PROMISE

During a recent meeting of Egypt’s Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi, on Friday, October 17, Egypt’s Foreign Minister Abdelatty reiterated that “the resolution of the Palestinian question” remains central to the progress of the IMEC connectivity project and strengthening the strategic ties between India and Egypt. His comments captured the essence of the challenge that confronts the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), that grand infrastructure schemes in this region cannot be separated from enduring political conflicts. Abdelatty’s emphasis indicated that IMEC, which was launched with so much enthusiasm at the 2023 G20 Summit hosted by New Delhi, will only move from rhetoric to reality if its architects reconcile geography with geopolitics.

The Strategic Vision: What IMEC proposes

IMEC was announced as a transformative connectivity framework which aims to link India, the Arabian Peninsula, and Europe through maritime, rail, energy, and digital networks. The project promised to reconfigure the trade routes and foster sustainable growth by involving India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, Israel, and the EU with the support of the United States and major European economies. It also emerged as a counterpart initiative against China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, the “IMEC vs BRI” debate is as much about the narrative competition as about logistics. Yet translating that narrative into a functioning framework is a complex process.

IMEC’s blueprint comprises two interconnected legs. An eastern maritime route between India and Gulf ports and a northern corridor of railways across Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel leading into Europe. Furthermore, it envisions plans for electricity grids, a hydrogen pipeline, and digital fibre networks. The idea is to reduce shipping time between India and Europe by nearly 40% and diversify global supply chains away from vulnerable checkpoints such as the Suez Canal and the Red Sea.

 

Barriers to the Vision

The road to the execution of this vision remains riddled with obstacles. IMEC’s future depends on bridging political divides and closing financial gaps. The physical links across the Arabian Peninsula are still incomplete, and key rail segments between Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel exist largely on paper. Different technical standards and varied customs regimes with no unified authority to synchronise investment or implementation make the project susceptible. Moreover, the funding model lacks transparency. Neither a dedicated corpus nor a multilateral mechanism has been finalised, which leaves the corridor vulnerable to delays and competing priorities.

Furthermore, there is uncertainty due to diplomatic and security dynamics. The Israel-Gaza war has frozen Saudi-Israeli normalisation efforts that initially spirited the IMEC. Egypt’s renewed engagement suggests that Cairo intends to shape any connectivity framework that intersects its sphere of influence. Given the role of Egypt in the control of the Suez Canal and its political weight in the Arab World, Cairo’s participation is crucial. Abdelatty’s linkage of IMEC’s viability to progress on the Palestinian question implies that diplomatic legitimacy will precede logistical cooperation. Unless the participants address the regional trust deficit, the corridor politics may remain trapped between ambition and ambiguity.

Divergent Priorities of Participants

Each participant in IMEC has divergent goals. For India, the project aligns with its “Act West” policy and its long-time desire to consolidate middle-power status through connectivity leadership. For the Gulf monarchies, IMEC represents a channel to diversify beyond hydrocarbons and attract investments in technology and management. Europe views it as a hedge against over-dependence on Chinese infrastructure. To reconcile these varied interests, it is required to focus on continuous negotiations and proper planning. Tensions among Gulf states and between regional powers such as Iran and Turkey could further complicate the situation. The overlapping interests may blur the line between cooperation and competition, which will undermine cohesion before the corridor gains momentum.

From India’s viewpoint, IMEC holds immense significance if managed strategically. It will not only strengthen the supply-chain resilience but will also enhance energy security and expand India’s diplomatic footprint in the Middle East. The corridor perfectly aligns with global efforts to provide transparent alternatives to Chinese financing, for instance, the U.S.-led Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. However, this association might expose IMEC to great power rivalry, turning a development initiative into another strategic sport. This might dilute the economic rationale of the corridor.

Egypt and the Latest Turning Point

A new dimension has been added as Egypt re-emerges as a key stakeholder in the project. Cairo’s interests not only stem from geography but also from economic logic. The Suez Canal is the lifeline of the Egyptian economy, so any alternative corridor must complement rather than compete with it. Abdelatty’s emphasis on integrating political stability with economic planning reflects a broader regional lesson that peace and prosperity must progress together. Incorporating Egypt as a central player through port linkages or co-investment in logistics could enhance IMEC’s legitimacy and reliability. Contrary to this, if Egypt gets excluded, it may trigger diplomatic resistance or perceptions of marginalisation.

