pursue

NEW YORK — President Trump is openly embracing the conservative blueprint he desperately tried to distance himself from during the 2024 campaign, as one of its architects works to use the government shutdown to accelerate his goals of slashing the size of the federal workforce and punishing Democratic states.

In a post on his Truth Social site Thursday morning, Trump announced he would be meeting with his budget chief, “Russ Vought, he of PROJECT 2025 Fame, to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut, and whether or not those cuts will be temporary or permanent.”

The comments represented a dramatic about-face for Trump, who spent much of last year denouncing Project 2025, The Heritage Foundation’s massive proposed overhaul of the federal government, which was drafted by many of his longtime allies and current and former administration officials.

Both of Trump’s Democratic rivals, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, made the far-right wish list a centerpiece of their campaigns, and a giant replica of the book featured prominently onstage at the Democratic National Convention.

“Donald Trump and his stooges lied through their teeth about Project 2025, and now he’s running the country straight into it,” said Ammar Moussa, a former spokesperson for both campaigns. “There’s no comfort in being right — just anger that we’re stuck with the consequences of his lies.”

Shalanda Young, director of the Office of Management and Budget under Biden, said the administration had clearly been following the project’s blueprint all along.

“I guess Democrats were right, but that doesn’t make me feel better,” she said. “I’m angry that this is happening after being told that this document was not going to be the centerpiece of this administration.”

Asked about Trump’s reversal, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said, “Democrats are desperate to talk about anything aside from their decision to hurt the American people by shutting down the government.”

Project what?

Top Trump campaign leaders spent much of 2024 livid at The Heritage Foundation for publishing a book full of unpopular proposals that Democrats tried to pin on the campaign to warn a second Trump term would be too extreme.

While many of the policies outlined in its 900-plus pages aligned closely with the agenda that Trump was proposing — particularly on curbing immigration and dismantling certain federal agencies — others called for action Trump had never discussed, like banning pornography, or Trump’s team was actively trying to avoid, like withdrawing approval for abortion medication.

Trump repeatedly insisted he knew nothing about the group or who was behind it, despite his close ties with many of its authors. They included John McEntee, his former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, and Paul Dans, former chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

“I know nothing about Project 2025,” Trump insisted in July 2024. “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

Trump’s campaign chiefs were equally critical.

“President Trump’s campaign has been very clear for over a year that Project 2025 had nothing to do with the campaign, did not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated with the campaign or the President in any way,” wrote Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita in a campaign memo. They added, “Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign — it will not end well for you.”

Trump has since gone on to stock his second administration with its authors, including Vought, “border czar” Tom Homan, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, immigration hard-liner Stephen Miller and Brendan Carr, who wrote Project 2025’s chapter on the Federal Communications Commission and now chairs the panel.

Heritage did not respond to a request for comment Thursday. But Dans, the project’s former director, said it’s been “exciting” to see so much of what was laid out in the book put into action.

“It’s gratifying. We’re very proud of the work that was done for this express purpose: to have a doer like President Trump ready to roll on Day One,” said Dans, who is currently running for Senate against Lindsey Graham in South Carolina.

Trump administration uses the shutdown to further its goals

Since his swearing in, Trump has been pursuing plans laid out in Project 2025 to dramatically expand presidential power and reduce the size of the federal workforce. They include efforts like the Department of Government Efficiency and budget rescission packages, which have led to billions of dollars being stalled, scrapped or withheld by the administration so far this year.

They are now using the shutdown to accelerate their progress.

Ahead of the funding deadline, OMB directed agencies to prepare for additional mass firings of federal workers, rather than simply furloughing those who are not deemed essential, as has been the usual practice during past shutdowns. Vought told House GOP lawmakers in a private conference call Wednesday that layoffs would begin in the next day or two.

They have also used the shutdown to target projects championed by Democrats, including canceling $8 billion in green energy projects in states with Democratic senators and withholding $18 billion for transportation projects in New York City that have been championed by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries in their home state.

Dreaming of this moment

The moves are part of a broader effort to concentrate federal authority in the presidency, which permeated Project 2025.

In his chapter in the blueprint, Vought made clear he wanted the president and OMB to wield more direct power.

“The Director must view his job as the best, most comprehensive approximation of the President’s mind,” he wrote. Vought described OMB as “a President’s air-traffic control system,” which should be “involved in all aspects of the White House policy process,” becoming “powerful enough to override implementing agencies’ bureaucracies.”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said on Fox News Channel that Vought “has a plan, and that plan is going to succeed in further empowering Trump. This is going to be the Democrats’ worst nightmare.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson echoed that message, insisting the government shutdown gives Trump and his budget director vast power over the federal government and the unilateral power to determine which personnel and policies are essential and which are not.

Schumer has handed “the keys of the kingdom to the president,” Johnson said Thursday. “Because they have decided to vote to shut the government down, they have now effectively turned off the legislative branch … and they’ve turned it over to the executive.”

