice system, address abuses, and guarantee non-repetition.

Reducing the acts covered by amnesty to “acts of violence for political motives” (Article 1) is overly simplistic for the Venezuelan context. More than twenty years of systematic repression and persecution for dissent require precise typologies. Enumerating historical events does not clearly define what constitutes a “political or related offense.” This lack of specificity grants excessive discretionary power to judges—who, in a country without judicial independence, may reproduce the very arbitrariness the law seeks to correct.

This vagueness also excludes many situations that have been used by the repressive apparatus, since not all unjustly imprisoned individuals were detained for “acts of violence.” The law further establishes the exclusion of “offenses against public property” (Article 7.4), which is particularly dangerous. It places corruption crimes and the use of administrative sanctions as political punishment in the same category. As a result, the bill leaves unprotected those subjected to political disqualifications or public officials persecuted and harassed for ideological reasons. This is not accidental: it prevents the creation of precedents that could support amnesty for figures such as María Corina Machado and other politically disqualified actors.

The bodies authorized to execute it are the courts and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the same institutions responsible for the abuses the law seeks to remedy.

Beyond typification, the bill also omits important events that deserve amnesty. Although the introductory provisions establish a period “from January 1, 1999 to January 30, 2026,” Article 6 does not mention events from 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and part of 2024. As a result, it excludes cases involving military personnel unjustly imprisoned, such as Operación Gedeón or the 2018 drone attack against Maduro. The law’s temporal scope remains unclear due to its own internal contradictions.

Another troubling aspect is the interpretative principle set out in Article 5, which states that in case of doubt, the interpretation favoring the protection of human rights shall prevail, leaving out a basic criminal law principle: in dubio pro reo, meaning that doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

Paying oneself and giving change back

The procedure for implementing the amnesty is not verifiable. The bodies authorized to execute it are the courts and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the same institutions responsible for the abuses the law seeks to remedy. A clear example of the dangers of this arrangement is the revocation of Juan Pablo Guanipa’s release order, announced by the Public Prosecutor’s Office through social media. Allowing the execution of the law to be controlled solely by those who committed the injustice is akin to cheating oneself.

Moreover, the procedure requires the initiative to come from the Public Prosecutor’s Office or from the person prosecuted or convicted, leaving a gap for those physically unable to file requests themselves, including detainees and people in exile. To remedy this, legal representation in the amnesty process must be explicitly authorized.

The legislative process must be further opened to include citizens, families of those still unjustly detained, and especially those recently released. Their testimonies are essential.

Recognizing these deficiencies, our duty as jurists and as Venezuelans is also to propose solutions. The first recommendation is to guarantee publicity and transparency throughout the legislative process. The National Assembly could turn the process that began on Thursday into a genuine national consultation. Recent invitations extended to law school deans from UCAB, UNIMET, and UCV, as well as to human rights groups such as Provea, Foro Penal, and Acceso a la Justicia, are encouraging signs—provided these voices are genuinely heard and reflected in substantive changes.

Beware of forgetting by design

Still, this effort is not enough. An amnesty law should be the framework for reconciliation and peacebuilding. The legislative process must be further opened to include citizens, families of those still unjustly detained, and especially those recently released. Their testimonies are essential to understanding past abuses and designing guarantees of non-repetition.

The second recommendation concerns the substance of the law. Amnesty cannot be treated as a communications tool of “clemency.” Its purpose must be non-repetition. As Juan Miguel Matheus (2019) aptly put it, reconciliation requires “forgetting enough so that there is no room for revenge or historical resentment, and remembering enough to prevent atrocities from happening again.”

In this regard, the bill’s provision mandating the elimination of files and records related to amnesty beneficiaries is deeply problematic. Rather than promoting truth, it risks enabling impunity for officials who committed human rights violations. Documentation must be preserved to ensure accountability and non-repetition.

Article 12 further establishes that oversight of the law’s implementation would fall to the Executive, through the Ministry of Interior, Justice, and Peace—headed by Diosdado Cabello, who has led repression and state violence for years. This makes genuine oversight impossible. A third recommendation, therefore, is the creation of a Special Commission within the National Assembly, composed of lawmakers and civil society representatives, to monitor compliance.

The bill also lacks transitional provisions and does not repeal existing repressive laws. A fourth recommendation is the repeal of legislation such as the anti-hate law, the so-called anti-NGO, and the asset forfeiture law, as well as the reversal of unjust political bans imposed by the Comptroller General and the reinstatement of officials removed for ideological reasons.

Finally, a call to lawmakers and those invited to participate in this process, from universities, civil society and other sectors. The amnesty bill is not a gift from the regime to the opposition. It is an opportunity to pacify the country and find real pathways toward a transition. This responsibility demands that we act with everyone in mind: those inside and outside the country, and all those who could be covered by the law.

In moments of confusion, we must focus on what matters. An amnesty law is being debated and will be approved. Perfect solutions are difficult to produce in the current circumstances, but the recommendations of civil society and experts must be translated into substantive changes. Reconciliation in Venezuela means healing after years of injustice in order to rebuild a society battered by conflict.

The new law must serve to ensure that the regime acknowledges that, for years, it implemented a policy of repression and persecution. From there, it must enable the reconstruction of the rule of law, the restoration of trust in institutions, and the transition toward a country where all people have real opportunities to live with dignity.

As citizens, we have the task of demanding (even through informal channels, the only ones available to us in the absence of functioning institutions) that institutional norms be respected and that justice and peace be guaranteed. This is a law still under construction. It is not a symbolic gesture by the regime. We must turn it into the starting point for genuine reconciliation.