The most important question in the current context is whether IMEC can survive the cyclical turbulence of the world’s most unstable region. The region where energy markets are unstable and unresolved conflicts fuel the mistrust among participating states. Moreover, the delays in implementation might erode momentum. To demonstrate progress and sustain the confidence of investors, IMEC needs measurable milestones such as pilot projects, customs harmonisation or digital integration.  Even partial success, such as improved India-Gulf maritime connectivity or cooperation in renewable energy, could build credibility.

The Way Forward for IMEC

IMEC challenges the prevailing assumptions about how connectivity projects emerge in contested regions on a conceptual note. It suggests that strategic corridors can no longer depend solely on geopolitical alliances. They require inclusive governance, transparent financing, and conflict-sensitive design. Egypt’s diplomatic stance on the palestinian question and IMEC implies that development without justice is unsustainable. For India, the opportunity lies in using its credibility with multiple actors, such as Arab states, Israel, Europe and the U.S. to keep the corridor protected from zero-sum politics. This would present New Delhi not just as a participant but also as a facilitator.

In conclusion, IMEC is both a promise and a puzzle. It incorporates the aspiration for cooperative connectivity but remains hostage to the very divisions it aims to bridge. Abdelatty’s statement in New Delhi, which echoed across regional capitals, was less a warning than a reminder that infrastructure cannot transcend politics and it must be engaged with constructively. The corridor might evolve from a strategic deal into a genuine intercontinental partnership if India and its allies can translate this vision into sustained diplomacy and practical implementation. However, if it fails, IMEC will join the long list of visionary projects that turned out unsuccessful in the Middle East.

Published on 15/09/2025 – 15:34 GMT+2
•Updated
15:53

A French liberal MEP has gathered signatures from 20 other lawmakers for a letter seen by Euronews calling on the European Commission to review its commitment made under the EU-US trade agreement to purchase US energy.

In the document— soon to be sent to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, and Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen—the MEPs led by Christophe Grudler of Renew call on the EU executive to reconsider its pledge to buy $750 billion worth of US energy products over the next three years.

These products include liquefied natural gas (LNG), oil, nuclear fuels, and small modular reactors (SMRs). The signatories argue the deal will undermine the EU’s climate goals, industrial competitiveness, and strategic sovereignty.

“Increasing LNG imports from US shale gas directly undermines our climate agenda and our methane emissions regulation,” the letter says, adding: “LNG is highly polluting when liquefied, shipped across the Atlantic and regasified. Such dependence is a climate time-bomb.”

The initiative was launched by Christophe Grudler, a French MEP from the liberal Renew group.

The letter also warns that beyond energy concerns, the deal risks exposing the EU to “political blackmail”, the US demanding changes to EU climate policies, including the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, under which the bloc will apply levies on the carbon footprint of foreign imports from 1 January 2026.

The energy purchase commitment forms part of the EU-US agreement reached over the summer.

Some MEPs view the arrangement as deeply unbalanced, given that the US continues to impose 15% tariffs on EU goods, while the EU has agreed to make major investments in the US, including in the energy and defence sectors.

‘Economic imbalance’

In their letter to the Commission, MEPs also slam what they describe as the “economic imbalance” created by the pledge to purchase $250 billion’s worth of energy over three years. 

The letter describes this figure as “astronomical” adding: “To put this in perspective, the entire Competitiveness Fund proposed in the MFF amounts to €362 billion over seven years. How can we ask European companies to massively buy from the US while urging them to strengthen our competitiveness at home?”

The inclusion of US small modular reactors in the deal has also raised concerns among MEPs.

“At a time when the EU is building its own SMR supply chain, opening the door to US competitors is total nonsense.”

They further stress that commercial decisions “should remain the prerogative of companies, not be preempted by political pledges.”

What happens when those meant to enforce the law are the ones who break it?

For many in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital city in the North Central, before 2024, the answer lay in the abrupt, often unceremonious, motor checks conducted by Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIOs). To many motorists, these inspections, which were meant to ensure the roadworthiness of vehicles, appeared instead as an avenue for these officers to extort unlawful payments. 