Young said the Constitution gives the White House no such power and chastised Republicans in Congress for abandoning their duty to serve as a check on the president.

“I don’t want to hear a lecture about handing the keys over,” she said. “The keys are gone. They’re lost. They’re down a drain. This shutdown is not what lost the keys.”

Colvin writes for the Associated Press.

Eight months into his second term, President Trump’s long-standing pledge to take on those he perceives as his political enemies has prompted debates over free speech, media censorship and political prosecutions.

Trump has escalated moves to consolidate power in his second administration and target those who have spoken out against him, including the suspension of late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s show, Pentagon restrictions on reporters and an apparent public appeal to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to pursue legal cases against his adversaries.

In a post on social media over the weekend addressed to Bondi, Trump said that “nothing is being done” on investigations into some of his foes.

“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” he said. Referencing his impeachment and criminal indictments, he said, “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

Criticizing investigations into Trump’s dealings under Democratic President Biden’s Justice Department, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that “it is not right for the Trump administration to do the same thing.”

Directive to Bondi

Trump has ratcheted up his discussion of pursuing legal cases against some of his political opponents, part of a vow for retribution that has been a theme of his return to the White House. He publicly pressed Bondi over the weekend to move forward with such investigations.

Trump posted somewhat of an open letter on social media Saturday to his top prosecutor to advance such inquiries, including a mortgage fraud investigation of New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James and a possible case against former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump accuses of threatening him.

The president posted that he had “reviewed over 30 statements and posts” that he characterized as criticizing his administration for a lack of action on investigations.

“We have to act fast — one way or the other,” Trump told reporters later that night at the White House. “They’re guilty, they’re not guilty — we have to act fast. If they’re not guilty, that’s fine. If they are guilty or if they should be charged, they should be charged. And we have to do it now.”

Trump later wrote in a follow-up post that Bondi was “doing a GREAT job.”

Paul, a frequent Trump foil from the right, was asked during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about the propriety of a president directing his attorney general to investigate political opponents. The senator decried “lawfare in all forms.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said it was “unconstitutional and deeply immoral for the president to jail or to silence his political enemies.” He warned that it could set a worrisome precedent for both parties.

“It will come back and boomerang on conservatives and Republicans at some point if this becomes the norm,” Murphy said on ABC’s “This Week.”

The Senate’s Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Trump is turning the Justice Department “into an instrument that goes after his enemies, whether they’re guilty or not, and most of them are not guilty at all, and that helps his friends. This is the path to a dictatorship. That’s what dictatorships do.”

The Justice Department did not respond Sunday to a message seeking comment.

Letitia James investigation

Each new president nominates his own U.S. attorneys in jurisdictions across the country. Trump has already worked to install people close to him in some of those jobs, including former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro in the District of Columbia and Alina Habba, his former attorney, in New Jersey.

Trump has largely stocked his second administration with loyalists, continuing Saturday with the nomination of a White House aide as top federal prosecutor for the office investigating James, a longtime foe of Trump.

The president announced Lindsey Halligan to be the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia on Saturday, just a day after Erik Siebert resigned from the post and Trump said he wanted him “out.”

Trump said he was bothered that Siebert had been supported by the state’s two Democratic senators.

“There are just two standards of justice now in this country. If you are a friend of the president, a loyalist of the president, you can get away with nearly anything, including beating the hell out of police officers,” Murphy said, mentioning those convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and insurrection at the U.S. Capitol pardoned by Trump as he returned to office. “But if you are an opponent of the president, you may find yourself in jail.”

New restrictions on Pentagon reporters

Trump has styled himself as an opponent of censorship, pledging in his January inaugural address to “bring free speech back to America” and signing an executive order that no federal officer, employee or agent may unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.

Under a 17-page memo distributed Friday, the Pentagon stepped up restrictions on the media, saying it will require credentialed journalists to sign a pledge to refrain from reporting information that has not been authorized for release, including unclassified information. Journalists who don’t abide by the policy risk losing credentials that provide access to the Pentagon.

Asked Sunday whether the Pentagon should play a role in determining what journalists can report, Trump said, “No, I don’t think so.”

“Nothing stops reporters. You know that,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House for slain activist Charlie Kirk’s memorial service.

Trump has sued numerous media organizations over negative coverage, with several settling with the president for millions of dollars. A federal judge in Florida tossed out Trump’s $15-billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times on Friday.

Jimmy Kimmel ouster and FCC warning

Perhaps the most headline-grabbing situation involves ABC’s indefinite suspension Wednesday of veteran comic Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show. What Kimmel said about Kirk’s killing had led a group of ABC-affiliated stations to say it would not air the show and provoked some ominous comments from a top federal regulator.

Trump celebrated on his social media site: “Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done.”

Earlier in the day, the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, who has launched investigations of outlets that have angered Trump, said Kimmel’s comments were “truly sick” and that his agency has a strong case for holding Kimmel, ABC and network parent Walt Disney Co. accountable for spreading misinformation.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) argued that Kimmel’s ouster wasn’t a chilling of free speech but a corporate decision.

