Reform

Aug. 17 (UPI) — Britain’s Reform U.K. party said Monday that it would slash almost $68B from welfare, were it to win power at the next election.

The largest single ticket-items, saving $58.3 billion, would come from halting welfare payments to non-citizens and a shake up of disability and ill-health benefits.

Cutting off nationals of other countries, including those with settled status and resident EU nationals would save $28.5 billion by year five, according to Reform, but would breach the country’s 2019 Brexit deal with Brussels and would therefore require it to be renegotiated.

Foreign nationals would become ineligible for six main benefits from the state including “universal credit,” housing payments, free childcare and unemployment, child and disability checks.

All families whose children were born in Britain would continue to receive payments for each child under 16 [under 20 if in non-higher education or training] and free school meals for those with after-tax household incomes of $10,000 or less.

Danny Kruger, Reform’s work and pensions spokesman, told BBC’s Breakfast program it was fair that people requiring welfare should have it paid by the country of which they are a citizen.

“I’d understand if the Europeans decided to apply the same principle that we are and to deny our nationals access to their welfare system and we will pay for that ourselves.”

Kruger acknowledged that many settled overseas nationals living in Britain would simply apply for — and would likely be granted — British citizenship, insisting that the savings calculated took account of that scenario.

He said the plan had also taken into account that the EU would likely take reciprocal action, halting welfare payments to Britons who had not become citizens of the EU country where they were living.

The other biggest area of savings — $29.8 billion — would come from reforming disability benefits, including scrapping so-called personal independence payments for disabled people and replacing them with another cash benefit available only to those deemed “gravely ill and severely challenged.”

Kruger stressed that Reform accepted some people were unable to ever work, saying that those people would continue to be properly supported and would no longer be required to repeatedly be assessed to see if they were still eligible.

The pro-EU Best For Britain group criticized Reform’s plan, in particular the potential negative impact on relations with the EU.

“Our polling shows that people do want to renegotiate our relationship with Europe, but by moving closer, not by damaging ties with vital allies and punishing our neighbours, colleagues and friends who have settled status here,” said policy executive director Tom Brufatto.

Labour MP Rachael Maskell was critical of the targeting of disability benefits.

“When Pip helps people go to work, play a role in our society and simply live, threatening to remove Pip demonstrates that Reform do not want disabled people to play a full role in our society,” said Maskell who previously led a rebellion by Labour backbenchers against efforts by former Prime Minister Keir Starmer to cut welfare.

In April, the Office for Budget Responsibility said it expected Britain’s welfare bill for 2025-2026 to hit $452.4 billion, equivalent to 10.6% of GDP, and accounting around 24% of all government spending.

However, more than half of all welfare spending goes on pensioners, nearly all of it on the State Pension, an inflation-protected pension which people pay into until they retire and is topped up by the government.

Tired of budget stalemates, deficits and continuous acrimony in the state Capitol, California voters in 2010 started taking action to temper political gridlock and loosen the grip of entrenched special interests.

They approved statewide ballot measures to create an independent congressional redistricting commission, taking that power away from self-interested Sacramento lawmakers, as well as a new “top-two” primary system intended to stifle the power of the major political parties and provide more representative, less hyperpartisan candidates with a greater chance of victory.

Now, in an era of even more bitter divisions in the state and nation, those reforms face severe threats.

Last month, supporters of a proposal to repeal the state’s current primary system, in which the two candidates in state and congressional elections who receive the most votes move on to the general election regardless of party affiliation, received permission to gather voter signatures to place the measure on the 2028 ballot.

In November, Californians voted to temporarily scrap the congressional districts that were crafted by a voter-approved independent commission and instead replace them by ones approved by Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento. The move, aimed at giving Democrats an edge in the November midterm election, was in response to President Trump urging GOP state leaders, notably in Texas, to alter their districts to boost Republican numbers in the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 election.

“In the olden times, California liked to see itself as the epicenter of good-government reform,” said Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University.

But the sense of optimism when voters approved these reforms has faded, she said, because of the divisiveness cultivated by Trump but also because of polarization that predates him.

“There’s no world in which you can look at California or any other state in 2026 and say it looks like 2010,” Levinson said. “We, the public, speak to each other in different ways. Politicians talk to each other in different ways. … It feels to me like we talk a lot more about triage than we do about building a shining city on a hill. It’s a different universe.”

But others question the effectiveness of the California’s good-government reforms and merits of the self-glorification that followed.

“It’s not clear that any of these reforms helped elect more moderates or limit polarization,” said Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA. “Reformers may have over-promised in the early 2010s what election reform could actually do to improve the lives of Californians. And Californians did not fully appreciate the unintended consequences of reforms enacted with even the best of intentions.”

The efforts to claw back the 2010 reforms occurs at a time of declining trust in institutions and during a fragile moment in the nation’s democracy. Trump continues to push debunked claims that the 2020 election was rigged, as well as other voting misconduct conspiracies that often focus on California.

In a prime-time speech last month, the president again raised concerns about the length of time it took California elections officials to count ballots in the June 2 primary.

“It took a month to count the votes,” he said. “I wonder what they were doing.”

Lauded by civic groups, the good-government reforms were championed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and funded by major GOP donor Charles Munger Jr.

Both of the state’s major political parties as well as prominent politicians and several labor unions opposed the efforts when they were placed on the 2010 ballot.

Jessica Millan Patterson, a former state GOP chairwoman, is among those who believe the temporary pause in independent redistricting that voters approved in November will not be temporary. And she said the top-two primary is a failed experiment.

“Speaking as a Republican, I just don’t feel that it has served us well at all,” she said. “Not only has it locked us out of many general election ballots, but it has also not moderated Sacramento at all.”

California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks, who supported the suspension of independent redistricting, agreed with Millan Patterson about the top-two primary.

“The current top-two system has failed to deliver on what its supporters promised,” he said. “It’s well past time to review, revise and maybe even repeal it.”

Hicks expressed fears earlier this year that the top-two primary would result in two Republican gubernatorial candidates advancing to the November ballot in a strongly Democratic state because of a sprawling and splintered Democratic field.

Hicks’ rare public move urging low-polling Democratic candidates, which included every minority candidate of color in the race, to consider their viability sparked widespread controversy during the primary.

The tension was heightened by a controversial USC debate selection process that would have resulted in no candidates of color taking the stage. (The debate was canceled less than 24 hours before it was scheduled to take place.)

Ultimately, the June primary resulted in the same outcome Californians have seen since the top-two primary was approved — a gubernatorial general election contest between a Democrat and a Republican. Xavier Becerra, a former Biden Cabinet member, and Steve Hilton, a GOP strategist and television commentator, will face off in November.

Still, a bipartisan coalition is striving to rescind the top-two primary system, which has created many noteworthy intraparty races, such as U.S. Senate contests between Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris and Rep. Loretta Sanchez of Orange in 2016, and incumbent Sen. Dianne Feinstein and state Sen. Kevin de León of Los Angeles in 2018, all Democrats.