Mubarak Muhammed*, a cybersecurity specialist, who once faced such a situation, said:

“I was stopped by these officers and asked to pay ₦9,000 for no reason. They searched my car but never found anything wrong with it, yet they still asked me to pay. I begged for them to let me go because at the time, I was low on funds, with only ₦11,000 in my account. Well, I ended up paying the money, but it wasn’t enough. Their Oga [referring to the senior officer] entered my car and told me I had to settle him privately, that he knew I had money, so I should give him ₦50,000.” At that point, Mubarak said he called his father, who sent their driver to retrieve the car. Only then did the officers back down. 

Stories like Mubarak’s are commonplace on the streets of Abuja, with ongoing claims by some motorists that extortive car searches were a day-to-day stressor. The issue was so rampant that in 2016, the Nigerian newspaper Daily Trust wrote an article summarising the concerns of many. In it, frustrated Abuja drivers expressed their displeasure with the car searches that left their pockets drained. 

Over the years, the issue has not faded. In 2024, some residents took to social media, their anger at the VIO system bitterly typed out. One user, in an essay posted on Reddit, expressed their disbelief over being fined ₦75,000 for allegedly beating a red light, an accusation they denied.

This slow-cooking pot of complaints finally reached its boiling point. Towards the end of 2024, human rights activist and lawyer Abubakar Marshal filed a lawsuit against the Federal Capital Territory Directorate of the Road Traffic Services (FCT-DRTS), commonly known as VIO. He argued that no law allowed the officers or related agents to stop, impound, confiscate, seize, or impose fines on motorists.

The judge, Evelyn Maha of the Federal High Court, Abuja, ruled in favour of Abubakar’s argument. On October 2, 2024, the court barred the VIO in FCT from carrying out such actions. 

The ruling was met with jubilation. On X, the microblogging site, one user said, “This is great news,” while another called it “Long overdue.”

But the victory was short-lived. The directorate quickly opposed the judgment and sought an appeal. A consensus was never reached, and so the initial judgment stayed in place: VIO vanished from Abuja’s bustling streets, vehicles went around without inspections, and motorists adjusted to a city without the officers.

That was until technology offered the officers a way back onto the roads

In February 2025, just four months after the ruling, the VIO unveiled an Automated Number Plate Recognition system (ANPR system) that allowed the officers to digitally check plate numbers and ensure all of a vehicle’s credentials were in place. Abdullateef Bello, the FCT-DRTS director, said the system had “legal backing.” It was a way to subvert the issues posed by the barring. Physical checks had been banned, but tech-geared ones hadn’t.

“We are embracing technology in our activities. We have even started,” Kalu Emetu, the spokesperson of the VIO in Abuja, told HumAngle. “Once you have committed certain offences, there will be no need for officers to go after you. What you will get is an e-ticket from us, and you will go and pay into a designated account which belongs to the government.” 

Digitally armed, the officers returned to the city’s streets in February, sliding back as if they never left. But, just as easily as they came back, so did the issues. 

For starters, some motorists told HumAngle that the technology was abandoned before it could even settle, and in less than a year, physical inspections have made a full comeback to the streets of Abuja, though this defies the legal bounds of their return. 

Hadiza Balal*, a 23-year-old learner driver, fell prey to one of these searches in June.

“I was flagged down in Mpape and asked to pull over. At the time, my car papers were expired, so when I was stopped, I knew I was entering a situation I would not easily escape.” 

The officer leaned his head through the window, eyes darting around the interior of the car in search. Finally, after what felt like an eternity to Hadiza, the officer asked her for the thing she feared he would: her car papers.

“When he noticed they had expired, he demanded I pay a fine. I thought the most he would ask for was ₦5,000, but he insisted I give him ₦27,000 to renew my papers,” she recounted. 

This process not only rattled Hadiza, but also stood in direct violation of what the officers were now allowed to do on the road. Physical papers were meant to be viewed on computerised devices, and checks were meant to be done with a quick scan of Hadiza’s plate number, not with the officer halfway into the driver’s seat.

What’s more, when Hadiza finally paid him, there was no e-ticketing as promised, just a demanded transaction that left her suspicious. 

“I managed to persuade the officer to lower the fine to ₦26,500, which would also cover the cost of renewing my documents,” she said, seeming frustrated. “But when I inquired about paying the fine at his station, he insisted that I pay him directly.”

