president

The free trade agreement between the European Union and Mercosur countries should be implemented without delay, Paraguay’s President Santiago Peña told Euronews. He warned that stalling the agreement would be a “mistake” amid rising geopolitical tensions.

The free trade pact was signed last month by the EU and Mercosur members Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. However, its full ratification by the EU has been frozen after MEPs referred the agreement to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

“We already presented the agreement to the Congress of the Paraguayan Nation last week, and we understand that the European Union has the legal tools to implement it temporarily,” Peña said on Euronews’s flagship interview programme The Europe Conversation.

“We are working to make this happen, and we want Paraguay to be the first country to implement it.” The country currently holds the rotating pro tempore presidency of Mercosur.

Despite the judicial review, the European Commission has the prerogative to provisionally apply the deal once one or more Mercosur countries complete national ratification. While Germany, Spain, Portugal and the Nordics are pushing for the next phase, the Commission currently says no decision has yet been made.

‘Opposition rooted in ignorance’

The agreement would create a vast EU–Latin America free-trade zone, slashing tariffs on goods and services. But resistance in Europe remains fierce, with farmers and several capitals, led by Paris, warning of unfair competition from Mercosur imports.

Peña said that European opposition to the deal was rooted in “ignorance” and an outdated and stereotypical view of Latin America.

“Our countries have changed tremendously. They have developed. Human capital has grown,” Peña said. “Europe has to rediscover Latin America.”

In the interview, Peña warned that rejecting the deal would amount to a strategic blunder, as Europe can no longer rely on the United States as its default trade partner due to President Donald Trump’s unpredictable policies.

“If (MEPs) ultimately prefer not to integrate themselves into (new) markets and instead choose to retain their old alliances that today no longer work, it would certainly be a mistake,” he said.

Still, Peña credited Trump with giving the deal “the final push” after 25 years of talks.

“The world was in a state of drowsiness,” he said. “We weren’t moving, and he came along to move us all. He came to challenge what we thought was stable, and that pushed us to leave our comfort zone.”

According to Peña, one of the EU-Mercosur deal’s key advantages is its potential to counter China’s growing presence in the region and dominance of rare earth supplies.

“Europe is losing an enormous opportunity there, because if there is a region that can compete globally, it is Latin America. We have young talent, a predominantly young population, a population (of people who are) already digital natives,” he said.

“We have that tremendous abundance of natural resources, not only food that grows above the ground, but also minerals that are below the earth, which are so critical to this new technological wave. Our region has absolutely everything that Europe and the world need.”

The Clintons agree to testify in congressional probe of high-society sex offender Jeffrey Epstein amid contempt threat.

Former ‍United States President Bill ‍Clinton and Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, will testify in a congressional investigation into the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a spokesperson for the ex-president said.

The ⁠decision by the Clintons announced on Monday could head off a planned vote in the Republican-led ​House of Representatives to hold the high-profile Democratic Party veterans in contempt for refusing to appear before lawmakers, which could lead to criminal charges.

“The former President and former ‌Secretary of State will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone,” the Clintons’ deputy chief of staff, Angel Urena, said ‌in a post on social media.

Urena posted the announcement above a House Oversight Committee statement from earlier on Monday that accused the Clintons of “defying lawful subpoenas” and of “trying to dodge contempt by requesting special treatment”.

“The Clintons are not above the law,” the Oversight Committee said.

Last week, the Oversight Committee recommended the couple be held in contempt for refusing ‍to testify about ⁠their relationship with Epstein.

The Clintons had offered to cooperate with the committee’s probe into Epstein, but refused to appear in person, saying the investigation was a partisan exercise aimed at protecting President Donald Trump, who was a longtime friend of Epstein.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson welcomed the news from the Clintons, but ‌did not say whether the chamber ⁠would drop its planned contempt vote.

“That’s a good development,” he said. “We expect everyone to comply with Congress’s subpoenas.”

Democrats say the House probe is being weaponised to attack political opponents of Trump – who has not been called to testify despite being long associated with Epstein – rather than to conduct legitimate oversight.

Trump spent months trying to block the disclosure of investigative files linked to Epstein, but pressure from his Make America Great Again (MAGA) base and some Republican lawmakers forced the president to order the release of millions of documents in the case.

Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane several ‌times in the early 2000s after leaving office. He has expressed regret about the relationship and said he knew nothing about  Epstein’s criminal activity.

Hillary Clinton said she had no meaningful interactions with Epstein, never flew on his plane and never visited his private island.

The Epstein affair continues to cast a long shadow over US politics, and now, the United Kingdom’s, entangling prominent figures including the disgraced former-prince Andrew and ex-UK ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson.

UK police said on Monday they are reviewing reports of alleged misconduct involving Mandelson, whose name surfaced more than 5,000 times in the US Justice Department files on Epstein.

The veteran British politician was fired as ambassador to the US last ‍year after emails came to light that showed him calling Epstein “my best pal” and advising him on seeking early release from prison.

Mandelson has apologised to Epstein’s victims and denied wrongdoing.

BOGOTA, Colombia — President Trump is scheduled to host one of his most vocal regional critics, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, at the White House in a high-stakes meeting analysts suggest could redefine the immediate future of bilateral relations.

Petro has called Trump an “accomplice to genocide” in the Gaza Strip, while the U.S. president called him a “drug lord,” an exchange of insults that escalated with U.S. sanctions against Petro, threats of reciprocal tariffs, the withdrawal of financial aid to Colombia and even the suggestion of a military attack.

Tensions eased in early January when Trump accepted a call from Petro, saying it was a “great honor to speak with the president of Colombia,” who called him to “explain the drug situation and other disagreements.”

The two leaders are expected to meet Tuesday to address strategies for curbing drug trafficking and boosting bilateral trade, while potentially discussing joint operations against Colombian rebel groups fueled by the cocaine trade.

“There’s a lot of space here for mutual cooperation and shared success,” said Elizabeth Dickinson, a Colombia expert at the International Crisis Group.

Combating drug trafficking

Decades of security cooperation once made Colombia the primary U.S. ally in the region, but that relationship has recently faced unprecedented strain.

The two countries have opposing views on how to address the problem of illicit drugs. While the U.S. remains anchored in aggressive eradication and supply-side control, Petro advocates for interdiction, demand reduction and providing economic alternatives for small-scale coca farmers.

In 2025, the U.S. signaled its dissatisfaction with Petro’s anti-drug policy by adding Colombia to a list of nations failing to cooperate in the drug war for the first time in three decades.

Since then, Petro has focused on highlighting the record seizures and claiming that his government has managed to halt the growth of coca leaf crops. However, Colombia’s coca crop has reached historic highs, as the government shifts away from eradication. According to United Nations research, potential cocaine production has surged by at least 65% during the Petro administration, to more than 3,000 tons per year.

The Venezuela factor

The sudden detente between Petro and Trump followed a period of extreme volatility.

Tensions peaked after the Jan. 3 U.S. raid in Caracas that captured then-President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Petro denounced the operation as an act of “aggression” and a “kidnapping,” blasting the U.S. for what he called an “abhorrent” violation of Latin American sovereignty and a “spectacle of death” comparable to Nazi Germany’s 1937 carpet bombing of Guernica, Spain.

Despite recently calling for Maduro’s return to face Venezuelan justice, Petro’s tone softened significantly during a subsequent hourlong call with Trump, paving the way for their upcoming summit.

Gimena Sánchez-Garzoli, director for the Andes region at the Washington Office on Latin America, a think tank, believes that Trump accepted Petro’s call partly to quell questions about the operation in Venezuela and the growing concern over warnings issued to countries like Colombia.

She also said she considers it likely that both presidents will agree on actions against drug trafficking and a joint fight against the National Liberation Army guerrilla group, which is most active on the border with Venezuela.

‘A quiet, effective cooperation’

Signaling a thaw in relations just days before the White House summit, the Colombian Foreign Ministry announced on Thursday that repatriation flights for deportees from the U.S. have officially resumed.

Images released by the ministry showed citizens arriving at El Dorado airport — a stark contrast to the diplomatic crisis a year ago. At that time, Petro triggered a near trade war by refusing U.S. military deportation flights over “dignity” concerns, only relenting after Trump threatened 50% tariffs and visa cancellations.

“A good outcome [of the meeting] would be that the relationship is cordial, pragmatic, and that the two countries can get back to what they have been doing for years, which is a quiet, effective cooperation on shared security threats,” Dickinson said.

“The less noise there is around the relationship the better.”

Suárez and Rueda write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Sunday that he will move to close Washington’s Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for two years starting in July for construction, his latest proposal to upend the storied venue since returning to the White House.

Trump’s announcement on social media follows a wave of cancellations by leading performers, musicians and groups since the president ousted the previous leadership and added his name to the building. Trump made no mention in his post of the recent cancellations.

His proposal, announced days after the premiere of “Melania,” a documentary about the first lady, was shown at the center, is subject to approval by the board of the Kennedy Center, which has been stocked with his handpicked allies. Trump chairs the center’s board of trustees.

“This important decision, based on input from many Highly Respected Experts, will take a tired, broken, and dilapidated Center, one that has been in bad condition, both financially and structurally for many years, and turn it into a World Class Bastion of Arts, Music, and Entertainment,” Trump wrote in his post.

Neither Trump nor Kennedy Center President Ric Grenell, a Trump ally, have provided evidence to back up their claims about the building being in disrepair, and in October, Trump had pledged the center would remain open during renovations. In Sunday’s announcement, he said the center will close July 4, when he said the construction would begin.

“Our goal has always been to not only save and permanently preserve the Center, but to make it the finest Arts Institution in the world,” Grenell said in a post, citing funds Congress approved for repairs.

“This will be a brief closure,” Grenell said. “It desperately needs this renovation and temporarily closing the Center just makes sense — it will enable us to better invest our resources, think bigger and make the historic renovations more comprehensive. It also means we will be finished faster.”

The sudden decision to close and reconstruct the Kennedy Center is certain to spark blowback as Trump revamps the popular venue. The building began as a national cultural center and Congress renamed it as a “living memorial” to President Kennedy — a champion of the arts during his administration — in 1964, in the aftermath of his assassination.

Opened in 1971, it serves as a public showcase year-round for the arts, including the National Symphony Orchestra.

Since Trump returned to the White House, the Kennedy Center is one of many Washington landmarks that he has sought to overhaul in his second term. He demolished the East Wing of the White House and launched a massive $400-million ballroom project, is actively pursuing building a triumphal arch on the other side the Arlington Bridge from the Lincoln Memorial, and has plans for Washington Dulles International Airport.

Leading performing arts groups have pulled out of appearances at the Kennedy Center, most recently composer Philip Glass, who announced his decision to withdraw his Symphony No. 15 “Lincoln” because he said the values of the center today are in “direct conflict” with the message of the piece.

Last month, the Washington National Opera announced that it will move performances away from the Kennedy Center in another high-profile departure after Trump’s takeover of the U.S. capital’s leading performing arts venue.

The head of artistic programming for the center abruptly left his post last week, less than two weeks after being named to the job.