“I really don’t believe ABC would have decided to fire Jimmy Kimmel over a threat,” he said Sunday on CNN. “ABC has been a long-standing critic of President Trump. They did it because they felt like it didn’t meet their brand anymore.”

Not all Republicans have applauded the move. On his podcast Friday, GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a former Trump foe turned staunch ally, called it “unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.”

Trump called Carr “a great American patriot” and said Friday that he disagreed with Cruz.

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press.

Federal authorities in the United States revealed Tuesday that they will not seek the death penalty against three reputed Mexican drug cartel leaders, including an alleged former partner of the infamous “El Chapo” and the man accused of orchestrating the killing of a Drug Enforcement Administration agent.

Court filings showed decisions handed down in the trio of prosecutions, all being held in Brooklyn, N.Y.

The cases involve drug and conspiracy charges against Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, 75, charged with running a powerful faction of Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel; Rafael Caro Quintero, 72, who allegedly masterminded the DEA agent’s torture and murder in 1985; and Vicente Carrillo Fuentes, 62, also known as El Viceroy, who is under indictment as the ex-boss of the Juarez cartel.

Prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York filed a letter in each case “to inform the Court and the defense that the Attorney General has authorized and directed this Office not to seek the death penalty.”

The decision comes despite calls by President Trump use capital punishment against drug traffickers and the U.S. government ratcheting up pressure against Mexico to dismantle organized crime groups and to staunch the flow of fentanyl and other illicit drugs across the border.

A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It’s rare for the death penalty to be in play against high-level Mexican cartel figures. Mexico long ago abolished capital punishment and typically extradites its citizens on the condition they are spared death.

In Zambada’s case, the standard restrictions did not apply because he was not extradited. Zambada was brought to the U.S. last July by a son of his longtime associate, Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. Zambada alleges he was ambushed and kidnapped in Sinaloa by Joaquín Guzmán López, who forced him onto an airplane bound for a small airport outside El Paso, Texas.

Zambada has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and remains jailed in Brooklyn while his case proceeds. A court filing in June said prosecutors and the defense had “discussed the potential for a resolution short of trial,” suggesting plea negotiations are underway.

Frank Perez, the lawyer representing Zambada, issued a statement Tuesday to The Times that said: “We welcome the government’s decision not to pursue the death penalty against our client. This marks an important step toward achieving a fair and just resolution.”

Federal authorities announced in May that Guzmán López, 39, an accused leader of the Sinaloa cartel faction known as “Los Chapitos,” would also not face the death penalty. He faces an array of drug smuggling and conspiracy charges in a case pending before the federal court in Chicago.

Another son of El Chapo, Ovidio Guzmán López, 35, pleaded guilty to drug trafficking, money laundering and firearms charge last month in Chicago. Court filings show he has agreed to cooperate with U.S. authorities in other investigations.

Caro Quintero and Carrillo Fuentes were two of the biggest names among a group of 29 men handed over by Mexico to the U.S. in February. The unusual mass transfer was conducted outside the typical extradition process, which left open the possibility of the death penalty.

Reputed to be a founding member of Mexico’s powerful Guadalajara cartel in the 1980s, Caro Quintero is allegedly responsible for the brutal slaying of DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena 40 years ago.

The killing, portrayed on the Netlfix show “Narcos: Mexico” and recounted in many books and documentaries, led to a fierce response by U.S. authorities, but Caro Quintero managed to elude justice for decades. Getting him on U.S. soil was portrayed a major victory by Trump administration officials.

Derek Maltz, the DEA chief in February, said in a statement that Caro Quintero had “unleashed violence, destruction, and death across the United States and Mexico, has spent four decades atop DEA’s most wanted fugitives list.”

Carrillo Fuentes is perhaps best known as the younger brother of another Mexican drug trafficker, Amado Carrillo Fuentes, the legendary “Lord of the Skies,” who died in 1997. Once close to El Chapo, El Mayo and other Sinaloa cartel leaders, the younger Carrillo Funtes split off to form his own cartel in the city of Juárez, triggering years of bloody cartel warfare.

Kenneth J. Montgomery, the lawyer for Carrillo Fuentes, said Tuesday his client was “extremely grateful” for the government’s decision not to seek the death penalty.”I thought it was the right decision,” he said. “In a civilized society, I don’t think the death penalty should ever be an option.”

Trump has been an ardent supporter of capital punishment. In January, he signed an order that directs the attorney general to “take all necessary and lawful action” to ensure that states have enough lethal injection drugs to carry out executions.

Trump’s order directed the attorney general to pursue the death penalty in cases that involve the killing of law enforcement officers, among other factors. For years, Trump has loudly called for executing convicted drug traffickers. He reiterated the call for executions again in 2022 when announcing his intent to run again for president.

“We’re going to be asking [that] everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs, to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts,” Trump said.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi lifted a moratorium on federal executions in February, reversing a policy that began under the Biden administration. In April, Bondi announced intentions to seek the death penalty against Luigi Mangione, the man charged with assassinating a UnitedHealthcare executive in New York City.