Hadiza didn’t leave until a transfer was made into an account that, she claimed, could never belong to any official organisation. “It was a personal account,” she stated. “A first and last name, with no indication that the account belonged to the government.”

The moment the transfer was done, the officer’s attitude mellowed. The officer who’d been arguing with her was suddenly kind. But even after this struggle, Hadiza faced a second round of problems at the VIO office, where she went to renew the papers.

She described the place as cramped and stifling. The officers ignored her for several minutes before one approached her — not to assist, but to harass.

“He called me “baby girl” and told me I was his girlfriend. I wanted to punch him when he touched my leg, saying he wanted to get to know me more, but I didn’t do anything because I wanted the process to go fast so I could go home,” she recounted. 

Hadiza eventually renewed the documents. 

While some, like Hadiza, leave physical searches unopposed, others demand their right to a digital check, yet, even with their resistance, they are denied the right. 

At Life Camp roundabout in Abuja Municipal Area, Daniel Livinus was stopped by an officer who followed due protocol, only to be hounded by a second officer who didn’t.

“The first one came and scanned my plate number. He didn’t even say anything, just scanned and left,” Daniel recounted. “Not less than a minute later, another one came and asked me to show him my particulars. I said, “Ah, but you can check it on your phone now.” That’s all it took for the man to start shouting, “Will you be the one to teach me my job?”

The fight got heated, so much so that the first officer and a random passerby went to mitigate the situation. David said that both men sided with the aggrieved officer, saying that he should obey because the officer is “doing his job”. 

“If he followed normal protocol, I wouldn’t have had an issue with him,” Daniel added. 

While some motorists are denied the use of the technology, others face issues with it. Sometimes, when scans don’t go through, the officers use that as an incentive to fine motorists who haven’t done wrong.

For Nanlian Mamven, a 21-year-old youth corps member, his car, registered in Plateau State, made him a victim of this issue.

“VIO stopped me at a traffic light and ran my plate number through this new app,” he recounted. “The app is supposed to bring out all your registration information. Still, my details didn’t pop up for some reason, most likely because my car was registered in Plateau, and I think the app only covers FCT-registered cars. It should have been fine because I still had my valid registration papers, but the officers entered the back of my car, told me to drive to their station, and demanded I pay ₦ 28,000.”

Unlike the Federal Road Safety Corps (FRSC), which oversees traffic regulation across the entire country, the Vehicle Inspection Office is run by state governments and the FCT Authority. This means that systems or technologies introduced in the FCT, such as the ANPR app, may not apply uniformly in other states. As a result, vehicles registered outside the FCT often face complications when subjected to Abuja’s digital checks.

Nanlian soon realised this was not just a technical glitch but an extortion attempt. Only after he contacted his mother’s friend, a senior officer, did the demands vanish.

“The senior officer I called said no, the money they were asking for wasn’t the proposed money they should have called, so clearly they had added something to it. When I gave the phone to one of them, they hastily told me I could go. That was how I escaped that day,” he said.

Yet, even then, the ordeal did not end smoothly. Back home, Nanlian discovered his headphones and groceries missing from the backseat, items he claimed disappeared only after the officers entered his car.

“I put two-and-two together and realised they had taken my things,” he said, a claim we could not independently verify. “But at that point, I just let the matter go. Where was I going to start from?” 

The sense of helplessness he expressed seemed to be a recurring thing for many drivers. It didn’t matter if it was a plate number scanning or a physical search; one thing is clear: many of Abuja’s motorists feel slighted by the city’s vehicle inspection system.

When HumAngle contacted the VIO spokesperson with these allegations, he pushed back. Kalu argued that the problem lay less with officers and more with the motorists. 

“We’ve been having these accusations that our people collect their own share,” he told HumAngle. “But you know, people frame the story the way they want. What the present managers of the directorate are doing now is ensuring that technology takes over most of the activities. For example, if you are fined and told where you are going to pay, you wouldn’t have any reason to blame the person who stopped you because you’ve been given a specific government-owned account to pay into.”

Yet, for drivers like Hadiza, Daniel, and Nanlian, the gap between promise and practice remains wide. If nothing changes, more motorists may teeter to the extreme that Hadiza did when asked how she plans to handle driving in Abuja, sometimes abandoning their cars altogether and risking the city’s notorious “one-chance” cabs.