A spokesperson for the Kennedy Center could not immediately be reached and did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Late last year, as Trump announced his plan to rename the building — adding his name to the building’s main front ahead of that of Kennedy — he drew sharp opposition from members of Congress, and some Kennedy family members.

Kerry Kennedy, a niece of John F. Kennedy, said in a social post on X at the time that she will remove Trump’s name herself with a pickax when his term ends.

Another family member, Maria Shriver, said at the time that it is “beyond comprehension that this sitting president has sought to rename this great memorial dedicated to President Kennedy,” her uncle. “It is beyond wild that he would think adding his name in front of President Kennedy’s name is acceptable. It is not.”

Late Sunday evening, Shriver posted a new comment mimicking Trump’s own voice and style, and suggesting the closure of the venue was meant to deflect from the cancellations.

She said that “entertainers are canceling left and right” and the president has determined that “since the name change no one wants to perform there any longer.”

Trump has decided, she said, it’s best “to close this center down and rebuild a new center” that will bear his name. She asked, “Right?”

One lawmaker, Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat and ex-officio trustee of the center’s board, sued in December, arguing that “only Congress has the authority to rename the Kennedy Center.”

Price and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

MILAN, Italy — Two years before the Los Angeles Olympics, the United States is already dominating the narrative in the run-up to the opening ceremony of the Milan-Cortina Winter Games.

International Olympic Committee officials, including President Kirsty Coventry, couldn’t avoid questions relating to ICE and the Jeffrey Epstein files at a news conference in Milan, Italy, on Sunday.

Coventry tried to fend them off by saying it was not the IOC’s place to comment on the issues, but when pressed remarked it was “sad” that such stories were deflecting attention away from the upcoming Olympics.

“I think anything that is distracting from these Games is sad, right? But we’ve learned over the many years … there’s always been something that has taken the lead, leading up to the Games,” Coventry said. “Whether it has been Zika, COVID, there has always been something.

“But what is keeping my faith alive is that when that opening ceremony happens and those athletes start competing, suddenly the world remembers the magic and the spirit that the Games have and they get to suddenly remember what’s actually important and they get to be inspired, and so we’re really looking forward to that.”

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered Saturday in Milan to protest the deployment of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents during the upcoming Winter Olympics, although agents would be stationed in a control room and not operating on the streets.

Meanwhile, the latest collection of government files released on Epstein includes emails from 2003 between Casey Wasserman, the head of the Los Angeles Olympics organizing committee, and Epstein’s one-time girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell.

“From all the information that we have and I believe that the U.S. authorities, as the other authorities, have made all the clarifications needed, so from our side that’s not for us to further comment on that part of the security. But we’re really looking forward to the Games,” Coventry said when asked about the presence of ICE agents in Milan.

She was even less responsive when asked about Wasserman.

“We didn’t discuss it yesterday and I believe Mr. Wasserman has put out his statement and we now have nothing further to add,” said Coventry, who was elected just over 10 months ago as the first female IOC president.

The upcoming Olympics run from Friday through Feb. 22. U.S. Vice President JD Vance will lead an American delegation to the Milan-Cortina Games and attend the opening ceremony.

Matar writes for the Associated Press.

What’s the difference between Brett Ratner and Leni Riefenstahl? Riefenstahl, for all her many sins, was technically innovative; Ratner (unless you count an almost fetishistic fascination with first lady footwear), not so much.

But in the end, they are both political propagandists, collaborators if you will, with heads of state determined to create a narrative that is, at best, at odds with reality and, at worst, a targeted attempt to distort it.

Am I saying that “Melania” is as horrifically significant as “Triumph of the Will”? No, I am not. But it is motivated by the same base forces, and as fun as it might be to watch Jeff Bezos lose most of the $75 million Amazon paid for the purchase and then marketing of the film, it is important to remember that.

As Melania Trump said herself at the film’s premiere: “Some have called this a documentary. It is not. It is a creative experience that offers perspectives, insights and moments.”

A “creative experience” for which the first lady, who serves as narrator and executive producer, reportedly received about $28 million.

Money she very much does not earn.

Anyone who goes into “Melania” hoping to see even a glimpse of what it is like to be first lady, or indeed Melania Trump, will find instead a super-long version of “we followed [fill in the blank] as they got ready for the Oscars.”

Only in this case, it’s Donald Trump’s second inauguration, which Ratner (given his first big job since being accused by six women of sexual misconduct) frames as the Second Coming, from the lingering shots of the sleek lines of the motorcade to the use of “His truth is marching on” from “Battle Hymn of the Republic” as the first couple takes the stage at one of the inaugural balls.

(And in case you think that’s not obsequious enough, at the end of the inaugural festivities, Ratner, off camera, says, “sweet dreams, Mr. President,” which honestly could have been the title of this film.)

Most of the “action” involves the first lady making entrances: off private jets, out of big black cars and into well-appointed rooms. There, Trump and her designers wax rhapsodic over a gown designed to disguise any seams, admire an inaugural dinner menu that begins with caviar in a big golden egg and discuss the furnishings that will be moved in as soon as the Bidens move out.

These mind-numbing glories are interrupted just long enough for Tham Kannalikham, an interior designer in charge of the White House transition, to talk about how her family immigrated to America from Laos when she was 2 — the opportunity to work in the White House is, for her, the ultimate American dream. Beside her, Trump, also an immigrant, remains silent.

Other things happen. Trump has a video conference with French First Lady Brigitte Macron to discuss initiatives to end cyberbullying, meets with Queen Rania of Jordan to discuss helping foster children and comforts former Hamas hostage Aviva Siegel. Siegel, whose husband, at the time of filming, is still a hostage, provides the film’s one real emotional moment, despite having been clearly included as an opportunity for Trump to reveal a bit of personal kindness (and some political messaging).

We follow Trump as she and her husband attend Jimmy Carter’s funeral, during which her narration describes the pain of her mother’s death the year before, and as she “sneaks” the cameras into a room where her husband is rehearsing his inaugural speech.

There she suggests, with a completely straight face, that he add the word “unifier” to “peacemaker” in his description of what he hopes to be his legacy, a term he then uses in his speech the next day.

Throughout it all, the first lady remains relentlessly poised and personally inaccessible, lending new and literal meaning to the term “statuesque.”

Given the nature of the film’s subject, and the fact that she is the one literally calling the shots, no one with half a brain could expect to see any interesting or authentic “behind-the-scenes” moments (Melania wearing sweats or counting her breakfast almonds or, I don’t know, sneezing). A brief scene in which the remarkably tone-deaf Ratner attempts to get her to sing along to her favorite song, Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean,” elicits (finally!) a genuine laugh from her, and while his decision to repeatedly zoom in on her admittedly well-shod feet becomes increasingly creepy, it at least offers drinking-game potential.

Even so, “Melania” is as cynical a piece of filmmaking as exists since the art form began.

Listening to her describe the seriousness with which she takes her duties; her love, as an immigrant, for this great nation; and her dedication to making life better for all Americans — especially children and families — I was reminded of the climactic scene in “A Wrinkle in Time,” when young Charles Wallace has been ensnared by the soothing rhetoric of the evil brain-washing IT.

The superficial blandness of “Melania” isn’t boring; it’s calculated, infuriating and horrifying.

The first lady is describing an alternative universe of peace, love and unity while her husband has unleashed armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to terrorize and detain children and adults (many of whom are citizens or here in this country legally) and, in at least two cases, kill American citizens who protest their actions. She wants to help children and families while her husband slashes federal assistance programs and holds school funding hostage. She would have us believe she is battling cyberbullies while her husband, the president of these United States, regularly engages in lies, direct threats and character assassination on social media.

President Trump is many things but he is not a unifier — he believes, as he has assured us time and again, in winning, and, as he has also said and shown, he will choose retribution over reconciliation every time.

Melania Trump is, of course, not her husband. But this film is little more than a 90-minute campaign ad. Which, given the fact that Trump cannot legally run for president again, should be cause for much concern.

Many criticized the decision to release “Melania” mere days after federal agents killed Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis, and excoriated those notables, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, who chose to attend an early celebratory screening that included “let them eat” cookies with “Melania” scrawled in the icing.

For the kind of person who makes, and buys and distributes, a film that purports to be a “documentary” and is really just old-fashioned, through-the-looking-glass propaganda, however, it’s actually the perfect time.

Why worry about the federal government killing its own citizens when we can all ooh and aah over the fact that the first lady’s inaugural gown is constructed so that none of the seams show? Especially if it makes her husband happy.

Cuba’s President Miguel Diaz-Canel has denounced what he called an attempt by his United States counterpart, Donald Trump, to “suffocate” the sanctions-hit country’s economy.

Trump signed an executive order on Thursday threatening additional tariffs on countries that sell oil to Cuba, the latest move in Washington’s campaign of pressure on Havana. The order alleged that the government of communist-run Cuba was an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security.

In a social media post on Friday, Diaz-Canel said that under “a false and baseless pretext”, Trump plans “to suffocate” Cuba’s economy by slapping tariffs “on countries that sovereignly trade oil” with it.

“This new measure reveals the fascist, criminal and genocidal nature of a clique that has hijacked the interests of the American people for purely personal ends,” he said, in an apparent allusion to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Cuban American and a known anti-Cuban government hawk.

Cuba, which is suffering rolling electricity blackouts blamed on fuel shortages, was cut off from critical supplies of Venezuelan oil after the US abducted Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in a bloody military night raid on the capital, Caracas, earlier this month. At least 32 members of Cuba’s armed forces and intelligence agencies were killed in the January 3 attack.

The US has since taken effective control of Venezuela’s oil sector, and Trump, a Republican, has issued threats against other left-wing governments in the region, promising to stop oil shipments previously sent to Cuba.

Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez on Friday declared an “international emergency” in response to Trump’s move, which he said constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat”.

Venezuela’s government also condemned the measure in a statement on Friday, saying it violates international law and the principles of global commerce.

Reporting from Cuba’s capital, Al Jazeera’s Ed Augustin said Trump’s announcement “is a massive psychological blow”, noting that analysts describe it as the “most powerful economic blow the United States has ever dealt the island”.

Days after Maduro’s abduction and transfer to the US, Trump urged Cuba to make a deal “before it is too late,” without specifying what kind of agreement he was referring to.

In a post on social media, Trump suggested Rubio could become the president of Cuba. “Sounds good to me!” he wrote on his Truth Social platform.

‘There’s no solution’

In Havana, residents expressed anger at Trump’s tariff threat, which will only make life harder for Cubans already struggling with an increase in US sanctions.

“My food is going bad. We haven’t had electricity since 6am,” Yenia Leon told Al Jazeera. “You can’t sleep. You have to buy food every day. There’s no solution to the power situation,” she said.

“This is a war,” Lazaro Alfonso, an 89-year-old retired graphic designer, told The Associated Press news agency, describing Trump as the “sheriff of the world” and saying he feels like he is living in the Wild West, where anything goes.