In Congress, independent redistricting and the top-two primary created a brutal 2012 contest between veteran Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman in the San Fernando Valley. Four years later, veteran Bay Area Rep. Mike Honda was toppled by fellow Democrat Ro Khanna, now viewed as a potential 2028 presidential candidate.

This year, a combination of the redrawing of the state’s congressional districts and the top-two primary means Republican Rep. Ken Calvert of Corona is battling with Republican Rep. Young Kim of Anaheim Hills.

On July 14, Secretary of State Shirley Weber announced that the proposal by veteran Democratic strategist Steve Maviglio — also backed by Republicans such as former state GOP Chair Ron Nehring — has 180 days to gather the signatures of nearly 875,000 registered voters to qualify the effort for the November 2028 ballot. If approved by voters, the top-two primary would be repealed and the system would revert to its prior version, insuring every qualified political party could have a candidate advance in the primary to the general election.

Maviglio argued that the top-two primary has failed to deliver on its promises to reduce partisanship and budget deficits in Sacramento.

“It’s gotten worse, not better,” he said. “I find it’s hard to make that argument if you look at what’s coming out of the Legislature the last 10 years.”

Supporters of the top-two primary repudiated these arguments and vowed to challenge the title of the proposed 2028 ballot measure about the state’s primary, arguing it would disenfranchise 5.4 million Californians who are not registered with either major political party.

“Voters passed Proposition 14 [which created the top-two primary] to take control away from party insiders and put it in the hands of the people,” said Cara McCormick, campaign manager of More Choice California, a group opposing the top-two primary being rescinded. “This initiative does the opposite. It takes away the rights of millions of California voters and gives them back to political parties. The least voters deserve is a ballot title that says so.”

Abel Maldonado, who served as lieutenant governor under Schwarzenegger and backed both 2010 reforms, staunchly supported the top-two primary as a response to a historic state government shutdown because of the failure of lawmakers to approve a balanced budget.

“Some of us thought that a complete open primary top two would create a system [that elects] people who were open-minded, pragmatic and had common sense,” he said. “It has happened in some races, but in other areas it has not.”

Maldonado said that he disagrees with returning to the prior system, in which political parties could opt to allow only voters affiliated with them to cast ballots in their primaries. But he said the current system ought to be tweaked, allowing voters to cast ballots for a candidate of any political party in a primary, with a candidate from each party moving onto the general election.

Schwarzenegger did not respond to a request for comment. But his prior comments, as well his efforts to end gerrymandering across the nation since leaving office, have made clear that his views have not changed.

“Of course the politicians want to undo reform that is good for the people and not for the politicians,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement earlier this year after the “Undo the Top Two” ballot measure was proposed. “They will always choose to move the goal posts instead of performing better.”

After California Democrats sought to redraw the state’s congressional districts last year, Schwarzenegger posted a picture of himself on X working out wearing a T-shirt that said “Terminate Gerrymandering,” a reference to one of his hit films.

Munger said he hoped groups he worked with to pass these reforms such as Common Cause and the California League of Women Voters would stay “true to their principles” and defend them when they “are under assault.”

“It was disappointing they stayed on the sidelines during last year’s fight over independent redistricting, and they should not do so going forward,” said Munger, who spent more than $30 million opposing the November ballot measure to suspend independent redistricting. “In order for the citizens to trust their government, they must have confidence that our elections are fair and free.”

Maldonado, who lauded the work of California’s independent redistricting commission, said he believes California Democrats will make the temporary pause of independent drawing of district boundaries permanent.

“We as Republicans have zero say in redistricting, and as much as I like to say this is what I like to have, the Democrats control supermajorities in both houses, and they get to choose whatever the hell they want,” he said. “The only way they’ll return it is by an initiative process with the will of the voters.”

He said he supports a national effort to create independent redistricting in every state, but believes it has no chance of passage.

“That would be great. It would be a step in the right direction. I think voters would have more confidence in politicians,” Maldonado said. “But, I mean, in this polarized era, this notion — think about it. The fox is building the henhouse for the chickens.”

Aug. 3 (UPI) — Britain’s Reform U.K. party vowed Monday that if elected it would use the Royal Navy to turn back small boats bringing migrants across from France and Belgium, in what it said would be the largest military operation in the English Channel since World War II.

The policy launched at a news conference in London calls for the military to “intercept” the boats and return them to France or Belgium, with the party claiming “Operation Fortress” had the backing of former senior military brass and that it was in line with international law because its purpose was humanitarian.

Reform U.K. Home Affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf told the BBC that it would be possible for Britain to return the migrants without agreement from France, arguing that international law required they dealt with migrants on their territory and not let them continue onto Britain.

States are permitted to pull people from the sea but can only bring them to another country with the agreement of that country.

Yusuf acknowledged the move could spark a “diplomatic argument” between Paris and London.

Under agreements with the United Kingdom, authorities on the continent prevent thousands of migrants from setting sail for England, but those that do manage it are met by U.K. Border Force and Coast Guard vessels which take the migrants aboard and bring them ashore to ports in the south of England.

The announcement came hours after new Labour Prime Minister Andy Burnham vowed he would be “relentless” in combatting small boat crossings after some 60,000 migrants overwhelmed the border of the Spanish territory of Ceuta on the north African coast on Thursday and Friday.

Britain is separated from Ceuta by the channel, several European countries and more than a thousand miles, but Burnham said his concern was with “the broader issue of the Schengen [free travel] Area and our relationship with it,” saying he would seek regular dialogue with the European Union on the matter.

The Schengen Convention of 1990 abolished border controls across 29 mostly EU member European countries. Migrants arriving in Europe are supposed to be processed in the first safe country they reach but in practice they’re often allowed to move on, via several countries, to their desired destination. Migrants wanting to get to Britain end up in northern France, or the Belgian coast.

Burnham stressed that in order to defeat people trafficking gangs organizing the boat crossings refugees needed “safe routes” of reaching Britain. Currently, people must get to Britain before they can claim asylum, an almost impossible hurdle for nationals of countries from which most migrants hail without resorting to traffickers.

The number of people crossing the English Channel in small boats fell 43% in the first seven months of this year, compared with the same period in 2025, according to Home Office data. However, numbers have fallen in all of the past four years after peaking in 2022.

July 31 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s acting prosecutor general submitted his resignation Friday after the National Assembly passed legislation eliminating prosecutors’ authority to conduct supplementary investigations.

Koo Ja-hyun said he felt responsible for the overhaul of the country’s criminal justice system and had submitted his resignation.

“The revision to the Criminal Procedure Act, centered on abolishing prosecutors’ supplementary investigative authority, passed the National Assembly today,” Koo said at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in southern Seoul.

“I also feel a strong sense of responsibility that the law was revised while concerns raised by legal experts, other professionals and the public remain unresolved,” he said.

The National Assembly passed the bill Friday under the leadership of the governing Democratic Party.

The legislation bars prosecutors from conducting additional investigative work after receiving cases from police. Prosecutors will instead be required to ask police to perform supplementary investigations.

The Democratic Party says the change completes the separation of investigative and prosecutorial powers and prevents prosecutors from exercising excessive authority.