“I can’t lie to you,” she breathed out in frustration, “I think I now hate driving.” 

---

Names marked with an asterisk (*) have been changed to protect the identities of sources.

Donald Trump ran on a promise to use the powers of the government for revenge against those he claims have wronged him. He now appears to be fulfilling that campaign promise while threatening to expand his powers well beyond Washington.

On Friday, the FBI searched the home of John Bolton, Trump’s first-term national security advisor turned critic, who in an interview this month called the administration “the retribution presidency.”

Trump’s team has opened investigations of Democrat Letitia James, the New York attorney general who sued Trump’s company alleging fraud for falsifying records; and Sen. Adam Schiff of California, another Democrat who as a congressman led Trump’s first impeachment.

The Republican administration has charged Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) over her actions at an immigration protest in Newark, N.J., after arresting Mayor Ras Baraka, also a Democrat. Under investigation, too, is former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a longtime Democrat now running an independent campaign for New York City mayor.

Trump has directed prosecutors to investigate two other members of his first administration: Miles Taylor, who wrote a book warning of what he said were Trump’s authoritarian tendencies, and Chris Krebs, who earned the president’s wrath for assuring voters that the 2020 election, which Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden, was secure.

The actions look like the payback Trump said he would pursue after being hit with four separate sets of criminal charges during his four years out of office. Those included an indictment for his effort to overturn the 2020 election that was gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court, which said presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for official acts while in office. The remaining case was dismissed after Trump was elected in November, a consequence of Justice Department policy not to bring charges against sitting presidents.

The Trump team has countered by accusing the president’s foes of politicizing the legal process against him.

“Joe Biden weaponized his administration to target political opponents — most famously, President Trump,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said Saturday. Trump, she said, “is restoring law and order.”

In addition to making good on his promises of retribution, Trump has deployed the military into American cities, which he says is needed to fight crime and help with immigration arrests. He has sent thousands of National Guard troops and federal law enforcement officers to patrol the streets in the nation’s capital, after activating the guard and Marines in Los Angeles earlier this year.

Taken together, the actions have alarmed Democrats and others who fear Trump is wielding the authority of his office to intimidate his political opponents and consolidate power in a way that is unprecedented in U.S. history.

“You combine the threat of prosecution with armed troops in the streets,” said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College. “The picture is pretty clear for anyone who’s read a history book what kind of administration we’re dealing with.”

Past election investigations are a Trump focus

Trump began his second term as the only felon to ever occupy the White House, after his conviction last year on fraud charges related to hush money payments to a porn star during his 2016 presidential campaign.

He promptly pardoned more than 1,500 people who were convicted of crimes during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and insurrection at the U.S. Capitol — including people found guilty of sedition and of assaulting police officers.

His Justice Department, meanwhile, has fired some federal prosecutors who had pursued those cases. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi ordered a grand jury to look into the origins of the investigation of his 2016 campaign’s ties with Russia, and Trump has called on her department to investigate former Democratic President Obama.

The government’s watchdog agency has opened an investigation into Jack Smith, the special counsel who investigated Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and the classified documents stashed at his Florida estate. Those cases were among several that dogged Trump in the years between his presidential terms, including the New York fraud case and charges for election interference in Georgia brought by the Democratic prosecutor in Fulton County.

All those investigations led him to claim that Democrats had weaponized the government against him.

“It is amazing to me the number of people the Trump administration has gone after, all of whom are identified by the fact that they investigated or criticized Trump in one way or another,” said Stephen Saltzburg, a former Justice Department official who is a George Washington University law professor.

On Friday, Trump used governmental powers in other ways to further his goals. He announced that Chicago could be the next city subject to military deployments.

And after his housing director alleged that one of the governors of the independent Federal Reserve had committed mortgage fraud, Trump demanded she resign or be fired. He took to his social platform on Saturday to highlight the claims, as he tries to wrest control of the central bank.

‘I’m actually the chief law enforcement officer’

Vice President JD Vance denied in a television interview that Bolton was being targeted because of his criticism of Trump.

“If there’s no crime here, we’re not going to prosecute it,” Vance said Friday in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Trump said he told his staff not to inform him about the Bolton search ahead of time, but he emphasized that he has authority over all prosecutions.