Alfonso, who lived through the severe economic depression in the 1990s known as the “Special Period” following cuts in Soviet aid, said the current situation in Cuba is worse, given the severe blackouts, a lack of basic goods and a scarcity of fuel.

“The only thing that’s missing here in Cuba … is for bombs to start falling,” he said.

Meanwhile, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she would seek alternatives to continue helping Cuba after Trump’s announcement following a decision this week to temporarily halt oil shipments to the island amid heightened rhetoric from Trump.

Mexico became a key supplier of fuel to Cuba, along with Russia, after the US sanctions on Venezuela paralysed the delivery of crude oil to the island.

Sheinbaum said cutting off oil shipments to Cuba could trigger a “far-reaching humanitarian crisis” on the island, affecting transportation, hospitals and access to food. She did not say whether Mexico would cut shipments of oil or refined products to Cuba, which ‌she said accounted for 1 percent of Mexico’s production.

“Our interest is that the Cuban people don’t suffer,” Sheinbaum said, adding that she had instructed her foreign minister to contact the US ‌State Department to better understand the scope of the executive order.

Mexico supplied 44 percent of Cuban oil imports and Venezuela exported 33 percent until last month, while some 10 percent of Cuban oil is sourced from Russia. Some oil is also sourced from Algeria, according to The Financial Times figures.

In November last year, a senior United Nations expert said the long-running US sanctions on Cuba must be lifted as they are “causing significant effects across all aspects of life”.

The US imposed a near-total trade embargo on Cuba in 1962, with the goal of toppling the government put in place by Fidel Castro after he took power in a 1959 revolution. Castro himself was the target of numerous assassination attempts by the US’s Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA.

Alena Douhan, special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights, said the “extensive regime of economic, trade and financial restrictions” against Cuba marks the longest-running unilateral sanctions policy in US history.

She noted that there are shortages of food, medicine, electricity, water, essential machinery and spare parts in Cuba, while a growing emigration of skilled workers, including medical staff, engineers and teachers, is further straining the country.

The accumulative effect has “severe consequences for the enjoyment of human rights, including the rights to life, food, health and development”, Douhan said.

Rodriguez calls for healing ‘wounds left by political confrontation’ while announcing notorious El Helicoide prison to shut down.

Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez has announced an amnesty bill that could lead to the release of hundreds of prisoners, her latest major reform since the US military abducted the country’s President Nicolas Maduro and his wife earlier this month.

“We have decided to push ahead with a general amnesty law that covers the whole period of political violence from 1999 to the present day,” Rodriguez said on Friday.

Speaking at a gathering of justices, magistrates, ministers, military officials and other government leaders, the acting president said the National Assembly would take up the amnesty bill with urgency.

“May this law serve to heal the wounds left by the political confrontation fuelled by violence and extremism,” Rodriguez said in the prerecorded televised event.

“May it serve to redirect justice in our country, and may it serve to redirect coexistence among Venezuelans,” she said.

Rodriguez also announced the shutdown of El Helicoide, a notorious secret service prison in Caracas, where torture and other human rights abuses have been documented by independent organisations.

El Helicoide, she said, will be transformed into a sports, social and cultural centre for the surrounding neighbourhoods.

Rodriguez made her announcement before officials whom former prisoners and human rights watchdogs have accused of overseeing El Helicoide and other detention facilities.

The Venezuelan-based prisoners’ rights group Foro Penal estimates that 711 people are in detention in facilities across Venezuela over their political activities. Of those, 183 have been sentenced, the group said.

Foro Penal President Alfredo Romero welcomed the planned amnesty but said it must apply to all prisoners “without discrimination”.

“A general amnesty is welcome as long as its elements and conditions include all of civil society, without discrimination, that it does not become a cloak of impunity, and that it contributes to dismantling the repressive apparatus of political persecution,” Romero wrote in a post on social media.

Foro Penal has calculated that some 302 prisoners have been released by Rodriguez’s government in the aftermath of the abduction of Maduro by the US.

The organisation later released a video clip on social media of what is said showed the moment that human rights worker Eduardo Torres was released from prison on Friday night, following his detention since May 2025.

Translation: Our colleague from @proveaong Eduardo Torres has been released from prison, human rights defender, former political prisoner.

Families and rights advocates have long demanded that charges and convictions against detainees who are considered political prisoners be dropped.

Government officials – who ⁠deny holding political prisoners and say those jailed have committed crimes – report that more than 600 people have been released from prison, but they have not been clear on the timeline and appear to be including prisoners released in previous years.

Nicki Minaj, who revealed in 2018 that she was brought to the United States as an “illegal immigrant” from Trinidad and Tobago when she was 5 years old, flashed a Trump gold card Wednesday after an event formally launching the president’s IRA-style savings accounts for children. Her citizenship paperwork, she said on social media, was being finalized.

“Residency? Residency? The cope is coping. … Finalizing that citizenship paperwork as we speak as per MY wonderful, gracious, charming President,” the “Bang Bang” rapper, 43, wrote Wednesday on X, including a photo of the Chucky character flipping his middle finger. “Thanks to the petition. … I wouldn’t have done it without you. Oh CitizenNIKA you are thee moment. Gold Trump card free of charge.”

That post mentioning the card, which delivers citizenship in the United States for those who pay $1 million, may have referred to multiple petitions arguing that the rapper — real name Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty — should be deported to Trinidad and Tobago, where she was born before being raised in Queens, N.Y. A previous post contained a photo of the gold card and the single word “Welp …”

“I came to this country as an illegal immigrant @ 5 years old,” the rapper wrote on Facebook in 2018, posting a photo from the first Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” period of immigration enforcement when migrant children were being separated from their migrant parents at the country’s southern border.

The photo showed children on padded floor mats with silver Mylar thermal blankets, walled in by chain-link fencing. “I can’t imagine the horror of being in a strange place & having my parents stripped away from me at the age of 5. This is so scary to me. Please stop this. Can you try to imagine the terror & panic these kids feel right now?”

In 2020, she said in a Rolling Stone interview that she thought Trump was “funny as hell” on “Celebrity Apprentice” but was bothered by the images of children taken from their parents.

President Trump talks with rapper Nicki Minaj in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday at an event launching the Trump Accounts savings and investment program for children.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

“I was one of those immigrant children coming to America to flee poverty,” Minaj told the outlet. “And I couldn’t imagine a little child going through all of that, trying to get to another country because they didn’t have money in their country, or whether you’re fleeing from war … and then being taken away from the one person that makes you feel comfort. That is what really raised my eyebrows.”

At the time, she said she would not “jump on the Donald Trump bandwagon.”

But Minaj has since come around to support the president in his second term, even calling herself his “No. 1 fan” in remarks Wednesday. “And that’s not going to change,” she said.

“The hate or what people have to say, it does not affect me at all. It actually motivates me to support him more, and it’s going to motivate all of us to support him more,” Minaj said. “We’re not going to let them get away with bullying him and the smear campaigns. It’s not going to work, OK? He has a lot of force behind him, and God is protecting him.”

The president introduced her as “the greatest and most successful female rapper in history,” a title that’s accurate going by record sales and overall presence on the Billboard Hot 100. (Of course, Missy Elliott and Ms. Lauryn Hill might want to have a conversation.)

“I didn’t know Nicki, and I’ve been hearing over the years she’s a big Trump supporter, Trump fan,” POTUS continued. “And she took a little heat on occasion because her community isn’t necessarily a Trump fan.”

Trump said Minaj was among those stepping up, along with people including Dell Computers Chief Executive Michael S. Dell, and donating “hundreds of thousands of dollars” of her money to the new accounts. In addition to her generosity, POTUS was definitely a fan of Minaj’s long, painted, pointy pink manicure. He chuckled as he told the audience, “I’m going to let my nails grow, because I love those nails. I’m going to let those nails grow.”

In December, before Christmas, the rapper also appeared onstage with conservative activist Erika Kirk, widow of Charlie Kirk, who was slain in September at Utah Valley University. Minaj took the opportunity at the Phoenix conference of Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, to praise Trump and mock California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Minaj, a Christian, praised Trump at the time for standing up for Christians being persecuted in Nigeria and elsewhere.

“I have the utmost respect and admiration for our president,” Minaj said. “I don’t know if he even knows this but he has given so many people hope that there is a chance to beat the bad guys and to win and to do it with your head held high.”

She also declared onstage that there was “nothing wrong with being a boy.”

“How about that?” she continued. “How powerful is that? How profound is that? Boys will be boys, and there is nothing wrong with that.”

Then Minaj read aloud some of her social media posts mocking Newsom, calling him “Newscum” and “Gavie-poo” and criticizing his advocacy on behalf of “trans kids.”

It’s not as if the “Starships” rapper hid the ball about being harsh when she said in 2023 that she was willing to “be cussing out” certain people at certain times.

“When I hear the word mean, I think about the core of who the person is,” she told Vogue. “I always tell people that the difference between being mean and being a bitch is that bitch passes. Bitch comes and goes. Mean is who you are. I could be the biggest bitch, at the height of my bitch-ness, but if the person I may be cussing out at that time needs something from me, I’m going to give it to them. I have to be able to look in the mirror and be OK with myself.”

Trump accounts for children, a new type of IRA for U.S. citizens who are younger than 18 on Dec. 31 of the year an account is opened, are part of the “Big Beautiful Bill” of tax breaks and spending cuts that was signed into law last summer.

For children born during the second Trump administration, calendar years 2025 through 2028, the accounts will be seeded with $1,000 from the U.S. Treasury when a parent submits a form to the IRS to open the account. Additional pre-tax contributions of up to $5,000 a year are allowed but not required, and a parent is the custodian of the account until the child turns 18. Withdrawals for education, housing or business will be taxed as ordinary income.

Minaj is married to Kenneth Petty — who served four years in prison after being convicted of attempted rape in New York in 1995 — and the couple has one son. Nicknamed “Papa Bear,” the tot was born in 2020, about five years too soon to qualify for that $1,000.

DENVER — Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection in 2020. But for more than five years, he’s been trying to convince Americans the opposite is true by falsely saying the election was marred by widespread fraud.

Now that he’s president again, Trump is pushing the federal government to back up those bogus claims.

On Wednesday, the FBI served a search warrant at the election headquarters of Fulton County, Georgia, which includes most of Atlanta, seeking ballots from the 2020 election. That follows Trump’s comments earlier this month when he suggested during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that charges related to the election were imminent.

“The man has obsessions, as do a fair number of people, but he’s the only one who has the full power of the United States behind him,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor.

Hasen and many others noted that Trump’s use of the FBI to pursue his obsession with the 2020 election is part of a pattern of the president transforming the federal government into his personal tool of vengeance.

Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Georgia Democrat, compared the search to the Minnesota immigration crackdown that has killed two U.S. citizen protesters, launched by Trump as his latest blow against the state’s governor, who ran against him as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate in 2024.

“From Minnesota to Georgia, on display to the whole world, is a President spiraling out of control, wielding federal law enforcement as an unaccountable instrument of personal power and revenge,” Ossoff said in a statement.