Bonnie Klapper, a former federal narcotics prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York, reacted with surprise upon learning that the Trump administration had decided not to pursue capital cases against the accused kingpins, particularly Caro Quintero.

Klapper, who is now a defense attorney, speculated that Mexico is strongly opposed to executions of its citizens and officials may have exerted diplomatic pressure to spare the lives of the three men, perhaps offering to send more kingpins in the future.

“While my initial reaction is one of shock given this administration’s embrace of the death penalty, perhaps there’s conversations taking place behind the scenes in which Mexico has said, ‘If you want more of these, you can’t ask to kill any of our citizens.’”

The international legal order loses its effectiveness when faced with the unilateralism of hegemonic powers as well as acts that flout universally accepted norms. If such practices remain unaddressed, there is a risk that the order will lose its foundational purpose: the protection of justice, peace, and the sovereignty of nations.

The attack by the United States and Israel on Iran, including the targeted killings of scientists and intellectuals, bombing of IAEA-approved nuclear facilities, and strikes against residential, medical, media, and public infrastructure, is a prime example of illegal, unilateral action that must not remain unaddressed. It is a wrongful act and a clear violation of fundamental norms of international law.

In this context, the principle of state responsibility, which dictates that states are held accountable for wrongful acts, must be applied. This principle was codified by the International Law Commission ILC in its 2001 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which have since been widely recognised and cited by international courts and tribunals.

Per their provisions, the commission of a wrongful act – such as the unlawful use of force – constitutes a violation of an international obligation and imposes a binding duty on the responsible state to provide full and effective reparation for the harm caused.

In the case of the illegal acts committed by the United States and Israel, the scope of legal responsibility goes far beyond ordinary violations. These acts not only contravened customary international law, but also breached peremptory norms, the highest-ranking norms within the international legal hierarchy. Among these, the principle of the prohibition of aggression is a core and universally binding rule. No state is permitted to derogate from this norm, and violations trigger obligations, requiring all members of the international community to respond collectively to uphold the law.

There are at least two relevant legal precedents that can guide the application of the principle of state responsibility and the obligation for reparations in the case of Iran.

In 1981, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 487 in response to Israel’s attack on Iraq’s nuclear facilities. It unequivocally characterised this act of aggression as a “serious threat to the entire safeguard regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]”, which is the foundation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The resolution also fully recognised the inalienable sovereign right of all states to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes.

Article 6 stipulates that “Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel”. By mandating that the aggressor compensate the victim for the resulting damages, the resolution provides a clear legal precedent for pursuing redress in similar cases.

Thus, given the fact that the attacks by the US and Israel were carried out with public declarations confirming the operations and are well-documented, the application of the principles and provisions of Resolution 487 to the Iranian case is not only appropriate and necessary but also firmly grounded in international law.

Another relevant document is UN Security Council Resolution 692, which was adopted in 1991 and established the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The commission was tasked with processing claims for compensation of losses and damages incurred as a result of the invasion.

The creation of UNCC demonstrated the capacity of international mechanisms to identify victims, evaluate damage, and implement practical compensation – setting a clear model for state responsibility in cases of unlawful aggression.

This precedent provides a strong legal and institutional basis for asserting the rights of the Iranian people. It is therefore both appropriate and necessary for the UN to establish a rule-based mechanism, such as an international commission on compensation, to redress Iran.

Such a commission, initiated and endorsed by the UN General Assembly or other competent UN bodies, should undertake a comprehensive assessment of the damages inflicted by the unlawful and aggressive acts of the US and the Zionist regime against Iran.

The establishment of reparative mechanisms – whether through independent commissions, fact-finding bodies, or compensation funds operating under international oversight – would contribute meaningfully to restoring trust in the global legal system and provide a principled response to the ongoing normalisation of impunity.

Iran also has another avenue for pursuing justice for the illegal attacks it was subjected to. In the lead-up to them, the IAEA published biased and politically motivated reports about the Iranian nuclear programme, which facilitated the commission of aggression by the US and Israel and breached the principle of neutrality.

This places Iran in a position to seek redress and claim damages from the agency under Article 17 of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement. As a state harmed by the agency’s manifest negligence, Iran is entitled to full reparation for all material and moral damages inflicted upon its peaceful nuclear facilities and scientific personnel.

In this context, pursuing accountability for the IAEA, alongside the aggressor states, is a vital element of Iran’s broader strategy to uphold accountability within the international legal order. By relying on recognised, legitimate, and binding international mechanisms, Iran will steadfastly defend the rights of its people at every forum.

Ultimately, responsibility for the recent crimes of this war of aggression does not lie solely with the direct perpetrators, the US and Israel, and those who aided them, the IAEA. All states and international organisations bear an undeniable obligation to implement effective legal measures to prevent such crimes.

The international community as a whole must respond decisively. Silence, delay, or any form of complicity in the face of aggression and atrocities would reduce the principle of state accountability under international law to an empty slogan.