“I could know about it. I could be the one starting it,” the president told reporters. “I’m actually the chief law enforcement officer.”

Bolton occupies a special place in the ranks of Trump critics. The longtime GOP foreign policy hawk wrote a book published in 2020, after Trump had fired him the year before. The first Trump administration sued to block the book’s release and opened a grand jury investigation, both of which were halted by the Biden administration.

Bolton landed on a list of 60 former officials drawn up by now-FBI Director Kash Patel that he portrayed as a tally of the “Executive Branch Deep State.” Critics warned it was an “enemies list.” When Trump returned to office in January, his administration revoked the security detail that had been assigned to Bolton, who has faced Iranian assassination threats.

The FBI is now investigating Bolton for potentially mishandling classified information, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly. In contrast, Trump condemned the FBI’s search of his own Mar-a-Lago resort in 2022, which prosecutors say turned up a trove of classified documents, including nuclear data and other top-secret papers.

Retribution is wide-ranging, from judges to the military

Trump has also targeted institutions that have defied him.

The president issued orders barring several law firms that were involved in litigation against him or his allies, or had hired his opponents, from doing business with the federal government. Trump cut deals with several other firms to do free legal work rather than face penalties. He has targeted universities for funding cuts if they do not follow his administration’s directives.

His administration filed a judicial misconduct complaint against a judge who ruled that Trump officials probably committed criminal contempt by ignoring his directive to turn around planes carrying people being sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

The actions are among steps that seem to be intensifying. Trump’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has fired several military leaders perceived to be critics of the president or not sufficiently loyal, and last week the administration revoked the security clearances of about three dozen current and former national security officials.

“It’s what he promised,” said Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department official and Biden White House staffer who is a law professor at Loyola Marymount University. “It’s what bullies do when no one tells them ‘no.’ ”

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

Debt is holding back economic growth for many low income countries. When South Africa took over the Group of 20 presidency last year, it promised it would take on that challenge, improve food security and represent African nations from the head of the table.

As the G20’s finance ministers meet in Durban without the United States Treasury secretary and with just four months left in its term, has South Africa lived up to those promises?

Can organisations like the G20 ever really bring about change?

And in a transactional global economy, has South Africa’s leadership role come just as organisations like this matter less?

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s megabill encompassing his domestic agenda on Monday inched closer to becoming law as Republican senators sifted through familiar procedural hurdles toward a final vote on legislation that would dramatically transform the tax code and Medicaid.

Throughout a day of marathon voting, senators offered amendments to the bill that could ultimately decide whether it secures passage through Congress. If the Senate approves the legislation — as it is expected to do by a slim, simple majority and with bipartisan opposition — then the House will have to vote for a second time on the final text before it goes to the president’s desk for his signature.

Anticipating Senate passage, the House Rules Committee has already scheduled a hearing on reconciling the two bills for Tuesday. The White House previously set July 4 as a goal to get the package, called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” passed by both chambers.

But several Republicans are still criticizing the bill, including Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who announced he will not seek reelection in 2026 over the weekend before ripping into the legislation as a “betrayal” to voters.

Although the legislation has hundreds of provisions, its most sweeping would make tax breaks passed in 2017 during Trump’s first term permanent — an expensive proposition — before they are set to expire at the end of this year, while attempting to offset some of those costs with historic cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, social welfare programs that for decades had been seen as a political third rail.

Polling shows that Americans broadly support extending the 2017 tax cuts. Other expensive programs in the bill — including additional funding for border security and defense — also enjoy public support. But polls indicate that the public disapproves of the bill overall by a double-digit margin due to its cuts to core government programs.

“What do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years, when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding’s not there anymore?” Tillis said in a speech from the Senate floor. “The people in the White House advising the president are not telling him that the effect of this bill is to break a promise.”

Both Paul and Tillis voted against advancing the bill to a floor vote and have indicated they will vote “no” on its final passage.

“Republicans are about to make a mistake on healthcare, and betraying a promise,” Tillis continued. “It is inescapable that this bill in its current form will betray the very promise that Donald J. Trump made in the Oval Office, or in the Cabinet room, when I was there with Finance [Committee members] where he said, ‘We can go after waste, fraud and abuse on any programs.’”

Tillis and a handful of his colleagues, including Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, have expressed concern with elements of the bill that restrict state taxes on healthcare providers, known as the “provider tax,” an essential tool for many states in their efforts to supplement Medicaid funding.