It also comes as election officials across the country are starting to rev up for the 2026 midterms, where Trump is struggling to help his party maintain its control of Congress. Noting that, in 2020, Trump contemplated using the military to seize voting machines after his loss, some worry he’s laying the groundwork for a similar maneuver in the fall.

“Georgia’s a blueprint,” said Kristin Nabers of the left-leaning group All Voting Is Local. “If they can get away with taking election materials here, what’s to stop them from taking election materials or machines from some other state after they lose?”

Georgia has been at the heart of Trump’s 2020 obsession. He infamously called Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021, asking that Raffensperger “find” 11,780 more votes for Trump so he could be declared the winner of the state. Raffensperger refused, noting that repeated reviews confirmed Democrat Joe Biden had narrowly won Georgia.

Those were part of a series of reviews in battleground states, often led by Republicans, that affirmed Biden’s win, including in Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada. Trump also lost dozens of court cases challenging the election results and his own attorney general at the time said there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

His allies who repeated his lies have been successfully sued for defamation. That includes former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who settled with two Georgia election workers after a court ruled he owed them $148 million for defaming them after the 2020 election.

Voting machine companies also have brought defamation cases against some conservative-leaning news sites that aired unsubstantiated claims about their equipment being linked to fraud in 2020. Fox News settled one such case by agreeing to pay $787 million after the judge ruled it was “CRYSTAL clear” that none of the allegations were true.

Trump’s campaign to move Georgia into his column also sparked an ill-fated attempt to prosecute him and some of his allies by Fulton County District Atty. Fani Willis, a Democrat. The case collapsed after Willis was removed over conflict-of-interest concerns, and Trump has since sought damages from the office.

On his first day in office, Trump rewarded some of those who helped him try to overturn the 2020 election results by pardoning, commuting or vowing to dismiss the cases of about 1,500 people charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. He later signed an executive order trying to set new rules for state election systems and voting procedures, although that has been repeatedly blocked by judges who have ruled that the Constitution gives states, and in some instances Congress, control of elections rather than the president.

As part of his campaign of retribution, Trump also has spoken about wanting to criminally charge lawmakers who sat on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, suggesting protective pardons of them from Biden are legally invalid. He’s targeted a former cybersecurity appointee who assured the public in 2020 that the election was secure.

During a year of presidential duties, from dealing with wars in Gaza and Ukraine to shepherding sweeping tax and spending legislation through Congress, Trump has reliably found time to turn the subject to 2020. He has falsely called the election rigged, said Democrats cheated and even installed a White House plaque claiming Biden took office after “the most corrupt election ever.”

David Becker, a former Department of Justice voting rights attorney and executive director of The Center for Election Innovation & Research, said he was skeptical the FBI search in Georgia would lead to any successful prosecutions. Trump has demanded charges against several enemies such as former FBI Director James Comey and New York’s Democratic Atty. Gen., Letitia James, that have stalled in court.

“So much this administration has done is to make claims in social media rather than go to court,” Becker said. “I suspect this is more about poisoning the well for 2026.”

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

When Melania Trump showed up on movie screens in 2001, it was a joke.

The former fashion model and her spouse, Donald Trump, then only a real estate mogul, played themselves in the Ben Stiller comedy “Zoolander,” about a dimwitted male supermodel. She silently looked on as her husband gushed at an awards show red carpet: “Without Derek Zoolander, male modeling would not be where it is today.”

The cameo offers a glimpse of the couple, who in 2017 would enter the White House as president and first lady. As they move past the first anniversary of their second stint in Washington, D.C., Melania has largely stayed away from the spotlight.

But this week the first lady is preparing for her close-up. She is center stage as star and executive producer in the documentary “Melania” hitting theaters Friday. Positioned as a companion to her best-selling memoir, “Melania” has been shadowed by controversy since its announcement several months ago. The project marks a comeback attempt by Hollywood filmmaker Brett Ratner, the director of the documentary, who was exiled from Hollywood in 2017 following charges of sexual misconduct by multiple women, including actor Olivia Munn. He continues to deny the accusations.

Amazon MGM Studios paid $40 million to license the project, and sources said it is spending around $35 million for marketing and promotion. Melania is skipping the traditional TV talk show circuit, opting for an appearance on Fox News, which featured an exclusive interview with her on Tuesday — her first since returning to the White House. The following day, she rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange.

Trailers for the film have popped up on several networks including CNN, a frequent target of President Trump’s ire, and outdoor advertising has been installed in several major cities, including Los Angeles.

The project, which is slated to stream on Prime Video after a brief theatrical run, arrives as the president confronts sinking approval ratings and the most turbulent phase to date of his second term, which includes controversies over his handling of the economy, international relations, the demolition of the White House’s East Wing for a planned ballroom, and the long-delayed release of the Epstein files.

More pointedly, the lead-up to the official premiere, slated for Thursday at the Kennedy Center in Washington, has collided with an unexpected juggernaut: national outrage over the deadly shootings of two Minneapolis residents by federal officers carrying out his aggressive anti-immigration campaign.

The continuing protests over the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, as well as the backlash after Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller labeled them as domestic terrorists, has placed even more uncertainty over how “Melania” will fare with moviegoers.

Industry forecasters were divided on whether the film will be a hit or a bomb. Firms specializing in box office projections estimate the opening weekend will fall within the $5 million range.

“It’s very hard to predict whether people will show up, given the unique nature of the film and the marketplace,” said one veteran box office analyst who asked not to be identified.

On Wednesday, the film was pulled from theaters in South Africa, where it was slated to open on Friday, after the distributor announced it would no longer release the title, citing “recent developments,” according to a New York Times report.

Domestically, “Melania” is competing in a crowded movie weekend against the highly anticipated survival thriller “Send Help” from veteran filmmaker Sam Raimi (“Drag Me to Hell”), the horror film “Iron Lung” from popular YouTuber Markiplier (Mark Edward Fischbach), and “Shelter,” with action star Jason Statham.

President Trump kisses his wife, First Lady Melania Trump, during the presidential inauguration in 2025. The documentary will highlight the lead-up to the event.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

Adding to the uncertainty on the film’s performance, the analyst said, is whether fans of Ratner, whose resume features several blockbusters including the “Rush Hour” trilogy, will show up for a documentary about the first lady. According to press notes, “Melania” follows the first lady in the 20 days leading up to the 2025 presidential inauguration as she orchestrates plans for the event and the family’s move back to the White House. The film’s trailer, released last month, does not offer much more insight.

During both of Trump’s terms in the White House, his wife has been described as mysterious and sphinx-like. Some Washington watchers have praised her for what they call her independence and individualism, while others say her accomplishments fall short of previous first ladies such as Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Reagan.

Anita B. McBride, director of the First Ladies Initiative at American University, said that the position of first lady has been defined in distinct ways by every woman who has served in that capacity.

She said in an interview that the current first lady has exhibited a confident persona “that has never been defined by expectations. She now has the benefit of experience after operating during her first term in a very hostile environment. She is sure-footed with a staff that supports her, and she has made it clear that she is in control.”

The White House on Saturday hosted a VIP black-tie preview of “Melania,” with a guest list that included Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, former boxer Mike Tyson and Apple CEO Tim Cook, who this week criticized the shootings of Good and Pretti, calling for de-escalation in Minneapolis.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York was among the politicians blasting the event, which took place hours after Pretti was killed.

“Today DHS assassinated a VA nurse in the street, [Atty. Gen.] Bondi is attempting to extort voter files, and half the country is bracing on the eve of a potentially crippling ice storm with FEMA gutted,” she wrote in a post on X. “So what is the President up to? Having a movie night at the White House. He’s unfit.”

In the interview on Fox News a few days later to promote the film, the first lady was asked about the controversy in Minneapolis.

“I’m against the violence, so please if you protest, protest in peace,” she said. “We need to unify in these times.”

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio left the door open Wednesday to future U.S. military action in Venezuela, telling lawmakers that while the Trump administration does not anticipate further escalation, the president retains the authority to use force if Venezuela’s interim leadership or other American adversaries defy U.S. demands.

Rubio’s remarks came hours after President Trump deployed what he called a “massive armada” to pressure Iran back to the negotiating table over its nuclear weapons program, amid broader questions about how recent U.S. tensions with Denmark over Greenland are affecting American relations with NATO allies.

“The president never rules out his options as commander in chief to protect the national interest of the United States,” Rubio told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I can tell you right now with full certainty, we are not postured to, nor do we intend or expect to take any military action in Venezuela at any time.”

The appearance marked Rubio’s first public testimony before a congressional panel since U.S. forces seized former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and brought him to New York to face narco-trafficking charges nearly a month ago. Rubio was pressed by Democratic lawmakers over congressional war powers and whether the operation had meaningfully advanced democracy in Venezuela.

“We’ve traded one dictator for another. All the same people are running the country,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). Acting President Delcy Rodríguez “has taken no steps to diminish Iran, China or Russia’s considerable influence in Venezuela.”

Rodríguez, who formerly served as Maduro’s vice president, has committed to opening Venezuela’s energy sector to American companies, providing preferential access to production and using revenues to purchase American goods, according to Rubio’s testimony.

But questions remain about Rodríguez’s own alleged ties to trafficking networks. The Associated Press reported that she has been on the DEA’s radar for years for suspected involvement in drug and gold smuggling, though no public criminal charges have been filed.

And despite Trump’s warning that Rodríguez would “pay a very big price” if she does not cooperate, she has pushed back in public against U.S. pressure over trade policy.

“We have the right to have diplomatic relations with China, with Russia, with Iran, with Cuba, with all the peoples of the world. Also with the United States. We are a sovereign nation,” Rodríguez said earlier this month.

Venezuela is among the largest recipients of Chinese loans globally, with more than $100 billion committed over recent decades. Much of that debt has been repaid through discounted oil shipments under an oil-for-loans framework, financing Chinese-backed infrastructure projects and helping stabilize successive Venezuelan governments.

U.S. military leaders have warned Congress about Iran’s growing strategic presence in the hemisphere, including concerns over ballistic missile capabilities and the supply of attack and surveillance drones to Venezuela.

“If an Iranian drone factory pops up and threatens our forces in the region,” Rubio said, “the president retains the option to eliminate that.”

Democrats also argued that the administration’s broader foreign policy is undercutting U.S. economic strength and alliances, particularly in competition with China.

Despite Trump’s tariff campaign, China posted a record global trade surplus in 2025, lawmakers noted, while estimates show U.S. manufacturing employment has declined by tens of thousands of jobs since the tariffs took effect.

Senators pushed back on the State Department’s assertion that U.S. policy has unified allies against China, arguing instead that tariffs and recent military escalations involving Greenland, Iran and Venezuela have strained relations with key partners. They pointed to Canada as an example, noting that Ottawa recently reached a trade deal with China amid concerns about the reliability of the United States as a partner.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a Republican dissenter on Venezuela, rejected the Trump administration’s framing of Maduro’s capture as a law enforcement operation rather than an act of war.

He pressed Rubio on congressional authorization.