In its pursuit of accountability, Iran will exhaust all available resources and will not relent until the rights of its people are fully recognised and they receive adequate redress. It will continue to seek the prosecution and accountability of those responsible for these crimes, both domestically and internationally, until justice is fully achieved.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

All-Star voting resumes Monday at 9 a.m. PDT for 48 hours with the Dodgers entertaining the possibility of fielding an unprecedented eight position players.

The top two vote-getters at each position through Phase 1 of voting are finalists and moved on to Phase 2, which ends Wednesday at 9 a.m. PDT. The defending World Series champion Dodgers boast a finalist at each infield position and two among six outfielders.

Even though only three Dodgers led National League Phase 1 voting at their position, all eight have an equal chance of starting because votes don’t carry over to Phase 2. The player at each position to accumulate the most votes in the two-day window will start the July 15 game at Truist Park in Atlanta.

“Very proud. It’s great,” Dodgers manager Dave Roberts said. “Obviously we’re playing well. As it stands now, we’re the best team in the National League, so we should have the most All-Star voting for the team.”

Shohei Ohtani locked in an automatic spot as starting designated hitter because he led all National League players with 3,967,668 votes in Phase 1. Catcher Will Smith and first baseman Freddie Freeman are the other Dodgers to lead voting, while second baseman Tommy Edman, shortstop Mookie Betts and third baseman Max Muncy finished second. Among outfielders, Teoscar Hernández and Andy Pages finished second and fifth, respectively.

In American League voting, the Angels’ Mike Trout is one of four finalists to secure one of two openings in the outfield. Aaron Judge of the New York Yankees already earned a starting spot by leading all players with 4,012,983 votes in Phase 1.

Trout, who has 13 home runs in 56 games, is competing against Riley Green and Javier Báez of the Detroit Tigers and Steven Kwan of the Cleveland Guardians.

Voting can be done online at MLB.com/vote, all 30 team websites, the MLB app and the MLB ballpark app. The winners will be announced on ESPN at 1 p.m.

The most position players voted to start an All-Star Game from a single team is five — accomplished by the 1976 Cincinnati Reds ,the 1956 and 1957 Cincinnati Redlegs and the 1939 New York Yankees.

“I hope we get five, six, seven Dodgers,” Roberts said. “That’d be great.”

MLB All-Star finalists

AL guaranteed spot: Aaron Judge, OF, Yankees — 4,012,983 votes
NL guaranteed spot: Shohei Ohtani, DH, Dodgers — 3,967,668 votes

National League finalists
Catcher: Will Smith (Dodgers), Carson Kelly (Cubs)
First base: Freddie Freeman (Dodgers), Pete Alonso (Mets)
Second base: Ketel Marte (Diamondbacks), Tommy Edman (Dodgers)
Shortstop: Francisco Lindor (Mets), Mookie Betts (Dodgers)
Third base: Manny Machado (Padres), Max Muncy (Dodgers)
Outfield: Pete Crow-Armstrong (Cubs), Teoscar Hernández (Dodgers), Ronald Acuña Jr. (Braves), Kyle Tucker (Cubs), Andy Pages (Dodgers), Juan Soto (Mets)

American League finalists
Catcher: Cal Raleigh (Mariners), Alejandro Kirk (Blue Jays)
First base: Vladimir Guerrero Jr. (Blue Jays), Paul Goldschmidt (Yankees)
Second base: Gleyber Torres (Tigers), Jackson Holliday (Orioles)
Shortstop: Jacob Wilson (Athletics), Bobby Witt Jr., (Royals)
Third base: José Ramírez (Guardians), Alex Bregman (Red Sox)
Outfield: Riley Greene (Tigers), Javier Báez (Tigers), Mike Trout (Angels), Steven Kwan (Guardians)

Published on 27/06/2025 – 1:22 GMT+2•Updated
1:44

ADVERTISEMENT

France and Germany exhibited diverging strategies in the trade dispute between the EU and the US ongoing since mid-March, following a Council summit in Brussels on Thursday. While Germany is eager to reach a swift agreement at all costs, France emphasised the important that bloc should not display weakness.

In a press conference after the summit, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the Council encouraged the Commission to use the remaining two weeks to come to a swift agreement. But he said that the Council had encouraged von der Leyen to pursue the EU’s own countermeasures if necessary. He said it was important to conclude something quickly and flagged the risks to the auto, chemicals and pharma sectors if 9 July arrives and the Trump tariffs take effect.

“My hope is that we can reach a swift conclusion,” French President Emmanuel Macron said after an EU summit on Thursday in Brussels, adding: “However, this willingness should not be mistaken for weakness. We want to conclude quickly because it serves our collective interest, supports the stability of international trade, and benefits our businesses—but not at any price.”

On Monday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz criticized the Commission’s strategy as overly technical and called for accelerating the negotiations by focusing on strategic sectors such as automobiles, steel, and energy, chemicals and pharma.