The Senate parliamentarian has already determined that the provision, among others, fails to follow the rules of the chamber and must be removed or modified. Another passage crucial to the bill, which introduces a structure for work requirements for Medicaid, was halted by the parliamentarian.

Republicans efforts to prohibit the use of Medicaid funds on gender transition care, to cancel regulations that require a minimum staffing ratio at nursing homes and to limit Medicaid access to immigrants were also cut by the parliamentarian, who continued to review amendments to the bill as they were introduced Monday.

The parliamentarian’s moves eat into the stated cost savings of a bill that is already slated to add trillions of dollars to the debt over the next decade — a problem for fiscal hawks in both chambers whose votes will be crucial for passage.

They also gutted key provisions that were top priorities for Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the focus of an intense lobbying campaign by Senate Republican leadership after expressing skepticism over several provisions of the legislation. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who is up for reelection next cycle, has also expressed concern over its cuts to Medicaid.

“This is an ongoing process — the president continues to be very much engaged with the leadership in both the Senate and the House,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, told reporters in a briefing Monday. “He understands that legislators want to protect jobs in the communities and their districts.”

Democrats in the Senate have been united in their opposition to the bill, with Mark Kelly, of Arizona, warning Republicans of electoral repercussions.

“If they lose their health insurance,” he told MSNBC in an interview, “sure, they’re going to remember.”

But the potential political windfall for Democrats isn’t stopping the party from attempting to improve the legislation, he said, noting a number of amendments proposed by Democratic senators Monday that would roll back cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.

If the bill does ultimately clear the Senate, Republicans will have only a handful of votes in the House to spare in a final vote. And several are already suggesting they will vote against it, including Rep. David Valadao of California, whose constituents rely heavily on Medicaid.

“I’m not a ‘yes’ necessarily,” said Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican from Nebraska who has announced his retirement. Bacon added that he believes the Senate version has gone too far in gutting healthcare programs. “I think we’ll have a hard time passing.”

An intraparty fight has also broken out among Republicans over the fate of green energy tax credits, which several GOP senators — including Murkowski, as well as Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst of Iowa — sought to preserve for several more years. A group of House Republicans had successfully lobbied in their version of the bill to speed up the termination of those credits.

Elon Musk, a co-founder of Tesla, and Trump’s close advisor and benefactor before the two men fell out this month, renewed his attacks on the legislation Monday, calling it “utterly insane and destructive” for its price tag.

“It is obvious with the insane spending of this bill, which increases the debt ceiling by a record FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS that we live in a one-party country — the PORKY PIG PARTY!!” Musk wrote.

“Time for a new political party,” he added, “that actually cares about the people.”

FLORIAN WIRTZ reportedly chose Liverpool over Bayern Munich after being given an irresistible promise by Arne Slot.

The highly-rated German star was courted by both clubs but in the end the guarantee of the No10 role tipped the scales in the Reds’ favour.

4

4

4

According to Caughtoffside, Wirtz revealed that the decision was ultimately made after Slot assured him he would be THE playmaker in his Liverpool team.

While Bayern offered him the prospect of competing in their world-class side, the path to regular first-team football was far from clear.

Jamal Musiala’s rapid rise at the Allianz Arena and the presence of more established players such as Joshua Kimmich meant that Wirtz would have had to fight for his place in the midfield.

But at Liverpool, it is a different story – he would be the main man at Anfield.

The creative hub of the team, controlling the game from midfield and leading Liverpool’s attack.

Slot promised Wirtz full control of the No10 role, a position that would be his alone.

This clear-cut offer of a starring role was a far cry from the uncertainty Bayern offered.

In the end Wirtz made his choice opting for the chance to be Liverpool’s attacking leader.

CASINO SPECIAL – BEST CASINO BONUSES FROM £10 DEPOSITS

The fact that Liverpool have won the Premier League in Slot’s first season is also contributing factor as it has highlighted the manager’s ability to bring the best out of young players.

The Dutch manager has been able to get the best out of both old and new faces with Mohamed Salah and Virgil van Dijk enjoying stellar campaign as well as Curtis Jones and Cody Gakpo

How close are Liverpool to a deal?

The Premier League champions have submitted a second improved bid for the Germany midfielder.