“If we said that a foreign country invaded our capital, bombed all our air defense — which would be an extensive bombing campaign, and it was — removed our president, and then blockaded the country, we would think it was an act of war,” Paul said as he left the hearing.

Congressional Republicans voted to dismiss a war powers resolution earlier this month that would have limited Trump’s ability to conduct further attacks on Venezuela after two GOP senators reversed course on supporting the legislation.

They did so based on informal assurances from the administration that it would consult members of Congress before taking military action.

“I was a big fan of [congressional] consultation when I was sitting over there,” Rubio said, joking about his tenure as a senator on the committee. “Now, you know, it’s a different job, different time.”

The War Powers Act dictates how the executive must manage military operations, including that the administration must notify Congress within 48 hours of a military operation.

“And if it’s going to last longer than 60 days, we have to come to Congress with it. We don’t anticipate either of these things having to happen,” Rubio said.

He added that the administration’s end goal is “a friendly, stable, prosperous Venezuela,” and cautioned that free and fair elections would take time as the administration works with Rodríguez to stabilize the country.

“You can have elections all day, but if the opposition has no access to the media … those aren’t free and fair elections,” Rubio said. “There’s a percentage of the Venezuelan population … that may not have liked Maduro, but are still committed to Chavista ideology. They’ll be represented in that platform as well.”

Rubio fell short of providing concrete timelines, prompting skepticism from lawmakers who cited ongoing reports that political prisoners remain jailed and that opposition figures such as Edmundo González Urrutia and María Corina Machado would still be blocked from seeking office. He will meet with Machado this week to discuss her role in the ongoing regime change.

“I’ve known Maria Corina for probably 12 or 13 years,” Rubio said. “I’ve dealt with her probably more than anybody.”

But the reality on the ground remains difficult, he said, adding the administration has hedged its bets on the existing Venezuelan government to comply with U.S. efforts to stabilize the economy and weed out political violence before fair elections can be held.

“The people that control the guns and the institutions of government there are in the hands of this regime,” Rubio said.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian emphasised that regional instability ‘benefits no one’ during the call.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has held a phone call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after a United States aircraft carrier arrived in the region amid growing fears of a new conflict with Israel or the US.

The US has indicated in recent weeks that it is considering an attack against Iran in response to Tehran’s crackdown on protesters, which left thousands of people dead, and US President Donald Trump has sent the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier to the region.

Pezeshkian hit out at US “threats” in the call with the Saudi leader on Tuesday, saying they were “aimed at disrupting the security of the region and will achieve nothing other than instability”.

“The president pointed to recent pressures and hostilities against Iran, including economic pressure and external interference, stating that such actions had failed to undermine the resilience and awareness of the Iranian people,” according to a statement from Pezeshkian’s office on Tuesday.

The statement said that Prince Mohammed “welcomed the dialogue and reaffirmed Saudi Arabia’s commitment to regional stability, security, and development”.

“He emphasised the importance of solidarity among Islamic countries and stated that Riyadh rejects any form of aggression or escalation against Iran,” it said, adding that he had expressed Riyadh’s readiness to establish “peace and security across the region”.

The call between the two leaders comes after Trump repeatedly threatened to attack Iran during a deadly crackdown on antigovernment protests this month. Last week, he dispatched an “armada” towards Iran but said he hoped he would not have to use it.

Amid growing fears of a new war, a commander from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on Tuesday issued a warning to Iran’s neighbours.

“Neighbouring countries are our friends, but if their soil, sky, or waters are used against Iran, they will be considered hostile,” Mohammad Akbarzadeh, political deputy of the IRGC naval forces, was quoted as saying by the Fars news agency.

Israel carried out a wave of attacks on Iran last June, targeting several senior military officials and nuclear scientists, as well as nuclear facilities. The US then joined the 12-day war to bombard three nuclear sites in Iran.

The war came on the eve of a round of planned negotiations between the US and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Since the conflict, Trump has reiterated demands that Iran dismantle its nuclear programme and halt uranium enrichment, but talks have not resumed.

On Monday, a US official said that Washington was “open for business” for  Iran.

“I think they know the terms,” the official told reporters when asked about talks with Iran. “They’re aware of the terms.”

Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that the odds of Iran surrendering to the US’s demands are “near zero”.

Iran’s leaders believe “compromise under pressure doesn’t alleviate it but rather invites more”, Vaez said.

But while the US builds up its presence in the region, Iran has warned that it would retaliate if an attack is launched.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson warned on Tuesday that the consequences of a strike on Iran could affect the region as a whole.

Esmaeil Baghaei told reporters, “Regional countries fully know that any security breach in the region will not affect Iran only. The lack of security is contagious.”

Jan. 27 (UPI) — Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Tuesday that oil shipments to Cuba have been suspended, reflecting a decision made by Petróleos Mexicanos within the framework of its contractual relationship with the island.

During her morning news conference at the National Palace, Sheinbaum was asked about press reports indicating that Pemex had canceled a crude shipment bound for Cuba scheduled for January.

The president did not deny the suspension, but stressed that it is up to the state-owned company to decide when and how shipments are carried out.

“It is a sovereign decision, and it is made at the time deemed necessary,” she said when questioned about the published information.

Sheinbaum said decisions related to energy supplies to Cuba are part of Pemex’s operational and contractual assessments. She emphasized that Mexico’s policy toward the island is neither new nor exclusive to her administration.

She noted that previous governments maintained different types of energy ties with Cuba, even amid political disagreements.

“From the first blockade of Cuba, Mexico was the only country that voted against it, and since then it has maintained communication and different types of relations with the island,” she said.

The president also framed the bilateral relationship within a historical tradition of Mexican foreign policy, which has maintained ties with Cuba since the early years of the economic embargo imposed by the United States.

“Beyond positions toward whichever Cuban government is in power, the relationship is with the peoples, and that is a fundamental principle of Mexican foreign policy,” Sheinbaum said.

In that context, Sheinbaum said the economic blockade has generated supply problems on the island and that Mexico has maintained a policy of solidarity with the Cuban people over time.

She added that any future decision on resuming shipments will be communicated in a timely manner by the relevant authorities.

Asked whether Mexico could play an intermediary role between Cuba and the United States in the event of bilateral tensions, the president said such initiatives can only move forward if both parties request them, and reiterated that Mexico will continue to promote dialogue and the peaceful resolution of international differences.

Mexico consolidated its position in 2025 as Cuba’s main oil supplier, covering approximately 44% of the island’s crude imports and displacing Venezuela, with an average of more than 12,000 barrels per day.

With Venezuela’s exit as a key supplier following the capture of President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3 by U.S. military forces, Mexico assumed a central role in supplying the island’s energy needs.

As a result, in Cuba the decision by Mexico could have a significant impact on its already fragile energy situation, by reducing one of the external sources that had helped ease the island’s fuel deficit.

The measure could translate into increased blackouts, transportation restrictions and disruptions to key sectors such as industry and services, in a context marked by a shortage of foreign currency and difficulties accessing alternative suppliers on the international market due to the blockade that has affected the island for decades.

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s promises on affordability in 2024 helped propel him to a second term in the White House.

Since then, Trump says, the problem has been solved: He now calls affordability a hoax perpetrated by Democrats. Yet the high cost of living, especially housing, continues to weigh heavily on voters, and has dragged down the president’s approval ratings.

In a poll conducted this month by the New York Times and Siena University, 58% of respondents said they disapprove of the way the president is handling the economy.

How the economy fares in the coming months will play an outsize role in determining whether the Democrats can build on their electoral success in 2025 and seize control of one or both chambers of Congress.

With housing costs so central to voters’ perceptions about the economy, both parties have put forward proposals in recent weeks targeting affordability. Here is a closer look at their competing plans for expanding housing and reining in costs:

How bad is the affordability crisis?

Nationwide, wages have barely crept up over the last decade — rising by 21.24% between 2014 and 2024, according to the Federal Reserve. Over the same period, rent and home sale prices more than doubled, and healthcare and grocery costs rose 71.5% and 37.35%, respectively, according to the Fed.

National home price-to-income ratios are at an all-time high, and coastal states like California and Hawaii are the most extreme examples.

Housing costs in California are about twice the national average, according to the state Legislative Analyst‘s Office, which said prices have increased at “historically rapid rates” in recent years. The median California home sold for $877,285 in 2024, according to the California Assn. of Realtors, compared with about $420,000 nationwide, per Federal Reserve economic data.

California needs to add 180,000 housing units annually to keep up with demand, according to the state Department of Housing. So far, California has fallen short of those goals and has just begun to see success in reducing its homeless population, which sat at 116,000 unsheltered people in 2025.

What do the polls say?

More than two-thirds of Americans surveyed in a Gallup poll last month said they felt the economy was getting worse, and 36% expressed approval for the president — the lowest total since his second term began.

The poll found that 47% of U.S. adults now describe current economic conditions as “poor,” up from 40% just a month prior and the highest since Trump took office. Just 21% said economic conditions were either “excellent” or “good,” while 31% described them as “only fair.”

An Associated Press poll found that only 16% of Republicans think Trump has helped “a lot” in fixing cost of living problems.

What have the Democrats proposed?

The party is pushing measures to expand the supply of housing, and cut down on what they call “restrictive” single-family zoning in favor of denser development.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Democrats plan to “supercharge” construction through bills like California Sen. Adam Schiff’s Housing BOOM Act, which he introduced in December.

Schiff said the bill would lower prices by stimulating the development of “millions of affordable homes.” The proposal would expand low-income housing tax credits, set aside funds for rental assistance and homelessness, and provide $10 billion in housing subsidies for “middle-income” workers such as teachers, police officers and firefighters.

The measure has not been heard in committee, and faces long odds in the Republican-controlled body, though Schiff said inaction on the proposal could be used against opponents.

And the Republicans?

A group of 190 House Republicans this month unveiled a successor proposal to the “Big Beautiful Bill,” the sprawling tax and spending plan approved and signed into law by Trump in July.

The Republican Study Committee described the proposal as an affordability package aimed at lowering down payments, enacting mortgage reforms and creating more tax breaks.

Leaders of the group said it would reduce the budget deficit by $1 trillion and could pass with a simple majority.

“This blueprint … locks in President Trump’s deregulatory agenda through the only process Democrats can’t block: reconciliation,” said Rep. August Pfluger (R-Tex.), who chairs the group. “We have 11 months of guaranteed majorities. We’re not wasting a single day.”

Though the proposal has not yet been introduced as legislation, Republicans said it would include a mechanism to revoke funding from blue states over rent control and immigration policy, which they calculated would save $48 billion.

President Trump has endorsed a $200-billion mortgage bond stimulus, which he said would drive down mortgage rates and monthly payments. And the White House, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the two enterprises that back most U.S. mortgages — continues to push the idea of portable and assumable mortgages.

Trump said the move would allow buyers to keep their existing mortgage rate or enable new homeowners to assume a previous owner’s mortgage.