The US currently imposes 50% tariffs on EU steel and aluminium, 25% on cars and a 10% baseline on all EU imports.

Negotiations between the US and the EU have gained momentum since President Donald Trump and Commission President Ursula von der Leyen met at the G7 summit in Canada on 16 June, as the critical 9 July deadline approaches, after which Trump has threatened to impose 50% tariffs on all EU imports.

On Thursday evening, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced to EU member states that she had received a US counter-proposal to the EU’s offer, though she did not disclose any details.

For several months, the EU has been offering the US a zero-for-zero tariff deal on all industrial products, along with commitments to purchase strategic goods such as liquid natural gas and soybeans.

However, few believe that securing 0% tariffs from the US is still a realistic possibility. “Since they decided to impose multiple tariffs on their trade partners across the globe, the US now has an appetite for the revenue that tariffs generate,” an EU official said, implying that the US rejected the EU offer.

The Commission is now reconsidering its approach to a future tariff-based deal, though the specific terms have yet to be determined. “The prevailing assumption is that a 10% tariff might be the benchmark,” an EU diplomat said.

“On some areas 10% is not so much, the EU imposes 10% on a lot of imports of cars, whether they are Chinese or Japanese,” another EU official told Euronews, adding that “for other products, such as aircraft, it’s much more complicated because the production line is very interdependent between the US and the EU. That’s why, you need a granular analysis.”

If the EU manages to reach an agreement by 9 July, it will not be a comprehensive agreement, two senior EU diplomats said.

“The most realistic outcome would likely be a general framework or a “principled agreement”, due to time constraints,” an EU diplomat commented.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday that America “does not seek war” with Iran in the aftermath of a surprise attack overnight on three of that country’s nuclear sites while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran a renewed chance of negotiating with Washington.

The mission, called “Operation Midnight Hammer,” involved decoys and deception, and met with no Iranian resistance, Hegseth and Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon news conference.

“This mission was not and has not been about regime change,” Hegseth added.

Caine said the goal of the operation — destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan — had been achieved.

“Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,” Caine said.

Vance said in a television interview that while he would not discuss “sensitive intelligence about what we’ve seen on the ground,” he felt “very confident that we’ve substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon.”

Pressed further, he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “I think that we have really pushed their program back by a very long time. I think that it’s going to be many many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear weapon.”

The vice president said the U.S. had “negotiated aggressively’ with Iran to try to find a peaceful settlement and that Trump made his decision after assessing the Iranians were not acting “in good faith.”

“I actually think it provides an opportunity to reset this relationship, reset these negotiations and get us in a place where Iran can decide not to be a threat to its neighbors, not to a threat to the United States and if they’re willing to do that, the United States is all ears,” Vance said.

He added: “The Iranians can go down the path of peace or they can go down the path of this ridiculous brinkmanship of funding terrorism, of trying to build a nuclear weapon and that’s just not something the United States can accept.”

Much of the world is absorbing the consequences of the strikes and the risk that they could lead to more fighting across the Middle East after the United States inserted itself into the war between Israel and Iran. Airstrikes starting on June 12 by Israel that targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities and generals prompted retaliation from Iran.

While U.S. officials urged for caution and stressed that only nuclear sites were targeted by Washington, Iran criticized the actions as a violation of its sovereignty and international law.

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Sunday that Washington was “fully responsible” for whatever actions Tehran may take in response.

“They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities,” he said at a news conference in Turkey. “I don’t know how much room is left for diplomacy.”

Both Russia and China condemned the U.S. attack. Araghchi said he would travel to Moscow later Sunday to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading beyond the Middle East to “a global level.”

The Pentagon briefing did not provide any new details about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Hegseth said the timeline was the result of a schedule set by President Donald Trump for talks with Iran about its nuclear ambitions.

“Iran found out” that when Trump “says 60 days that he seeks peace and negotiation, he means 60 days of peace and negotiation,” Hegseth said. “Otherwise, that nuclear program, that new nuclear capability will not exist. He meant it.”

That statement was complicated as the White House had suggested last Thursday that Trump could take as much as two weeks to determine whether to strike Iran or continue to pursue negotiations. But the U.S. benefited from Iran’s weakened air defenses as it was able to conduct the attacks without resistance from Iran.

“Iran’s fighters did not fly, and it appears that Iran’s surface to air missile systems did not see us throughout the mission,” Caine said.

Hegseth said that a choice to move a number of B-2 bombers from their base in Missouri earlier Saturday was meant to be a decoy to throw off Iranians. He added that the U.S. used other methods of deception as well, deploying fighters to protect the B-2 bombers that dropped 14 bunker-buster bombs on Iran’s site at Fordo.

The strikes occurred Saturday between 6:40 pm and 7:05 pm in Washington, or roughly 2:10 am on Sunday in Iran.

Pesoli and Boak write for the Associated Press.

Israel’s attacks on Iranian nuclear and military sites mark a significant escalation in regional tensions, and may reshape Tehran’s nuclear calculus.