Opposition lawmakers, prosecutors and some legal experts have warned that the system could delay cases and weaken protection for crime victims.

Koo warns of investigative gaps

Koo said prosecutors needed to reflect deeply on their failure to earn public trust.

He said, however, that institutional reform should not undermine the prosecution’s responsibility to uncover the truth and protect victims and other people involved in criminal cases.

“Even when institutional reform is carried out for those reasons, the essential purpose of the prosecution system – discovering the substantive truth and protecting victims and other parties – must not be damaged,” Koo said.

Koo said he had repeatedly considered how the system could be changed while protecting citizens’ rights and safeguarding society from crime.

He said prosecutors had warned lawmakers that the revision could force them to make indictment decisions based only on written investigative records.

Under that structure, prosecutors could have difficulty independently checking disputed facts, identifying gaps in police investigations or responding directly to victims’ concerns, he said.

Koo also warned that repeatedly returning cases to police could create a more costly and inefficient process.

“Those concerns were not accepted and the amendment passed without change,” he said. “It is difficult to conceal my disappointment and sense of helplessness.”

Koo urged the government to conduct another review of possible gaps in the system after the legislation is formally transferred from the National Assembly.

“I sincerely hope our criminal justice system will develop in a direction that ensures every citizen is protected fairly under the law,” he said.

Prosecution faces another leadership vacancy

South Korea’s prosecution service has already been operating without a formally appointed prosecutor general.

Koo has led the organization in an acting capacity while serving as deputy prosecutor general.

His departure would leave the service under what South Korean media described as an “acting acting chief.”

If Koo’s resignation is accepted, Park Kyu-hyung, head of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office’s planning and coordination department, is expected to assume the duties of acting prosecutor general.

The leadership vacancy comes as the government prepares to replace the existing prosecution service with a new Public Prosecution Office and establish a separate Serious Crimes Investigation Agency.

The Public Prosecution Office will focus on indictments and courtroom prosecutions, while the new investigative agency will handle major crimes previously investigated directly by prosecutors.

The two agencies are scheduled to launch Oct. 2.

The transition will require the government to determine how pending cases, personnel, records and investigative responsibilities will be transferred.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260731010011845

Reform UK say they are reporting Green Party leader Zack Polanski to the police after he shared a post to his Instagram which included a photo of a man wearing a top featuring the name “Nigel” alongside an image of a guillotine.

Polanski accepted a request to collaborate with another account and shared a series of pictures of a Green Party event on Sunday with his 713,000 followers.

One of the images showed a man wearing a T-shirt which said: “We’re only making plans for Nigel”.

A Green Party spokesperson said: “Once this image was brought to [Zack’s] attention he immediately unshared the post. He unequivocally does not support this type of dangerous message.”

The Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, criticised Polanski on X.

Sharing a screenshot of what Polanski had reposted, he said: “If I was to post anything as inciteful then I would expect to be arrested, and so should Polanski.”

It is understood Reform UK are reporting Polanski to the police. The party’s home affairs spokesperson, Zia Yusuf, said “this is incitement to murder”.

Andy Burnham has told the BBC “the NHS will collapse” if social care is not reformed but said he could not put a timeline on changes.

In his first major interview since becoming prime minister, Burnham said he would not want to leave office without bringing in “substantial change” to the social care system.

The prime minister also suggested making it harder to claim benefits, saying the country had to get serious about getting the welfare bill down.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has meanwhile written to the prime minister, saying he should rule out tax rises or increased borrowing to fund social care reform.

Burnham told the BBC that if the government did not reform social care, the NHS would “collapse under the weight of trying to care for people who’ve really not needed to end up in the NHS system”.

But pressed on whether he would create a new system before the next election, he said he “couldn’t put a timeline on it right here, right now”, though he would put “whatever political capital I have into fixing broken social care”.

Burnham first proposed a universal system of social care in England in 2009 when he was health secretary under Gordon Brown and pursued the idea of a compulsory levy to fund it.

That Labour government also floated the idea of allowing people to defer the payment until after they died, which led to the Tories branding it a “death tax”.

Burnham is due to make a speech on adult social care on Wednesday.

The BBC understands the PM will stop short of unveiling plans for a new system in this speech, instead announcing he is speeding up the Casey Commission, an independent review that has been considering possible solutions for social care.

Baroness Louise Casey is not expected to give her final recommendations until 2028, but Burnham wants to bring her schedule forward.

Adult social care provides state support to help people live more independently, including assistance at home.

Unlike the NHS, social care is not free at the point of use. In England and Northern Ireland, people with savings worth more than £23,250 are not entitled to help with care costs from their council.

In Wales and Scotland, different rules apply in terms of eligibility.

Sarah Woolnough, chief executive of healthcare think tank the King’s Fund, said the current “punitive system” meant that “quite a lot of people go without care that they need”, with one in seven paying in excess of £100,000 for social care.

While Burnham has not yet outlined any plans, Woolnough told the BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that reforms could range from making social care free at the point of need to placing a cap on the amount people spend.

“The PM has for a long time mooted the idea of a social care system similar to NHS,” she said.

“It would be expensive but on the scale of what we spend on other public services – around £200bn on the NHS – we are talking for some of these options low billions per year.”

Adult social care has proved a complex issue to tackle for successive governments.

Two years ago Sir Keir Starmer was criticised when Labour scrapped plans for an £86,000 cap on the amount people in England would spend on social care in their lifetime.

Badenoch wrote in her letter to Burnham that “any solution to the issues around social care must also be fair to those who have made provisions and saved up over the course of their lives”.

Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrat MP who chairs the Health and Social Committee, told the Today programme: “We do need to discuss where the money is going to come from but also we need to all be putting our political capital into this.”

Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey said he was ready to do “whatever I can to find a real and lasting consensus on social care”.

“Family carers must be at the heart of any new system, everyone must get the care they need and no one should lose their home as a result,” he said.

Reform Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick said social care needed fixing but warned the party would fight any proposal for a “universal death tax”.

He said: “It’s not fair to raid people’s life savings and drags hundreds of thousands more families into paying tax when their loved ones pass away.”

SANTIAGO, Chile, July 22 (UPI) — Chile’s Congress approved most of the economic and tax reforms promoted by President José Antonio Kast — one of the flagship initiatives of his government agenda.

The reforms include a gradual reduction in the corporate tax rate from to 23% from 27% to encourage investment and revive economic growth.

The Chamber of Deputies on Tuesday passed the National Reconstruction and Economic and Social Development bill, which also establishes tax incentives for the repatriation of capital, creates compensation mechanisms for companies when courts overturn projects that have already received Environmental Qualification Resolution approval and eliminates the tax on a first home for older adults.

Finance Minister Jorge Quiroz said the initiative seeks to “restore tax competitiveness” and provide greater certainty for investment.

“We have approved measures to restore certainty for investment in Chile, remove permitting barriers that have kept investment projects and economic activity stalled, and provide security for those who decide to invest,” he said.

The approval represents one of Kast’s main legislative victories since taking office in March, and allows him to advance one of the pillars of his economic agenda — reducing the tax burden to stimulate private investment and accelerate growth.