The Department of Justice, meanwhile, has launched a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell over the Fed’s renovation costs, as Trump bashed him over “his never ending quest to keep interest rates high.”

The president also vowed to revoke federal funding to states over a wealth of issues such as childcare and immigration policy.

“This is not about any particular policy that they think is harmful,” Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Burbank) said. “This is about Trump’s always trying to find a way to punish blue states.”

Is there any alignment?

The two parties are cooperating on companion measures in the House and Senate.

The bipartisan ROAD to Housing Act seeks to expand housing supply by easing regulatory barriers. It passed the Senate unanimously and has support from the White House, but House Republicans have balked, and it has yet to receive a floor vote.

A bipartisan proposal — the Housing in the 21st Century Act — was approved by the House Financial Services Committee by a 50-1 vote in December. It also has yet to receive a floor vote.

The bill is similar to its twin in the Senate, with Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) working across the aisle with Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles). If approved, it would cut permitting times, support manufactured-housing development and expand financing tools for low-income housing developers.

There was also a recent moment of unusual alignment between the president and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who both promised to crack down on corporate home buying.

What do the experts say?

Housing experts recoiled at GOP proposals to bar housing dollars from sanctuary jurisdictions and cities that impose rent control.

“Any conditioning on HUD funding that sets up rules that explicitly carve out blue cities is going to be really catastrophic for California’s larger urban areas,” said David Garcia, deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

More than 35 cities in California have rent control policies, according to the California Apartment Assn. The state passed its own rent stabilization law in 2019, and lawmakers approved a California sanctuary law in 2017 that prohibits state resources from aiding federal immigration enforcement.

The agenda comes on the heels of a series of HUD spending cuts, including a 30% cap on permanent housing investments and the end of a federal emergency housing voucher program that local homelessness officials estimate would put 14,500 people on the streets.

In Los Angeles County, HUD dollars make up about 28% of homelessness funding.

“It would undermine a lot of the bipartisan efforts that are happening in the House and the Senate to move evidence-backed policy to increase housing supply and stabilize rents and home prices,” Garcia said.

The president’s mortgage directives also prompted skepticism from some experts.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were pressed to get into the riskier parts of the mortgage market back in the housing bubble and that was a part of the problem,” said Eric McGhee, a researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California.

The Rams won’t be the only no-shows at the Super Bowl. President Trump will be conspicuous in his absence from the biggest annual, single-day sporting event in the United States.

“It’s just too far away,” Trump told the New York Post. “I would go if, you know, it was a little bit shorter.”

Or perhaps not so far to his left?

Super Bowl LX will be played Feb. 8 at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, part of the San Francisco Bay Area that Trump has so often reviled.

The teams — the New England Patriots and the Seattle Seahawks — hail from deeply entrenched blue states. Massachusetts and Washington have voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election since 1988.

Trump also has expressed disgust over the musical performers at this year’s game: Bad Bunny and Green Day, both unabashed critics of the current administration. Bad Bunny will play the halftime show while Green Day will perform ahead of the kickoff.

“I’m anti-them,” Trump said. “I think it’s a terrible choice. All it does is sow hatred. Terrible.”

Ahead of a tour last fall to promote his most recent album, Bad Bunny (whose real name is Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio) announced he would skip the United States because he was afraid of ICE raids at his concerts. The Puerto Rican superstar — who has nearly 84 million monthly listeners on Spotify — explained why he made an exception for the Super Bowl.

“What I’m feeling goes beyond myself,” he said in a statement. “It’s for those who came before me and ran countless yards so I could come in and score a touchdown. This is for my people, my culture and our history.”

Green Day, an American pop-punk band of almost 40 years, has since Trump’s first term swapped a line in the lyrics of the 2004 hit “American Idiot” from “I’m not part of a redneck agenda” to “I’m not part of the MAGA agenda.”

Turning Point USA, the conservative non-profit founded by the late Charlie Kirk, announced in October that it would stage its own counterprogramming to the Super Bowl and stream it on conservative outlets. The “All American Halftime Show” is billed as “Celebrating Faith, Family, & Freedom.” As of Monday, musical artists had not been announced.

Trump became the first sitting president to attend a Super Bowl a year ago when he received a muted, mixed reaction of cheers and boos in New Orleans. But this year, the 5½-hour flight from Washington D.C. to the Bay Area apparently is too long for the president, who in January alone has flown to Switzerland, Detroit and Palm Beach.

Trump has long enjoyed attending high-profile sporting events. He was present at the College Football Playoff title game between Indiana and Miami a week ago and in 2025 attended the Army-Navy college football game, the U.S. Open Final and the Ryder Cup. In 2019, he attended Game 5 of the World Series in Washington D.C., where he was resoundingly booed.

The NFL has resisted pressure to replace Bad Bunny with a performer more politically palatable to Trump.

“There’s a lot of people right now who don’t like Bad Bunny being in the Super Bowl halftime show,” NFL chief marketing officer Tim Ellis said at a conference in October. “Well, not everyone has to like everything we do. Bad Bunny is f—ing awesome.”

Not everyone has to like the teams that earned Super Bowl berths and the states they call home, either. And not everyone has to approve of the venue. That includes the President, who made it clear that if he decides to watch, he’ll do so from a distance.

In 2007, Gustavo Petro was visiting Washington, DC, when he made an unusual request: to accompany his host’s friend on a school pickup run.

At the time, Petro was a rising star in the Colombian Senate who was in the United States to receive the Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Award for exposing politicians’ ties to paramilitary groups. His host was Sanho Tree, director of drug policy at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).

“That’s something I can’t do in Colombia,” Tree remembered Petro telling him. “If your assassins know you’re going to pick up your kid at a certain time, that’s extremely dangerous.”

Such dangers were not new to Petro.

He began his career being hunted by soldiers as an armed rebel with the M-19, an underground student movement that sought a fairer, more democratic Colombia. After laying down his rifle, he became a whistleblowing senator, holding hearings on the shadowy alliance between politicians and paramilitary groups that reached the highest echelons of power – and earned him a price on his head from a paramilitary leader.

Throughout, he has pursued the same issues in a country torn apart by decades of armed conflict and where land has long been concentrated in the hands of the wealthy few.

“One thing we can say about Petro is that he’s been consistent,” said Alejandro Gaviria, Petro’s former education minister, who has been both a critic and ally of the president.

“If you watch an interview of his 20 years ago, he has exactly the same ideas. Then he was talking about peace, land reform; he was even ahead of his time talking about environmental issues.”

In 2022, Petro was elected the first left-wing president of the South American country and entered the presidential palace with promises to lead Colombia in a more equitable, eco-friendly direction.

On the international stage, he has been a rare figure among Latin American leaders as an outspoken critic of US President Donald Trump. After the US attacked Venezuela in early January and abducted the country’s leader, Nicolas Maduro, Trump threatened military action against Colombia. The former rebel responded by saying he would “take up arms” again to defend Colombia. A detente soon followed after a phone call between the leaders.

As Petro has struggled to put his ideas into practice throughout his term and faced tensions with Trump, what drives Colombia’s president?

Bookish rebel

Petro was born in 1960 to a middle-class family in the Caribbean coastal town of Cienaga de Oro, but spent much of his childhood in the rainy capital, Bogota, and his teenage years in the city of Zipaquira.​

From a young age, he questioned authority.

“He likes discussion, but not dogma,” his father, Gustavo Petro Sierra, once said in an interview where he recalled an incident when his son was three. He had tried to punish his son by slapping his hand, but missed and accidentally struck his face. Petro had looked his father in the eye and yelled, “Don’t hit me in the face, Dad!”

Petro’s father, a teacher, inspired his son’s love of reading, and Petro was particularly influenced by the celebrated novel, One Hundred Years of Solitude, by the Colombian author Gabriel Garcia Marquez. His father gave him a copy as a birthday gift when he was a child, according to former Culture Minister Juan David Correa, who met Petro in 2021 as the editor of his memoir.

The magical realism epic immortalises Colombia’s civil wars and class struggles through the saga of the Buendia family through the 19th and early 20th centuries. After independence from Spain in 1810, Colombia experienced intermittent warfare between its two main political factions: the secular, reformist Liberals and the Conservatives, who wanted to maintain the Catholic, colonial status quo.

“That was a book that was definitive in our lives as Colombians,” explained Correa, noting Petro’s belief that Colombians must know their history.

“We have to know who these oligarchies or aristocracies are that ruled the country over the past 200 years of solitude [since independence], as [Petro] called it.”

In the colonial era, the Spanish oversaw a feudal-like system in which landless campesinos (rural workers) toiled for a pittance on behalf of wealthy landowners. In the Colombia that Petro grew up in, this system persisted. Even at the dawn of the new millennium, only 1 percent of landowners possessed half the arable land.

As a boy, Petro’s mother, Clara Nubia Urrego, would tell him stories about the turmoil in the country, including the assassination of Jorge Eliecer Gaitan. Gaitan, a presidential candidate for the Liberals, called for reforms, including land distribution, which landowners fiercely opposed. His murder in 1948 kicked off a decade of bloodshed, known as La Violencia, between Liberal armed rebels and the Conservative government.

A truce in 1958 led to a power-sharing arrangement between the Liberal and Conservative parties, known as the National Front. Things had seemingly calmed by the early 1960s, but in 1964, inspired by the Cuban Revolution, the remaining Liberal rebels roaming the countryside came together as the communist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the smaller National Liberation Army (ELN).

Meanwhile, the National Front blocked any legitimate alternatives, going so far as to rig the election on April 19, 1970 against the populist ANAPO (National Popular Alliance), which attracted people fed up with the two-party system, including Petro’s mother, who had joined the party. Seeing his mother’s sadness at the election results became Petro’s political awakening. He was 10.

At his Catholic school in Zipaquira, Petro and three other friends formed a study group and pledged to dedicate their lives to a better Colombia. They read Alternativa, a left-wing magazine founded by Garcia Marquez, which ran interviews with Chilean and Argentinian rebels and criticised the US sway over Latin America. They became involved with local unions, bringing together workers, salt miners and teachers.

In his memoir, Petro recalls his “communist” beliefs did not make him popular with priests or his classmates whose parents hung portraits of Spain’s fascist dictator General Francisco Franco on their walls. But he credits his high school as the place where he learned about liberation theology, a strand of Catholicism that advocates uplifting the oppressed.

“Since then, love for the poor has remained by my side,” he wrote.

“I didn’t learn that from Marxism, but from liberation theology.”

Occupying a hillside

In 1978, after enrolling at university in Bogota to study economics, Petro was handed a document by Pio Quinto Jaimes, a teacher involved in activist circles. It outlined the goals of an underground student movement known as the 19th of April Movement or M-19, named after the 1970 election. Jaimes was impressed by Petro’s work with the unions and considered him a worthwhile prospect for the group.

Although often described as “urban guerrillas”, M-19 was distinct from the uniformed rebels of the FARC or the ELN. Whereas the FARC recruited from rural workers and wanted a Cuban-style Marxist revolution, M-19 mainly consisted of politicised students who sought social democracy, denied by the two-party system.