Liverpool’s latest offer for the 22-year-old is about £109m, including add-ons.

Wirtz is a key target for the Merseyside club and has made his wishes clear about wanting to join Liverpool before next season.

4

Celebs Go Dating have made a late addition to their lineup for the upcoming E4 series, adding a Celebrity Big Brother star following the surprise withdrawal of Christine McGuinness

A Celebrity Big Brother star has become a late addition to the latest Celebs Go Dating lineup – and made a bold promise. Donna Preston is ready to swap one reality TV show for another and dip her toe in the on-screen dating world on the E4 show.

However, she has admitted she won’t be easily pleased and will make her feelings known if she feels her match isn’t up to scratch. Donna, 38, is set to appear alongside Atomic Kitten’s Kerry Katona, The Chase’s Mark Labbett, S Club 7’s Jon Lee, Love Island’s Olivia Hawkins and Too Hot To Handle’s Louis Russell.

Donna’s late addition comes following the shock exit of Christine McGuinness. The ex-wife of Paddy McGuinness had initially signed up, but quickly realised she wasn’t ready for the scrutiny that came with it.

Donna’s fellow CBB housemate, Chris Hughes, had also been lined up to take part, but shunned the opportunity shortly after leaving the house.

Opening up about her inclusion, Donna said: “I’m buzzing to be joining the show and finally crack the code on what men really want, besides snacks and not being asked what they’re thinking.

“I’m intrigued to meet new people, but let’s be honest, if a date’s boring, I won’t waste anyone’s time. Life’s too short to sit through tales of someone’s coin collection, I’ll be gone before the starter arrives.”

While she was a late name to join the series, there had been talk of her taking part prior to her spell in ITV’s Big Brother house. Before last month’s show, a source had said: “Donna was toying with dipping her toe in the dating pool on TV and had been in talks with bosses on the E4 show, but then she was also offered CBB.”

Speaking to the Sun, the source added: “She felt it was the better career move.”

Earlier this month while speaking to the Mirror at the BAFTA TV Awards, Christine opened up on her decision to step back from the show. She also teased her inclusion in a new project.

Speaking on the red carpet at the event, she admitted she focusing on work which takes her mind off wanting to find a companion in the future.

She went on to add: “There’s going to be an announcement in a few weeks which i’m very, very excited about for a new project I’ve been working on.”

She had previously said: “I joined Celebs Go Dating with great intentions but have realised that dating on a public platform and the attention is brings is just too soon for me.”

Without ruling out the possibility of returning to the show in the future, she added: “They’ve said the door is always open for me which I’m so grateful but for now I’m returning home to my family.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

READ MORE: Beauty buffs find ‘genius’ way to make fake tan last longer – it sells every 20 seconds

La Super-Rica is a California original, a culinary mecca in a taco shack setting devoted to chile, cheese, charred meat and masa. It’s true that there are other Santa Barbara taquerias with more inventive salsas (pistachio at Mony’s) or adventurous cuts of meat (beef head, cheek or lip tacos at Lilly’s, with eye and tripas on weekends). And, yes, you will be standing in the fast-moving line with other out-of-towners who may have read about the long-ago accolades from Julia Child or spotted a replica of the white-and-aqua stand in Katy Perry’s “This Is How We Do” video. Yet as an Angeleno with hometown access to some of the world’s best tacos from nearly every Mexican region, I rarely pass the Milpas Street exit off the 101 without joining the crowd. My late husband and this paper’s former restaurant critic, Jonathan Gold, was a Super-Rica partisan, and both of my now-grown children remain loyal to the restaurant founded in 1980 by Isidoro Gonzalez. But it’s not nostalgia that brings me back. I’m here for the tacos de rajas, strips of pasilla chiles, onions and cheese melded onto tortillas constantly being patted and pressed from the snow drift of masa behind Gonzalez as he takes your order; for the crisp-edged marinated pork adobado, either in a taco or in the Super-Rica Especial with pasillas and cheese; for the chorizo, sliced and crumbled into a bowl of queso; or for the tri-tip alambre with sauteed bell peppers, onion and bacon. It’s never easy to decide, especially with Gonzalez’s board of specials. But I never leave without Super-Rica’s soupy, smoky pinto beans with charred bits of chorizo, bacon and chile.