British police are assessing a complaint that the former prince sent confidential trade reports to convicted US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Buckingham Palace says King Charles III will “support” UK police assessing reports that the former Prince Andrew gave confidential information to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The statement on Monday came after police said they were examining reports that the former prince, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, sent trade reports to Epstein in 2010.

Thames Valley Police, which serves areas west of London, including the ex-royal’s former home in Windsor, launched the inquiry after news organisations reported on emails that suggest the then-prince sent Epstein reports from a 2010 tour of Southeast Asia he took as Britain’s envoy for international trade.

“The King has made clear, in words and through unprecedented actions, his profound concern at allegations which continue to come to light in respect of Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor’s conduct,” the palace said in a statement.

“While the specific claims in question are for Mr Mountbatten-Windsor to address, if we are approached by Thames Valley Police we stand ready to support them as you would expect.”

Thames Valley Police confirmed earlier on Monday that it has launched an inquiry following a complaint from an anti-monarchy campaigner.

“We can confirm receipt of this report and are assessing the information in line with our established procedures,” the police force said in a statement.

Emails from Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to Epstein were among the more than three million pages of documents released last month by the United States Justice Department.

Correspondence unearthed in recent days appears to show that Mountbatten-Windsor forwarded copies of his reports from a 2010 tour of Southeast Asia to Epstein soon after he returned to Britain.

An earlier email appears to show the ex-prince sharing his itinerary for the two-week trip to Hanoi, Saigon, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong with Epstein.

Thames Valley Police began its inquiry after Graham Smith, chief executive of the anti-monarchy group Republic, reported Mountbatten-Windsor for suspected abuse of public office and violations of Britain’s Official Secrets Act.

The former prince, 65, has faced years of scrutiny over his friendship with Epstein, a relationship that has cost him his role in the royal family, titles and home. Andrew has always denied any wrongdoing, and has not responded to requests for comment since the latest release of Epstein files.

Reporting from London, Al Jazeera’s Milena Veselinovic said Mountbatten-Windsor was acting as the United Kingdom’s international trade envoy when the claims were made that he sent sensitive information to Epstein.

“This [allegedly] includes a confidential memo about investment in the Helmand province in Afghanistan, which was being financed at that time by the UK taxpayer,” she explained.

Royal family faces jeopardy

The British royal family continued its effort to insulate itself from the scandal on Monday, as Prince William and Princess Catherine issued their first statement about the latest batch of Epstein files.

“I can confirm that the Prince and Princess of Wales have been deeply concerned by the continued revelations,’’ a spokesperson said as William travelled to Saudi Arabia for an official visit. “Their thoughts remain focused on the victims.”

The jeopardy faced by the royal family could be seen on Monday when King Charles visited Lancashire, in northwest England. While most of the public clapped, cheered and waved British flags, one person shouted, “How long have you known about Andrew?”

Last week, King Charles forced Mountbatten-Windsor to leave his longtime home at Royal Lodge near Windsor Castle, accelerating a move that was first announced in October but was not expected to be completed until later this year.

The former royal is now living temporarily at Wood Farm Cottage on the king’s Sandringham Estate in eastern England. He is then expected to move into a more permanent home, which is currently undergoing renovations.

Ghislaine Maxwell avoids answering questions on alleged co-conspirators in case of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The associate and former girlfriend of convicted late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has declined to answer questions during a deposition before the United States Congress.

Lawmakers expressed frustration after Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in helping Epstein abuse teenage girls, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

“As expected, Ghislaine Maxwell took the Fifth and refused to answer any questions,” Representative James Comer, Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told reporters. “This is obviously very disappointing.”

“We had many questions to ask about the crimes she and Epstein committed as well as questions about potential co-conspirators,” he added.

Maxwell was subpoenaed to appear before the committee to discuss her relations with Epstein, but her lawyers stated that she would only testify if US President Donald Trump granted her clemency. Lawmakers had declined a previous request to grant Maxwell legal immunity before testifying.

“She [Maxwell] pleaded the Fifth, which under the US Constitution gives you the right not to answer questions on the grounds that you might incriminate yourself,” said Al Jazeera correspondent Alan Fisher.

“People were waiting to hear answers to important questions, but we got nothing from Ghislaine Maxwell,” he added. “What she did say, very briefly, was that she never saw any evidence of Donald Trump or [former US President] Bill Clinton involved in anything that was illegal. Many people suggest that was a deliberate ploy on her part to say, ‘Look, you buy my silence, but I want clemency.’ She’s appealing to both parties here to say, ‘I will clear the people that you care most about.’”

In a letter released on Sunday by Representative Ro Khanna expressing frustration with Maxwell’s refusal to testify, Khanna noted that Maxwell had spoken with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously worked as Trump’s personal lawyer, without invoking the Fifth Amendment.

“This position appears inconsistent with Ms Maxwell’s prior conduct, as she did not invoke the Fifth Amendment when she previously met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to discuss substantially similar subject matter,” he said.

Maxwell was moved to a minimum-security prison in Texas after meeting twice with Blanche last year.

Lawmakers such as Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse have called the decision “highly unusual” and questioned whether Maxwell had “been given special treatment in exchange for political favours” as President Trump’s own relationship with Epstein comes under growing scrutiny. Trump has strongly denied any wrongdoing and called the Epstein scandal a “hoax”.

Blanche has said that Maxwell was moved due to “numerous threats against her life”, without providing details. Maxwell has asked Trump to commute her sentence, which she was given in 2022 after being convicted on charges of sex trafficking minors.

She is the only person convicted of crimes related to Epstein, whose connections to a wide array of individuals at the height of political and economic power in the US and around the world have been revealed in the Epstein files.