Jorge Berríos, academic director of the Graduate Diploma in Finance at the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Chile, told UPI that the reform is intended to restore investor confidence and create conditions for the country to return to growth above 3%.

“A reduction of several percentage points in the corporate tax rate has positive effects on companies and the economy, although those results are generally seen over the long term,” he said.

Berrios said some effects could be felt sooner in the labor market because of the subsidies included in the initiative, as well as through an improved perception of Chile among domestic and foreign investors.

“The Chilean market is returning to a structure similar to that of the 1990s, with market-oriented reforms that allowed the country to achieve strong growth and stand out in Latin America,” he said.

Berríos said the Chilean economy experienced several years of uncertainty marked by increased regulation and higher taxes — factors that he believes damaged the country’s standing among investors.

The Confederation of Production and Commerce, the country’s leading business organization, welcomed approval of the bill. Its president, Susana Jiménez, said the initiative represents “an important step toward restoring the economy’s dynamism and returning to growth.”

The only provision still awaiting approval is the compensation mechanism for municipalities, which will lose part of the revenue generated by the tax on residential properties.

BUENOS AIRES, July 21 (UPI) — President Javier Milei’s government is backing a bill that would eliminate most of Argentina’s restrictions that have limited foreign ownership of rural land since 2011 in an effort to attract investment and strengthen legal certainty.

The plan also has reignited debate over sovereignty and control of a resource considered strategic.

The proposal is part of the Private Property Inviolability Act, and it would substantially amend the framework established a law enacted during the administration of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner that set limits on the amount of rural land that foreign individuals and companies could own.

Presidential spokesman Adrián Ravier said the initiative seeks to strengthen property rights protected under Argentina’s Constitution. Speaking at a news conference, he said the country had endured decades of legal uncertainty that discouraged investment and hindered opportunities for economic growth and job creation.

“What we are seeking is to remove the general restrictions on the acquisition of rural land by foreigners,” Ravier said.

He also argued that Argentina historically grew thanks to immigrants who invested and became landowners, and that maintaining broad restrictions on foreign investors no longer makes sense. He added that the bill instead strengthens oversight of foreign governments and their state-owned companies.

The initiative also removes one of the central principles of the current law, which states that purchasing rural land by foreigners does not constitute an investment because the land is a nonrenewable natural resource that belongs to the country.

Former Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Minister Julián Domínguez, who promoted the law during Fernández de Kirchner’s administration, had rejected proposed reform.

He told UPI that when Congress approved the legislation, it established that “the acquisition of rural land shall not be considered an investment because it is a nonrenewable natural resource contributed by the recipient country.”

Domínguez contended the proposal contradicts the objective of protecting a strategic resource.

“It is paradoxical. The grandly titled ‘Private Property Inviolability Act’ ends up being, precisely, a violation of Argentines’ rights over their land,” he said.

The former minister also rejected the government’s argument that the current law discouraged foreign investment.

“Our producers are recognized around the world for their ability to adapt and innovate. So does the government believe a foreigner will do a better job than an Argentine producer? The debate is about something else,” he said.

The issue goes beyond economics. Domínguez said.

“In Congress, what is at stake is our identity as Argentines and our relationship with our territory. Every country is very careful about who can buy its land,” he said.

Attorney Enrique Viale, president of the Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers, also criticized the bill, saying it should instead be called the “foreignization of land law.”

He told UPI that the proposal repeals the provisions that establish acreage limits, ownership caps and protected areas for foreign purchases of rural land.

“It repeals the provisions establishing acreage limits, ownership percentages and protected areas. It fully liberalizes land purchases, including in border areas and without ownership caps,” he said.

Viale said foreigners already own large portions of Argentine land, adding that without restrictions, the trend could accelerate.

He said reform would benefit large international investors who seek to develop artificial intelligence-related data centers, as well as foreign landowners who already hold extensive properties in Patagonia and Argentina’s Littoral region.

“I see no benefit in this bill. What it does is consolidate permanent control of land by foreign capital and increase the risk of losing sovereignty,” he said.

From the real estate sector, José Rozados, director of consultancy Reporte Inmobiliario, said easing restrictions could encourage large-scale investment.

“Anything that removes restrictions on the inflow of capital, especially for investments that require large amounts of money and long payback periods, is important,” he said.

Rozados said greater openness would facilitate productive projects that require large tracts of land and significant investment to develop economic activities.

“Whatever legislation is enacted regarding the permissibility and protection of those investments could allow foreign investors, or even local investors partnered with foreign capital, to be willing to invest in large areas of land,” he said.

The law, known as the National Protection Regime for the Ownership, Possession and Tenure of Rural Land, mandates that foreign individuals and companies may not own more than 15% of the country’s rural land — a limit that also applies within each province and municipality.

It also provides that citizens of the same nationality may not account for more than 30% of that quota, equivalent to 4.5% of the total rural land within a given territory.

The legislation also limits to 2,471 acres the amount of land that may be acquired by a single foreign owner in the country’s core agricultural zone, or its equivalent in other regions, and prohibits the sale of land located in border security zones or containing significant permanent bodies of water, such as rivers, lakes and glaciers.

The government’s bill amends several of those provisions to relax the current framework while maintaining restrictions on foreign governments and their state-owned companies.

The ruling coalition failed to secure enough support to move the initiative forward, and the bill will return to the Senate for debate in August.

Imagine if Sunday’s World Cup final were played under rules that blatantly favored one side over the other. Let’s say Argentina was spotted four goals against Spain.

Spain could, conceivably, overcome that 4-0 deficit. But it would be awfully hard and something of a miracle if the Spanish team prevailed.

Fans the world over would be rightly outraged. Why bother holding the tournament? What’s the point if one team is saddled with near-insurmountable odds?

Increasingly, that’s what elections for the House of Representatives look like.

As recently as the late 1990s, around 4 in 10 congressional districts were considered competitive, meaning Democratic and Republican candidates each had a plausible shot at winning. Today, per the nonpartisan handicappers at the Cook Political Report, only 18 of 435 House districts are considered toss-ups.

Another 20 districts are rated as either leaning Democratic or Republican, meaning candidates from one party or the other enjoy a noteworthy advantage, but aren’t necessarily a lock to win in November.

In sum, that means fewer than a tenth of all House seats are even somewhat competitive.

That’s hardly an accident, as lawmakers have increasingly manipulated the election process to suit themselves, rejiggering congressional districts to sideline voters and boost their political parties.

It’s undemocratic, and it stinks.

Stifling competition, rewarding extremes

“Every voter has a stake in making sure that these elections are fair and that the process is transparent,” said Rep. Jeff Hurd, a Republican who represents a large, mostly rural swath of western and southern Colorado. “Gerrymandering undermines representative democracy … by preventing voters and communities from having cohesive representation.

“It unfortunately rewards political extremes,” he went on. “It reduces competition and contributes to the polarization and dysfunction that prevents Congress from effectively addressing the issues that our constituents care about.”

Hurd is a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group of 44 House members dedicated to working through their ideological and political differences to — lordy! — try to get stuff done.