Unlike the FARC’s camouflaged commandos, who would raid army outposts before disappearing into the jungle, M-19 operated in the cities and preferred symbolic stunts such as stealing the sword of Simon Bolivar, Colombia’s 19th-century liberation hero, from a Bogota museum.

“Bolivar has not died,” read a note they left behind. “His sword continues his fight. It now falls into our hands, where it is pointed at the hearts of those who exploit Colombia.”

The M-19 hijacked milk trucks to redivert the goods to poorer neighbourhoods, and orchestrated kidnappings targeting Colombia’s wealthy elite.

Petro read the document from cover to cover.

“The movement connected me with the reality of the country, with my mother’s stories about Gaitan, Bolivar, and the ANAPO,” he wrote in his memoirs. “It was as if it had struck a chord that intensely stirred some fibres within me.”

Petro, along with two of his high school study group friends, joined the M-19.

Although he learned to use a gun, he did not take part in armed operations. He was instead tasked with disseminating propaganda. He took on the nom de guerre Aureliano, after a rebel leader in Marquez’s novel.

After graduation, Petro returned to Zipaquira and was elected an ombudsman, a public advocate, in 1981, to hear residents’ complaints about the local government.

In the early 1980s, Petro edited a newsletter – Letter to the People – where he called on readers to occupy a hillside on the outskirts and turn it into a housing project for poor people. Some 400 impoverished families answered the call and found 22-year-old Petro and a group of young activists measuring out 6-by-12 metre (19.7×39.4 feet) plots. There were no wells or sewage, and residents had to collect rainwater.

The squatters were eventually granted permission to stay by the mayor, and the community evolved into a neighbourhood named Bolivar 83.

‘My youth was over’

By 1984, as peace negotiations between the government and M-19 gained momentum, Petro publicly acknowledged his involvement in the group.

“I did so at a demonstration that was one of the largest in the municipality’s history,” he said in an interview. “From then on, my life changed. My youth was over.”

After telling the crowd he belonged to M-19, Petro stepped back to applause.

But not everyone was pleased.

Petro’s father, who had no idea about his son’s secret life, was shocked by the risks he had been taking.

The talks with the government soon fell apart, meaning M-19 members were once again targets for arrest. Petro was forced to go underground.

He lay low in Bolivar 83, sleeping in different beds each night, and wore a disguise, a yellow dress and a wig, pretending to be a woman.

Around this time, Petro had a psychedelic revelation under the guidance of a shaman on a sacred mountain. Drinking ayahuasca, a powerful Amazonian brew, he experienced intense visions. The first showed an Indigenous princess descending from above as he was enveloped by roots.

“What does this mean?” he asked the shaman.

“Well, you are like a spirit taking care of nature,” the spiritual healer replied.

Petro, who recounted this experience in the book Children of the Amazon (2023), said this was the moment he realised his responsibility towards the environment. His second vision was more troubling: he saw his own death during an ambush.

In October 1985, soldiers poured into Bolivar 83, scouring the neighbourhood for M-19 rebels and intimidating residents. A terrified boy revealed the secret tunnels where Petro was hiding.

Petro was arrested, tortured for four days in a military barracks, and imprisoned. He served 16 months for possession of weapons, which he claimed were planted.

While imprisoned, he missed the birth of his first son, Nicolas. Katia Burgos, his wife, who he had known since childhood, was also with M-19.

Meanwhile, Colombia’s internal armed conflict escalated beyond the rebels and the government.

The rise of narcos

The emergence of drug cartels or narcotics traffickers, aka narcos, added another dimension to the conflict.

Cocaine, a white powder refined from coca leaves, gained popularity in the 1970s, fuelled partly by US disco culture. Initially, Colombia was mainly a transit point for cocaine smuggled from Peru or Bolivia, but it was not long before coca cultivation expanded within Colombia, soon becoming the most viable livelihood in rural areas.

Cocaine barons and other wealthy businessmen began bankrolling private armies and paramilitaries to protect their families and property from armed rebels.

Although both were engaged in criminal activities, the rebels sought to overthrow the ruling elite, but the narcos wanted to become part of it, pitting them on opposite sides of the conflict.

After his release from Bogota’s La Modelo prison in 1987 at age 26, the unease of Petro’s rebellion days stuck with him, and he even took to sleeping with an assault rifle under his bed.

The following year, he met Mary Luz Herran, an ardent M-19 member since she was 14. They would go on to marry and have two children, a daughter named Andrea and a son named Andres, before splitting.

Soon after they met, in 1990, the M-19 became the first significant rebel group to demobilise, transforming into the M-19 Democratic Alliance party.

But it was a dangerous time to be in Colombian politics.

In the 1980s and 90s, some 6,000 members of the left-wing Patriotic Union party were killed by narcos, paramilitaries and the security services.

M-19 were not spared, either. In 1990, their presidential candidate, Carlos Pizarro, was shot on board a passenger plane mid-flight.

While serving a term in Congress, Petro began receiving death threats from a paramilitary group called Colsingue, or Colombia Without Guerrillas, and for his and his family’s safety, he agreed to a diplomatic posting in Belgium in 1994. While there, he studied environmentalism and economics at the University of Louvain, and he became deeply interested in the work of Romanian economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, who warned that while the global economy relies on constant growth, the Earth cannot be exploited forever.

But Petro grew restless in Brussels. “I felt bored, nostalgic, and eager to return to the political arena,” he writes in his memoirs.

He returned to Colombia, where he was re-elected to Congress in 1998. Two years later, he met his third wife, then a 24-year-old law student named Veronica Alcocer. They soon married, and despite initial tension with Veronica’s father — whom Petro described as an “almost fascist” in an interview with a Colombian magazine — Petro and his father-in-law grew close through their shared love of reading and intellectualism. His funeral in 2012 was one of the few times Petro cried in public. They have two daughters, ​​Sofia and Antonella.

Meanwhile, in a bid to start peace talks in 1998, then-President Andres Pastrana conceded territory roughly the size of Switzerland to Colombia’s largest armed group, the FARC. It was meant to be neutral ground, but the rebels used it to recruit and train child soldiers, grow coca, hold captives and enforce their own brand of justice.

Enter Alvaro Uribe. A right-wing hardliner, Uribe won the 2002 presidential election by promising to quash the rebels with an iron fist.

With US support, Uribe’s beefed-up military inflicted devastating defeats on the FARC. Washington had an interest in stopping the flow of cocaine from the source to the US, and in the 2000s and 2010s, Colombia was the third-largest recipient of US military aid after Israel and Egypt.

Defying death squads

Overall, security improved, but the Uribe era revealed that the authorities had been colluding with paramilitaries for years. While presenting themselves as anti-communist vigilantes, the paramilitaries were responsible for the lion’s share of civilian deaths, terrorising vast swaths of the country.

In one particularly brutal episode in 1997, a band of armed men descended on the village of El Aro in Antioquia. Villagers were brutally tortured and raped, and up to 17 people were killed. The paramilitaries burned the village down as they left, and witnesses reported seeing a helicopter circling above — a yellow aircraft belonging to the Antioquia governor’s office, which at the time was occupied by Uribe.

The ghosts of El Aro were reawakened in the parapolitica (para-politics) scandal of 2006 after journalists and prosecutors revealed that several lawmakers were in league with far-right paramilitary groups, allowing them to murder and intimidate opponents while enriching themselves through bribes and illegal land grabs.

What happened next became one of the defining periods of Petro’s career. He held public hearings and accused the perpetrators of the El Aro massacre of operating with Uribe’s blessing while he was governor, such as by helping establish civilian “self-defence” groups as a front for the militias.

“Why the silence, Mr President?” Petro pressed him at a hearing. “Or does the government accept that violent narcoterrorists have a presence in its ranks?”

The then-president fired back, calling the senator a “terrorist in civilian clothes”. Uribe’s alleged paramilitary ties later landed him in a years-long court case from 2012, ending in his conviction for witness tampering last year, which was soon overturned on appeal.

Having lost comrades like Pizarro to the bloody purges of the 1980s and 90s, Petro knew all too well what he was up against. The scandal established him as a fearless crusader, but won him few friends.

“He was the one to [expose the paramilitaries] at a time when it was incredibly dangerous,” said Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli, a human rights advocate at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA).

“The impunity was so rampant … he was speaking to a Congress where 30 percent of it was linked to these groups.”

Tree, who nominated Petro for the human rights award in DC, remembered how the senator was on edge during this period.

“When I would meet with him in the mid-2000s in Bogota, he couldn’t stand near a window, and every night he had to go home by a different route,” Tree recalled.

Petro’s paranoia about standing near windows was not unwarranted; Salvatore Mancuso, the strongman behind the El Aro massacre, later confirmed that Petro’s name had indeed been on his hit list.

Mayor of Bogota

In 2010, Petro launched his first presidential bid but found himself at odds with his own party, the Democratic Pole, which sidelined him in favour of another candidate. Petro ran anyway and came in third overall.

He founded a new party, Humane Colombia, and successfully ran for mayor of Bogota in 2011.

While the previous mayor and his brother profited from corruption, Petro implemented many progressive reforms. A ban on brandishing firearms in public saw murder rates plunge to a three-decade low. Petro’s administration addressed animal cruelty, stopping the practices of using horse-drawn carts for rubbish collection and bullfighting, and pioneered mobile clinics for homeless drug users, treating addiction as a matter of public health.

“We were the first organisation to propose these [drug] reform ideas,” said Julian Quintero, director of Social Technical Action (ATS), a Bogota-based NGO focused on harm reduction and drug policy reform.

“Petro participated with us, and he sort of embraced the proposals we made to him.”

But Quintero noted that Petro’s governing style was also uneven, characterised by a rapid turnover of staff – a preview of his presidential years.

“Petro did very well as a senator because he’s a very good analyst who trembles with accusations when he’s in the opposition,” Quintero said.

“But when he takes office, he doesn’t stand out for his bureaucratic and technical skills. He’s not a good administrator. He changes teams very quickly, not allowing for continuity in his projects.”

Moreover, he added, in Colombia, “the left isn’t used to governing”.

Quintero noted that deeply entrenched right-wing interests also made Petro’s job more difficult. A failed attempt to overhaul the capital’s waste management system in 2013 ignited a political battle that saw Petro ousted from office by the arch-conservative Attorney General Alejandro Ordonez. That decision drew mass protests, and Petro was reinstated a month later – a sign that his brand of politics was gaining momentum.

Path to victory

In 2010, Petro had lost his presidential bid to Juan Manuel Santos, Uribe’s defence minister, who oversaw his campaign against the FARC in the 2000s. But it was Santos who – to Uribe’s dismay – brokered peace with the rebels in 2016.

When Uribe’s protege Ivan Duque took office in 2018, however, the government largely abandoned that agreement, and violence surged.

“[The Uribe faction] wanted a candidate, basically a puppet, who was to rip up the peace agreement and not let it advance,” WOLA’s Sanchez-Garzoli explained.