The coordinated strikes killed several senior military and security officials, including the head of Iran’s military Mohammad Bagheri, and the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hossein Salami.

“One of the concerns in attacking the nuclear sites has been that setbacks could lead Iran to reconstitute their operations with a more determined effort to obtain a nuclear deterrent,” said Ali Vaez, an expert on Iran for the International Crisis Group (ICG).

Sceptics validated

Iran has long had an internal debate among reformers and hardliners about whether to reach an agreement with the United States on its nuclear programme.

“[The attacks] likely confirmed the position of hardliners and ultra hardliners who said that Iran was wasting its time to try and negotiate with the West … they said Iran can never negotiate from a position of weakness and appeasement,” said Reza H Akbari, an analyst on Iran and the Middle East and North Africa Programme Manager at the Institute for War and Peace Reporting.

Talks between Iran and the US have suffered from a large trust deficit after President Donald Trump unilaterally pulled out of the nuclear deal between Iran and several Western nations, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), during his first term in 2018.

The JCPOA was orchestrated by Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council in 2015.

It aimed to monitor Iran’s nuclear programme to ensure it did not approach weaponisation levels. In exchange, some sanctions were lifted from Iran.

While the deal was lauded as an achievement of diplomacy, Israel disapproved of the JCPOA. Ten years later, the US and Iran appeared interested in striking another similar deal.

The former ostensibly did not want to get dragged into a regional war as tensions mounted across the Middle East, while the latter was again looking for much-needed sanction relief.

But Israel’s strikes on Iran, which were reportedly planned months in advance and with US approval, have scuttled any diplomatic solution in the short term, said Akbari.

“It’s hard to imagine that someone in the shoes of Iran’s supreme leader [Ali Khamenei] is not taking the side of hardliners after this,” he told Al Jazeera.

No other options

In response to Israel’s strikes, Iran has launched drones and ballistic missiles at Israel, with some hitting targets on the ground.

In the past, Iran’s deterrence against external aggression relied primarily on its self-described “Axis of Resistance”.

The axis consisted of powerful armed groups across the region, such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah, as well as Syria under former President Bashar al-Assad.

However, Hezbollah’s capabilities were degraded significantly during the peak of its recent war with Israel, which lasted from September to late November last year.

Al-Assad’s fall in December, the culmination of a more than decade-long civil war in Syria, also compromised Iran’s ability to resupply Hezbollah through Syria, as it used to do.

Trump is now exploiting Iran’s weakness by urging it to capitulate to a deal that would see it give up its nuclear programme, said Michael Stephens, an expert on regional response to Iran’s nuclear programme with the Royal United Service Institute (RUSI), a defence think tank.

On Friday, Trump posted on Truth Social that Iran must make a deal before there is “nothing left” of the country and that the next Israeli attacks will be even “more brutal”.

Later that evening, Israel carried out more air strikes on Iran’s military sites and nuclear facilities.

“There are no good options for [Iran] really,” said Stephens.

“Either Khamenei … orders his negotiators to compromise on the nuclear file or … he holds firm [and] more sites are hit and further targeted assassinations of high-level officials take place,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Either way, if Iran decides to sprint towards a bomb, it’s going to be very, very difficult to do that now,” he added.

Last stand

Despite Iran’s military weakness compared with the US and Israel, it is wary of giving up its nuclear programme, analysts told Al Jazeera.

Negar Mortazavi, an expert on Iran with the Centre for International Policy (CIP), said Iranian officials have long referred to the fate of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who agreed to give up his nuclear weapons programme in exchange for US sanction relief in 2003.

The deal came after the US President George W Bush had launched his so-called “War on Terror” after the September 11, 2001, attacks, which led to the invasion and prolonged occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

At the time, Bush warned his partners and foes in the region that they were either “with us or against us”.

Eight years after Gaddafi gave up his nuclear programme, the US backed a pro-democracy uprising in Libya, which spiralled into an armed rebellion and led to Gaddafi’s overthrow and eventual death.

“The [Libya] scenario is something that Iran has taken notice of, and they don’t want to go down that path,” Mortazavi explained.

She added that Iran may likely pull out from the JCPOA and try to quickly expand its nuclear programme in reaction to Israel’s ongoing assault.

“Just how far and how soon Iran will expand its nuclear programme is unclear,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera.

WASHINGTON — Asylum seekers under the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy whose cases were closed — many for reasons beyond their control, including kidnappings and court rulings against the government — will now be able to come into the U.S. to pursue asylum claims, the Biden administration said Tuesday.

The administration on Wednesday will begin to allow the first of thousands with closed cases to pursue their asylum claims within the United States, the Department of Homeland Security announced. More than 30,000 migrants could potentially be eligible, according to government data.

“As part of our continued effort to restore safe, orderly, and humane processing at the Southwest Border, DHS will expand the pool” of asylum seekers eligible for processing, the department said in a statement, including those “who had their cases terminated or were ordered removed in absentia.”