Recently, to mark Independence Day, the caucus announced a framework for legislation aimed at bringing competition back to many congressional races, in part by limiting the redrawing of political maps to once every 10 years, following the census. Among other reforms, the bipartisan group also called for establishing a uniform, national standard requiring that congressional districts be drawn “using clear, objective criteria while rejecting partisan advantage and incumbent protection as legitimate goals.”

The effort is, of course, too late for this election. The hope is Congress will enact the changes in time for the next scheduled round of redistricting, which is due to take place after the 2030 census. The rules would be in place starting in 2032.

The chances of passage are not strong. As Hurd noted: “Any reform that asks politicians to give up political leverage is going to be challenging.” But if ever there was a time for a badly needed systemic fix, it’s now.

A race to the bottom

Gerrymandering has been around for more than 200 years. The term derives from the efforts of Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry to skew state Senate races in the election of 1812. The portmanteau, which appeared in the Boston Gazette, described one politically engineered, misshapen district that resembled a salamander.

The practice reached new heights of creativity (or deviousness, depending on your perspective) in the modern age, when ever-more sophisticated computers allowed for ever-finer slicing and dicing of the electorate.

In 2019, the Supreme Court effectively greenlighted the practice in a 5-4 decision by the conservative majority, decreeing that partisan gerrymandering was beyond the purview of federal courts. In other words, have at it! And lawmakers did.

But this last year, in particular, has broken new, insidious ground.

Pressured by President Trump — who fears losing the GOP’s whisper-thin House majority — lawmakers in Texas tore up their political map mid-decade and redrew the state’s congressional districts in hopes of nabbing five additional seats this November. California responded in kind, with passage of Proposition 50, a measure that shelved the work of a nonpartisan redistricting commission in favor of a map aimed at handing Democrats five additional seats.

More than half a dozen other states — most of them Republican-run — have jumped into the fight, gerrymandering their congressional districts to gain a partisan edge. Lawmakers in several Democratic-run states are now looking at the prospect of retaliatory gerrymandering ahead of the 2028 election.

There’s not much upside to all this self-dealing — if, that is, you care about political competition and allowing the electorate a genuine say. But all that manipulation and maneuvering has, at least, made voters much more aware of the once-obscure practice of congressional line drawing. And that offers reformers a flicker of hope.

One ally, improbable though it may seem, is Paul Mitchell. He’s the Sacramento political guru who drew the gerrymandered map that California voters approved with passage of Proposition 50. (California, he said, was left no choice but to respond after Texas made its move.)

Mitchell said he has long favored a national redistricting standard that would apply to all 50 states and put the much-abused process on an even footing. “I really believe that redistricting should … serve the public, not serve the politicians,” Mitchell said.

Still looking on that bright side, he suggested perhaps the current redistricting war will prove so odious and have “done so much harm” that combatants will reach a point where they “put down [their] arms and embrace a kind of nonpartisan, non-politicized, public-oriented redistricting.”

It seems far-fetched. But miracles do happen.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Californians rallied to save the coast 50 years ago. Trump is spoiling the celebration
The deep dive: On birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court originalists split on history and Trump
The L.A. Times Special: Inside the states’ case to block the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger: ‘Each side is taking risks’

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Democrat Xavier Becerra holds a commanding lead in the California governor’s race in a new poll, which also shows broad voter support for a ballot proposition to reform the state’s landmark environmental law to speed up housing and infrastructure.

The survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, released Wednesday night, focused primarily on questions related to climate change and environmental policies.

The results show Californians have a strong distaste for building data centers for artificial intelligence technology, and largely favor the state’s efforts to protect the environment and cut emissions — with some exceptions.

The survey showed Becerra with a big lead over Republican Steve Hilton in the race to replace term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom. Becerra, a longtime Democratic officeholder, received support from 61% of likely voters, compared with 36% for Hilton, a populist conservative who once advised a British prime minister.

Gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton speaks at the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference in L.A. on Wednesday.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

The results are not surprising in a state where Democratic voters significantly outnumber Republicans. The GOP has not won a statewide election since 2008.

Just 2% of likely voters said they were unsure which candidate to support in the November election. The poll results skewed heavily partisan, with more than 9 in 10 Democratic and Republican voters picking their party’s respective candidate. Most independent voters leaned toward Becerra, 60%, over Hilton, 34%.

The results are similar to data from a poll conducted just before the June 2 primary election that asked voters to pick between the two candidates. In that survey, 52% said they supported Becerra and 31% were for Hilton.

In a statement Wednesday, Hilton characterized the race as “wide open,” contending that Becerra’s support was weaker than the poll’s headline figures would indicate.

“Instead of a 36-year career politician, we need a positive, energetic problem-solver with business experience and plans to make our state ‘Califordable’ — that’s me,” Hilton said.

Becerra spokesman Jonathan Underland said in a statement that “Californians got to know Xavier Becerra during the primary, and they’re ready to make him their next governor. We’re keeping our eyes on the prize — hitting the trail every day ’til November to turn that support into votes.”

Support for CEQA reform

A ballot measure aimed at reforming the California Environmental Quality Act to speed up construction notched a strong showing in the poll.

Nearly three-quarters of likely voters, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents, said that they would vote for Proposition 45. The measure would shorten windows for environmental review, public comment and legal challenges for certain housing, transportation, water infrastructure and other projects.

“At this early stage in the campaign, California voters are feeling more aligned with Democratic candidates on the environment, and it shows in the polling,” said PPIC survey director Mark Baldassare. “But strong support for Proposition 45 reveals their desire to balance environmental priorities with housing and infrastructure needs.”

Strong data center opposition

The poll found large majorities of Californians do not want new data centers to support the AI boom built in their area; 44% of adults say they “strongly oppose” such projects, and 29% “somewhat oppose” them.

The majority opposition holds across political parties, geographic regions, gender, race and income. It’s especially pronounced in the Inland Empire, where plans for a 950,000-square-foot data center came to a halt after fierce resident pushback. Three-quarters of people surveyed in that region said they oppose building new data centers.

“Every day, we are hearing about how local communities across the nation are responding to plans for data centers,” Baldassare said. “Californians have weighed in and they share this growing concern.”

Support for environmental policies — except if they cost more

The poll also shows strong, if somewhat qualified, support for California’s efforts to reduce climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions and protect the environment.

Three-quarters of adults said policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been a good thing overall, and 65% said they support California leaders’ efforts to make their own environmental policies separate from the federal government.

While most respondents — 62% — said they favor a law requiring 100% of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources within the next two decades, just 38% said they were willing to pay more for electricity sourced from renewables.

“With energy prices spiking and affordability a growing concern, Californians are just not willing to pay more for renewable energy,” Baldassare said. A near-unanimous majority, 96%, said the cost of energy — including gasoline, natural gas and electricity — is a problem.

Newsom’s move to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles in the state by 2035 also appears to have fallen out of favor. Two-thirds of Californians oppose the policy, a significant slip in approval from 2021, when a PPIC survey showed 49% supported the move.