Armed groups, including rogue FARC commanders, drug cartels and paramilitaries, rushed to fill the power vacuum, where they once held sway.

Then, in 2021, Duque’s attempt to raise taxes prompted mass protests that were met with police brutality and dozens of deaths. The unrest and growing public disillusionment with the status quo, now fully exposed by the collapsing peace process and the pandemic-ravaged economy, meant Colombia finally had an opening for its first progressive president; a break from the conservative elite such as Uribe and Duque, who came from, and represented the interests of, the wealthy landowning class.

A leftist coalition called the Historic Pact rallied behind Petro for the 2022 elections.

Eager to include Liberals as well, Petro reached out to economist and former government official Gaviria.

“It’s kind of funny because when you see him at a rally, he’s really energised, but in a one-on-one interaction, he is timid, he is quiet, he is difficult to engage in conversation,” Gaviria said, recalling Petro’s visit to his home as he tried to build a coalition.

“When he visited my apartment, I was trying to ask him questions, and he never said anything to me. He stayed silent for five minutes.”

The presidential hopeful eventually proposed that Gaviria, then the Liberals’ presidential candidate, ally with his progressive forces.

Ultimately, in the second round of the election, Gaviria threw his support behind Petro, who offered him a place in his new cabinet as education minister when he took office that August.

International stage

As president, Petro took his message to the world. At his first United Nations speech, he warned, “the jungle is burning” while global powers were fighting over drugs and resources. He highlighted what he saw as the hypocrisy of vilifying cocaine while protecting coal and oil.

“What is more poisonous for humanity, cocaine, coal or oil?” he asked. With Colombia’s cocaine industry having fuelled decades of civil war, Petro has called for cocaine legalisation, calling the so-called war on drugs a failure.

“Cocaine is illegal because it is made in Latin America, not because it is worse than whisky,” he told a broadcast government meeting in February 2025.

In confronting the climate crisis, he has halted fracking and new gas projects to shift Colombia towards clean energy. In an economy reliant on fuel exports, however, this decision has been met with fierce scrutiny.

Petro has also sought to address the country’s armed conflict.

Influenced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, who believed true forgiveness meant forgiving the unforgivable, Petro presented Congress with a plan to bring all remaining cartels, armed rebels and paramilitaries to the table, including by suspending arrest warrants and empowering local leaders as mediators.

The plan was called “Total Peace”.

‘A dream’

Petro’s peace initiative was put to the test in Buenaventura, a key Colombian port on the Pacific Coast. The port had long been a strategic hub for cocaine smugglers loading cargo onto ships bound worldwide.

Then, in 2019, a deadly turf war exploded. Residents were terrified to leave their homes. In desperation, local archbishop Ruben Dario Jaramillo performed a mass exorcism of the city by spraying the streets with holy water from a convoy of vehicles.

But in October 2022, the leaders of two rival gangs met and shook hands at a church service, thanks to a truce brokered by Jaramillo, building on the Total Peace initiative. The following six weeks saw only one killing, compared with the previous monthly death toll of 25.

The broader peace plan, however, has had flaws. Anticipating a deal, armed groups consolidated their positions to get the upper hand in negotiations while taking advantage of ceasefires to recruit and resupply.

As Quintero observed, the groups calling themselves “guerrillas” today are mostly criminal gangs using the label to legitimise their actions. “There are no guerrillas with the ideology to overthrow the state,” he said.

“[Instead], today there are gangs of very well-armed drug traffickers posing as guerrillas.”

The two most problematic ones are the Gulf Clan and the ELN. The Gulf Clan is a powerful narco-paramilitary crime syndicate demanding talks to negotiate their surrender while aggressively expanding its empire. The ELN continues to carry out attacks and kidnappings and is battling a renegade FARC faction in the dense jungles of Catatumbo, a fertile coca-growing region near Venezuela, displacing tens of thousands of people and prompting Petro to declare a temporary state of emergency last January.

Gaviria said that while reining in heavily armed drug dealers hiding in mountains and jungles would be challenging for any government, Petro has not really had a plan.

“He thought political will was enough to achieve Total Peace, which is completely wrong,” Gaviria said.

He compared Petro’s approach with Santos’s.

“Santos had a strategy, a group negotiating with the FARC. He met with that group every week, having conversations with his experts around the world … he was very disciplined in the way he was conducting this difficult topic.

“Petro was just completely different. No strategy at all,” Gaviria added. “Big announcements and political will. [Petro] thought that was enough, and now we know that no, it was not enough, especially if you’re dealing with such a complex problem.

“Total Peace was not a strategy. Total Peace was an idea, a dream.”

The chaotic nature of Petro’s cabinet has also complicated matters. The turnover rate is high, averaging a new minister every 19 days. Gaviria resigned in early 2023, along with three other ministers, during a fallout over health reforms. And 13 ministers lost or left their jobs in just three months between late 2024 and early 2025.

“I think this is a direct result of his style of policymaking,” said Gaviria, describing it as “undisciplined”.

Petro tends to replace ministers with loyalists and former members of the M-19, while publicly squabbling with former staff and accusing them of disloyalty. Some connect Petro’s perilous past to this governing style.

“Petro has a paranoid style of government that almost defines him,” said Gaviria.

“He is always thinking that there is a conspiracy against him. And probably this idea is related to being a former guerrilla member and living [in hiding].”

Correa agreed, noting that Petro does not trust many people.

The replacements he selects, too, are not necessarily the best-qualified.

For example, Sanchez-Garzoli believes the ELN peace process collapsed because Petro appointed “an ideologue and less of a real negotiator”.

“They basically blew apart a process that could have demobilised thousands,” she explained.

For Gaviria, Petro is these days more interested in ideological battles on social media than in leading the country. “I think he knows that he has not been an effective president,” he said. “Governing a country can be difficult, boring … [and to be successful] you have to engage in difficult conversations. You have to change your mind.”

Petro, he believes, has struggled to accept that “tragic destiny”.

Legacy

Petro’s advocacy on Palestine – and the severing of diplomatic ties with Israel over its genocidal war on Gaza – the climate crisis, drug reform and willingness to confront Trump have won him international praise. Trump, without any evidence, has accused Petro of running cocaine mills and called him a “sick man” on several occasions.

Back home, Petro points to having reduced poverty and infant mortality rates, increased agricultural production, and provided greater access to education, but his criticised peace strategy has failed to deliver broad demobilisation, and stark inequality persists. His approval rating has dropped from 56 percent when he took office to almost 36 percent.

Petro’s presidency has been overshadowed by scandals, including his eldest son Nicolas’s arrest for alleged money laundering linked to narco campaign funding. He calls such attacks targeting his inner circle “lawfare”, aimed at weakening him, something he experienced when he was briefly ousted as mayor of Bogota.

“The first thing they tried to destroy was my family,” he told Spanish daily El Pais last February. “They wanted to destroy the emotional ties because a man without emotional ties becomes hard, bad, and errs.”

He conceded that the presidency is a role that brings him “absolute unhappiness”.

As Petro faces the end of his presidency this year, his legacy may be that of a polarising figure, a revolutionary who tried to overthrow the system from within — yet was unable to solve Colombia’s toughest challenges.

Still, Petro’s supporters see his presidency as the start of a social transformation.

“Our country is a very conservative society; our values, our classism are very, very evident,” said Correa.

“I think that it will take two generations to reconstruct the society … And I think that this government represents only a beginning, a seed for the new generation.”

WASHINGTON — The crisis touched off by President Trump’s demand to take ownership of Greenland appears over, at least for now. But the United States and its European allies still face a larger long-term challenge: Can their shaky marriage be saved?

At 75 years old, NATO has survived storms before, from squabbles over trade to estrangement over wars in Vietnam and Iraq. France, jealous of its independence, even pulled its armed forces out of NATO for 43 years.

But diplomats and foreign policy scholars warn that the current division in the alliance may be worse, because Trump’s threats on Greenland convinced many Europeans that the United States has become an unreliable and perhaps even dangerous ally.

The roots of the crisis lie in the president’s frequently expressed disdain for alliances in general and NATO in particular.

Long before Trump arrived in the White House, presidents from both parties complained that many NATO countries weren’t pulling their weight in military spending.

But earlier presidents still considered the alliance an essential asset to U.S. foreign policy and the cornerstone of a system that prevented war in Europe for most of a century.

Trump has never seemed to share that view. Even after he succeeded in persuading NATO members to increase their defense spending, he continued to deride most allies as freeloaders.

Until last year, he refused to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to help defend other NATO countries, the core principle of the alliance. And he reserved the right to walk away from any agreement, military or commercial, whenever it suited his purpose.

In the two-week standoff over Greenland, he threatened to seize the island from NATO member Denmark by force, an action that would have violated the NATO treaty.

When Britain, Germany and other countries sent troops to Greenland, he threatened to hit them with new tariffs, which would have violated a trade deal Trump made only last year.

Both threats touched off fury in Europe, where governments had spent most of the past year making concessions to Trump on both military spending and tariffs. When Trump backed down, the lesson some leaders drew was that pushing back worked better than playing nice.

“We do prefer respect to bullies,” French President Emmanuel Macron said.

“Being a happy vassal is one thing. Being a miserable slave is something else,” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said.

The long-term danger for the United States, scholars said, is that Europeans might choose to look elsewhere for military and economic partners.

“They just don’t trust us,” said Richard N. Haass, a former top State Department official in the George W. Bush administration.

“A post-American world is fast emerging, one brought about in large part by the United States taking the lead in dismantling the international order that this country built,” he wrote last week.

Some European leaders, including Macron, have argued that they need to disentangle from the United States, build military forces that can defend against Russia, and seek more reliable trade partners, potentially including India and China.

But decoupling from the United States would not be easy, fast or cheap. Europe and Canada still depend on the United States for many of their defense needs and as a major market for exports.

Almost all NATO countries have pledged to increase defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product, but they aren’t scheduled to reach that goal until 2035.

Meanwhile, they face the current danger of an expansionist Russia on their eastern frontier.

Not surprisingly for a group of 30 countries, Europe’s NATO members aren’t united on the question. Macron has argued for more autonomy, but others have called for caution.

“Despite all the frustration and anger of recent months, let us not be too quick to write off the transatlantic partnership,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said at Davos.

“I think we are actually in the process of creating a stronger NATO,” said Finnish President Alexander Stubb. “As long as we keep doing that, slowly and surely we’ll be just fine.”

They argue, in effect, that the best strategy is to muddle through — which is what NATO and Europe have done in most earlier crises.

The strongest argument for that course may be the uncertainty and disorder that would follow a rapid erosion — or worse, dissolution — of an alliance that has helped keep its members safe for most of a century.

The costs of that outcome, historian Robert Kagan warned recently, would be borne by Americans as well as Europeans.

If the United States continues to weaken its commitments to NATO and other alliances, he wrote in the Atlantic, “The U.S. will have no reliable friends or allies, and will have to depend entirely on its own strength to survive and prosper. This will require more military spending, not less. … If Americans thought defending the liberal world order was too expensive, wait until they start paying for what comes next.”