Facing a policy riddled with administrative errors and questions of illegality, immigration judges across the United States ruled against the Trump administration, closing thousands of cases the government had brought against asylum seekers sent to Mexico to await U.S. hearings.

But when President Biden took office and began winding down the policy that he sharply criticized, his administration allowed only asylum seekers under Remain in Mexico — formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols — whose immigration cases remained open to enter the United States.

Since February, the Biden administration has permitted entry to some 12,000 asylum seekers with pending Migrant Protection Protocols cases, according to the United Nations refugee agency, the primary organization processing them. At the same time, Biden officials have urged patience from those whose cases were closed, promising a second phase.

Advocates and experts welcomed the move to begin admitting those asylum seekers, but criticized the administration’s slowness on restoring access.

“A delay of that kind would have to be driven by political considerations, not legal or purely administrative ones,” said Austin Kocher, an assistant professor at Syracuse University. “It flags a larger question: Is the Biden administration serious about following its national and international obligations to asylum law?”

For many asylum seekers, it is too late. From January 2019, when the Trump administration first implemented the policy in Southern California, to when Biden froze the program on his first day in office, roughly 70,000 migrants were sent by U.S. officials to wait in some of the world’s most dangerous cities just south of the border.

More than 1,500 of them suffered rape, kidnapping and assault, according to Human Rights First. And those numbers have continued to rise during Biden’s presidency, through a combination of policies that have left tens of thousands stuck on the southern side of the border.

An untold number missed their hearings while abducted, several were killed, and hundreds more made the wrenching decision to send their children across the border alone, believing they’d have a better chance of being allowed to stay under U.S. policies to protect unaccompanied minors. Thousands have given up, according to estimates from officials and advocates.

“Why it’s taken so long is obviously of concern, because those people who are still in Mexico are still suffering and in dangerous situations,” said Judy Rabinovitz of the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued then-President Trump over the policy.

Biden administration officials have acknowledged this grim toll, even as they continue to send asylum seekers — some with Migrant Protection Protocols cases — to Mexico again, invoking a Trump-era coronavirus policy. Citing Title 42, an obscure 1944 public health law, border officials have summarily expelled more than 850,000 migrants, including asylum seekers, this time without a court date or due process.

“Having Title 42 still in place at the same time that the administration is claiming to try and fix cases in Remain in Mexico presents the administration with a fundamental contradiction between what they claim to be doing and the way that border control is actually working on the ground,” said Kocher.

Biden froze Migrant Protection Protocols on his first day in office, though it had already largely been supplanted by Trump’s coronavirus expulsions policy. But the Biden administration did not formally end Remain in Mexico until June 1.

In the memo ending the policy, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas said it had further strained department resources and added to a record backlog in immigration court proceedings.

More than 25% of those subjected to the policy were apprehended by border officials when they attempted to enter again, Mayorkas said, and roughly 44% of cases were completed by judges’ orders to remove asylum seekers who missed their hearings.

That raised questions about whether the program provided them “adequate opportunity” to appear, he said, “and whether conditions faced by some MPP enrollees in Mexico, including the lack of stable access to housing, income, and safety, resulted in the abandonment of potentially meritorious protection claims.”

Still, the current chaos at the border — with thousands of migrants remaining stuck in northern Mexico and monthly border-crossing numbers still among their highest in years — stems in part from confusion over the administration’s continued pledges to undo Trump’s policies, while its promised asylum overhaul has yet to materialize.

Advocates argue that migrants subjected to Migrant Protection Protocols who received final decisions from immigration judges denying their asylum claims also deserve to be given another opportunity to seek asylum in accordance with U.S. law.

On Tuesday, the Homeland Security Department statement reiterated that others who may be eligible to enter in the future “should stay where they are currently located and register online” through a system administered by the United Nations.

Trump administration officials explicitly stated that the goal of the policy was to make it as difficult as possible to seek asylum and as a deterrent to others.

“This is what they wanted, and this is what they got: People couldn’t get asylum,” Rabinovitz said of Trump administration officials. Now with Biden in the White House, she continued, “we’re saying no — in order to unwind it, you need to give people a new opportunity to apply for asylum, free of that taint.”

U.S. border officials frequently committed errors while administering the Remain in Mexico policy, The Times found. That included serving asylum seekers paperwork in languages they did not speak, or writing the phrase “domicilio conocido” — “known address” — or simply “Tijuana” — a Mexican border city of some 2 million people — on their paperwork, instead of a legally required address. That made it nearly impossible for applicants to be notified of changes to their cases or court dates.

These missteps by U.S. border officials also fueled federal judges’ rulings against the policy.

In one ruling, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge said Homeland Security’s procedures for implementing the policy were “so ill-suited to achieving that stated goal as to render them arbitrary and capricious.”

But the Supreme Court never ultimately ruled on the legality of Migrant Protection Protocols. In early February, the Biden administration asked the nation’s highest court to cancel arguments on the policy. Opponents in several states sued, arguing that the Biden administration cannot end it.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected that effort, ordering: “The motion to intervene is dismissed as moot.”