Still, majorities of likely voters — 53% and 51%, respectively — said they approve of Newsom’s and the state Legislature’s handling of environmental issues.

At 28%, President Trump’s approval rating on the environment was much lower. In his second term, Trump has moved to slash environmental regulations, including easing pollution regulations on coal-fired power plants and pushing for oil drilling off California’s coast.

“Given this ratings gap, it’s not surprising that Californians want to see the state take the lead on climate change policy,” Baldassare said.

The survey polled 1,578 California adults, 1,003 of whom were likely voters, in English and Spanish from June 29 to July 6 and had a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points in either direction.

Mérida, July 14, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly preliminarily approved two laws granting expanded benefits to landlords and the private real estate sector as part of authorities’ post-earthquake reconstruction plans.

The Tuesday session was held at Simón Bolívar Park in La Carlota, Caracas, after the legislative palace suffered damage from the June 24 double tremor.

The Venezuelan legislature voted in favor of a Law for the Special Regime of Housing Property Leasing and a partial reform of the Law Against Real Estate Fraud. Both projects will now be subject to consultations and revisions before being put to a second and final vote.

“Our main task with this reform is to stimulate the housing rental market,” National Assembly Vice President Pedro Infante stated. “We have to strengthen the legal certainty for property owners and also protect tenants. It’s a legal balance.”

Infante added that officials estimate that there are around 200,000 homes that could enter the rental market but that parliament has to “untie the knots that are holding this market back.”

The existing legislation governing housing rentals was enacted by former President Hugo Chávez in 2011 and it is highly protective of tenants. Grassroots movements participated directly in several housing laws.

In a recent press conference, National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez called the current law “regressive” and argued that parliament needed to make property owners feel “more secure in renting their properties.” Real estate chambers have long lobbied for reforms to housing laws.

The preliminarily approved bill expands conditions for landlords to evict their tenants, including two months of unpaid rent, deterioration of the property, or unauthorized subletting. It additionally establishes that disputes are to be resolved via mediation or municipal courts. Tenant movements have recently denounced a growing trend of landlords bringing “invasion” charges against tenants as a way to evict them, with the complicity of public prosecutors.

The partial reform of the law against real estate fraud, likewise approved during Tuesday’s session, loosens conditions for the sale of housing properties yet to be built or under construction while also reducing collateral requirements for developers.

“The reform seeks to guarantee better conditions, legal security, and financing capacity so that the private sector initiates an aggressive, accelerated process of housing construction,” Infante explained, adding that it “removes rigid price schemes,” allowing real estate developers to factor “variations in the costs of materials in supplies” into house prices.

Under the updated law, house sale and pre-sale contracts no longer need to be individually approved by government housing authorities. Instead, the governing body will publish a set of general rules. According to the reform text, banks that finance real estate projects will no longer be liable for their non-completion, with legislators arguing that the measure will boost credit options.

Deputy Alejandra Rodríguez, from opposition party Un Nuevo Tiempo, endorsed the preliminary housing reforms for seeking a “balance between the right to housing, the protection of private property, legal security, and the promotion of responsible investment.”

Venezuelan authorities have prioritized finding housing solutions with over 20,000 people forced into temporary shelters after losing their homes in the June 24 double earthquake, most of them in coastal La Guaira State. The latest official figures placed the death toll at 4,734, with nearly 17,000 injured.

Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has launched the “Venezuela Renace” program to conduct inspections and repair works in affected buildings, as well as revitalize the construction sector to generate new housing complexes in a short time frame. She likewise called on public and private banks to expand mortgage programs, vowing that the government would subsidize them up to 80 percent.

On Monday, Rodríguez met with representatives from business chambers, including construction and real estate, and reiterated calls for the private sector to participate in the post-earthquake reconstruction. 

“Every person who lost their home should have hope of being under a new roof in the short term,” she stated.

Rodríguez announced that the government is working on construction plans in La Guaira alongside the Venezuelan Construction Chamber and the Venezuelan Real Estate Chamber. Authorities are conducting soil studies and identifying potential land plots. She recalled that the export of construction materials is presently banned.

The acting president assured those present that Venezuela remains on a path of economic growth and that household consumption had risen by 33 percent in June.

Rodríguez reiterated calls for the removal of economic sanctions against the country and ongoing efforts to secure the release of frozen Venezuelan assets, including gold reserves held by the Bank of England.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

July 13 (Asia Today) — South Korean Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back is facing mounting pressure from an allegation that he deserted his military post four decades ago and growing opposition to his plan to consolidate the country’s three service academies.

The two controversies have converged, raising questions about whether the Lee Jae Myung administration can maintain momentum behind its broader military reform agenda.

Complaint filed over parliamentary testimony

Kim Young-soo, head of the Korea Institute for Military Rights and a former Navy major, filed a police complaint against Ahn on June 27. The complaint alleges Ahn violated a law governing testimony and evidence before the National Assembly.

At a news conference at the National Assembly on Monday, Kim claimed Ahn left his post without authorization for about seven months while serving as a supplementary-duty soldier with an Army unit in Gochang County in 1984.

Kim also alleged that military police arrested Ahn and detained him for 30 days.

The complaint argues that Ahn gave false testimony during his confirmation hearing in July 2025 when he denied that such incidents had occurred.

The case is being investigated by Yongsan Police Station in Seoul. Police are scheduled to question Kim as the complainant Thursday.

The allegations have not been substantiated and remain under investigation.

Ministry calls allegation “clearly false”

The Defense Ministry rejected the desertion allegation Friday, calling it “clearly false.”

According to Ahn and the ministry, he completed his required service and was discharged from supplementary duty in January 1985. He returned to Sungkyunkwan University in March but was told in June that he was required to perform additional service.

The ministry said the issue arose after Ahn’s mother served lunch to active-duty soldiers at the request of his company commander. The period during which the incident was internally reviewed was mistakenly omitted from the administrative process when Ahn was initially released from duty, leading to his recall in August.

The ministry said Ahn was never detained or subjected to disciplinary action.

It has declined to publicly release his military service record, however, arguing that disclosing an incorrect 40-year-old document could create further misunderstanding regardless of the underlying facts.

Ahn has said he will seek to have the record corrected after leaving office.

SBS reported Sunday that a small number of ruling-party officials had examined the military records and said they contained no entries related to desertion or detention.

Military academy announcement abruptly postponed

Amid the dispute, the ministry abruptly postponed the scheduled release of its basic plan for establishing a unified armed forces academy. The announcement was canceled about 100 minutes before a briefing Monday.

The proposal calls for jointly selecting cadets for the Army, Navy and Air Force academies. Cadets would receive common instruction during their first two years and service-specific education during their third and fourth years.

The government has also reportedly considered relocating the Korea Military Academy from its current campus in northeastern Seoul to South Jeolla Province.

The ministry attributed the postponement to Ahn’s attendance at a presidential meeting and his schedule accompanying President Lee to a NATO summit.

The decision was widely interpreted, however, as a response to strong opposition from retired military organizations and alumni associations.

Academy alumni stage first joint protest

The alumni associations of the Army, Navy and Air Force academies held a rally outside the National Assembly on Wednesday opposing the consolidation plan and the proposed relocation of the Army academy.

It was the first time the three associations had jointly mobilized over the issue.

People Power Party Reps. Han Ki-ho and Lim Jong-deuk, both graduates of the Korea Military Academy, attended the demonstration. They described the proposal as a deterioration of national defense rather than genuine reform and called for it to be reconsidered from the beginning.

Twelve former commanders of the Army Training and Doctrine Command also issued a statement calling for a review of the plan.

The opposition People Power Party has linked the military service allegation with the academy consolidation proposal and called for Ahn’s resignation.

Independent lawmaker Han Dong-hoon has also demanded that Ahn release his military service record.

A public petition seeking Ahn’s impeachment had received more than 310,000 signatures as of Sunday.

Thursday’s police questioning of the complainant is expected to become the first major turning point in the dispute over Ahn’s service history.

The policy battle, however, is unlikely to disappear regardless of the investigation’s outcome.

Opposition to consolidating the academies and dismantling the Defense Counterintelligence Command has already developed independently of the allegation against Ahn. The unprecedented joint protest by the three academy alumni associations demonstrates the extent of that resistance.

The ministry’s continued refusal to release Ahn’s service record is also prolonging the controversy. Its decision to postpone correction procedures until after Ahn leaves office risks allowing the dispute to remain a source of political conflict.

At the same time, treating the military service allegation and the academy reform proposal as a single political issue could undermine a substantive national security debate.

Defense experts familiar with the controversy say the allegation should be investigated according to the law, while the merits of military reform should be debated separately according to the national interest.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260713010004389

Farage served as Reform’s honorary president between March 2021 and June 2024. On 3 June 2024, he confirmed he was returning as party leader and standing in the general election. He became Clacton MP in July 2024.

Under parliamentary rules, new MPs must declare financial interests and “registrable benefits” received in the 12 months before their election.

The guidelines say purely personal gifts or benefits do not need to be registered.

When he became an MP, Farage registered a £9,253 trip to Belgium in April 2024 donated by Cottrell, and later added a £15,276 donation from Cottrell for a US domestic flight he provided in December 2024.

No other support from Cottrell is listed in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests., external

A spokesman for Farage said: “It comes as no surprise that the Sunday Times has chosen to publish this baseless and contrived story, covering a period of time when Nigel Farage was not even an active politician let alone an elected one, given that the newspaper backed the Labour Party at the last general election.

“Contrary to the story’s tone, no parliamentary rules have been broken.”

A source said Reform paid for Farage’s security and staff after his return to politics.

The source also denied Farage received accommodation from Cottrell – saying the MP did not stay at the London property.

The Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, Daniel Greenberg, is currently investigating whether Farage broke the rules over the £5m gift from British cryptocurrency investor Christopher Harborne in early 2024.

Farage has said Harborne gave him the money to pay for his personal security, adding the gift was “purely private” and “wasn’t political in any sense at all”.

Lib Dem MP Josh Babarinde has asked Greenberg to “get to the bottom” of the latest allegations linked to Farage’s support from Cottrell.

Babarinde has also asked Greenberg to confirm whether he will investigate the claims as part of the existing inquiry or as a separate matter.

A Labour Party spokesperson said: “Nigel Farage and Reform are engulfed in a huge and growing scandal.

“These new allegations of secret payments from a wealthy convicted criminal are on top of the ongoing scandal of his secret £5m gift from a crypto billionaire.

“How much money has he been given, what did his donors get in return, and why has he tried to cover them up and avoid legitimate questions?”

Responding to Jenrick’s interview, Labour said Reform “can’t shrug this scandal off and hope it goes away”.

June 11 (Asia Today) — South Korea needs to reform its electricity market to respond to surging power demand from artificial intelligence and the expansion of renewable energy, the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry said Wednesday.

The chamber said the current power market structure is not enough to support private investment or the growth of new energy businesses, including energy storage systems and virtual power plants.

The business group raised the issue during a seminar in Seoul co-hosted with the Korean Resource Economics Association. Participants discussed ways to reform the electricity market and promote new energy businesses as AI adoption and renewable power generation expand.

“As the power industry shifts from a centralized structure to a distributed and digital-based system, various new businesses are emerging,” said Cho Hong-jong, president of the Korean Resource Economics Association and a professor at Dankook University. “To make the energy transition a reality, it is necessary to build a competitive system based on market principles.”

Joo Sung-kwan, a professor at Korea University, said South Korea’s current electricity market has structural limits because wholesale prices are set a day before electricity is supplied, based mainly on fuel costs.

“This creates significant rigidity because real-time supply and demand conditions cannot be flexibly reflected in prices,” Joo said.

Joo said the market needs pricing signals that respond to supply and demand. Prices should rise when electricity supply is tight to encourage lower consumption and fall when supply is sufficient to promote use, he said.

For new energy businesses to secure profitability and increase investment, Joo said South Korea should move from the current day-ahead market to a real-time market. He also called for a price-bidding system in which power generators and electricity retailers submit bid prices.

Panelists also said South Korea needs a market environment and regulatory system that can attract private investment.

Lee Seo-jin, a professor at Hongik University, said tailored compensation systems for new energy businesses and a predictable policy environment are more important than simple market opening.

Huh Yoon-ji, a professor at Dankook University, said wholesale price normalization and retail electricity rate reform must proceed together to secure economic viability. She also called for independent governance to supervise the electricity market.

Industry officials said the pace of reform should accelerate.

Lee Hyo-seop, vice president of Encored, said his company is preparing a virtual power plant business using AI-based forecasting technology, but uncertainty over the schedule for electricity market reform is making business development difficult.

Yeom Sung-oh, Seoul representative of Gurin Energy, said power supply flexibility and sustainability will be crucial in the AI era. He called for preemptive institutional support covering power grids, energy storage systems and data centers.

The Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry said private-sector energy businesses are essential to address rising electricity demand from AI and the growing variability of renewable energy.

“Companies need a more predictable electricity market so they can invest in high-cost new technologies,” said Kim Min-seok, head of the chamber’s Green Energy Center. “Institutional foundations, including regulatory innovation and a supportive market environment, must be established.”

“To secure competitiveness in power infrastructure in the AI era, discussion on electricity market reform can no longer be delayed,” Kim said.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260611010003798

Caracas, June 4, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly preliminarily approved on Tuesday a reform to the country’s Organic Law of the National Electricity System and Service, proposing a structural overhaul of the National Electricity System (SEN).

One of the most significant changes is the incorporation of the private sector in electricity generation, transmission, distribution, and commercialization activities, breaking with two decades of state monopoly through the National Electric Corporation (Corpoelec).

According to the draft text seen by Venezuelanalysis, private corporations and joint ventures will be able to operate in the electric grid in what is termed a “diversification of actors in the service chain.” The mixed ventures, where the state can hold majority or minority stakes, will be approved directly by the government and not by the National Assembly.

“In recent decades, the electric system has showcased structural and financial limitations […] as a result of the productive reality and the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures,” the proposed law reads. “Faced with this reality, the Venezuelan state must assume an institutional and judicial reengineering.”

The bill establishes concessions with a maximum duration of 25 years, renewable for a further 15 years under specific conditions. Once a concession expires, all infrastructure, assets, substations, and data will automatically revert to the state in good condition and without compensation.

The proposed legislation announces the creation of a new tariff scheme “based on real costs and a reasonable return for investors.” Electricity, like most public services, has been heavily subsidized in recent decades in the Caribbean nation. The bill additionally introduces obligations for electricity distributors to compensate users for damages caused by blackouts or other failures.

The reform likewise establishes the possibility for the executive branch to grant tax exemptions to projects linked to renewable energy, rural electrification, or strategic investments in the electricity sector.

The 42-article legislation will now be subject to discussions and amendments before a second and decisive vote. 

If approved, it would repeal the Organic Law for the Reorganization of the Electricity Sector, enacted by former President Hugo Chávez on July 31, 2007, which merged the country’s seven existing electricity companies through the creation of the National Electric Corporation. The legislation also defined all stages of electricity generation and distribution as “strategic for the nation.”

During Tuesday’s parliamentary session, United Socialist Party (PSUV) lawmaker Orlando Miranda argued that the electricity reform represented a “mixed and private capital strategy under a rigorous regime of concessions and public supervision.” 

He noted that government plans to reinforce the grid with thermoelectric plants in the past 15 years were hampered by US economic sanctions. Miranda went on to add that increased tariffs are being studied to reflect the “real costs” of the system.

For his part, opposition legislator Ezio Angelini (Un Nuevo Tiempo) demanded that the reform address corruption, which he identified as a key factor behind Venezuela’s recurring power outages.

Angelini stated that in 2019 Venezuela generated around 20,000 megawatts (MW) while consuming approximately 12,000. Today, he claimed, the country produces close to 12,000 MW, roughly 40 percent of installed capacity, while demand has risen to 14,000. On May 11, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello stated that electricity demand had surpassed 15,500 MW due to increased oil production.

Zulia state, considered the cradle of Venezuela’s oil industry, and other western regions have experienced daily blackouts lasting between eight and twelve hours in recent weeks. Supply instability also affects other services such as water pumping and cooking gas distribution.

Frequent power outages have also gripped oil fields in the Orinoco Belt, as crude extraction relies on electric motors that are vulnerable to tension fluctuations. According to Bloomberg, the Venezuelan government is urging international energy companies to generate their own electricity for oil and natural gas projects in an effort to shield the grid from the additional load.

Delegations from Siemens and General Electric visited the country in April and held talks with the Venezuelan government headed by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez. However, the two corporate giants are reportedly “hesitant” to take part in major projects due to doubts over Caracas’ financial capabilities.

Additionally, in mid-May, US Chargé d’Affaires in Venezuela John Barrett held a meeting with Electricity Minister Rolando Alcalá to discuss plans to “restore a reliable energy supply through US investment and collaboration.”

Electricity generation in Venezuela depends heavily on the 10 MW-capacity Guri hydroelectric complex in Bolívar state, making the system particularly vulnerable to climatic factors such as the high temperatures affecting the country. Venezuela suffered nationwide blackouts in 2019, with authorities blaming US-led cyberattacks.

The electricity reform follows legislative overhauls to the hydrocarbon and mining sectors that likewise curtailed the state’s role and responsibilities while granting private corporations expanded control over operations and sales, slashed royalties and taxes, and the ability to bring disputes to international arbitration bodies.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

May 29 (UPI) — Mexico’s Congress approved a constitutional reform that adds foreign intervention or interference in electoral processes as a new ground for annulling elections.

The measure, promoted by the ruling party, the National Regeneration Movement, or Morena, has sparked debate over national sovereignty, electoral security and the limits of legal interpretation in future elections.

The reform amends Article 41 of the Constitution to establish that an election may be annulled when acts of foreign intervention or interference that influence electoral results are proven.

The initiative was initially approved by the Chamber of Deputies and later received Senate approval. It must now be ratified by at least 17 state legislatures before it can take effect.

The proposal was introduced by Ricardo Monreal, Morena’s coordinator in the Chamber of Deputies, who argued that Mexican law had until now lacked a specific sanction for cases of foreign interference in elections.

“Currently there is no sanction for anyone who seeks to invade our country or interfere in electoral processes,” Monreal said during the legislative debate, according to El Universal.

The lawmaker said the annulment could only be applied when there is “full and conclusive evidence” that foreign governments or external agents intervened in an election.

The Chamber of Deputies approved the reform with 307 votes in favor, 128 against and one abstention.

The ruling coalition argues that the measure seeks to strengthen national sovereignty against possible attempts at external influence, including irregular financing, disinformation campaigns, digital operations or political pressure originating abroad.

President Claudia Sheinbaum publicly backed the initiative and said there is a “real risk” of foreign intervention in future Mexican electoral processes.

Several local media outlets reported that the government has linked the reform to an international environment marked by growing geopolitical disputes, digital influence campaigns and external pressure on Latin American governments.

However, opposition parties questioned both the substance of the reform and the speed with which it advanced through Congress.

Rubén Moreira, parliamentary leader of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, warned that the initiative was introduced only days before it was debated and argued that there was not enough time to thoroughly analyze the legal implications of concepts such as “interference” or “foreign intervention,” according to reports by El País.

Lawmakers from the National Action Party and the Citizens’ Movement party also warned of the risk that the new provision could be used discretionarily to challenge election results under broad interpretations of what constitutes foreign influence.

During the legislative debate, Morena rejected those accusations and said the reform is not intended to censor news media, social media platforms or individual expressions.

Monreal said that a news article, an interview or a social media post would not, by themselves, be sufficient grounds to justify the annulment of an election.

He also said secondary legislation will be needed to precisely define the legal circumstances under which foreign intervention occurred and which authorities will be empowered to determine it.

The debate comes amid growing political tensions between Mexico and United States over issues related to drug trafficking, border security and regional cooperation.

It also coincides with a broader debate across Latin America over the influence of foreign governments, transnational digital campaigns and mechanisms to protect electoral sovereignty.

In a few days, Los Angeles voters will be casting ballots for city attorney — and in a few months, they could be voting to sharply diminish the city attorney’s authority.

The city’s Charter Reform Commission has proposed splitting the city attorney’s office into two parts — an elected city prosecutor, charged with handling criminal misdemeanors, and a mayor-appointed and City Council-confirmed city attorney who would represent the city in civil cases and advise the mayor, city council and city departments.

The City Council is reviewing the recommendation as part of sweeping changes to city government, including expanding the council from 15 to 25 seats, which could go before voters in the Nov. 3 general election.

The proposed changes to the city attorney’ office, however, come in the midst of a heated primary campaign, where incumbent Hydee Feldstein Soto is up against three challengers, including a state deputy attorney general and a deputy district attorney.

Both of those challengers say plans to bifurcate the city attorney’s office are rooted in longstanding conflicts between Feldstein Soto and the City Council.

Council members have expressed frustration over her handling of rising costs from an outside law firm, where the payout amount has grown to nearly $7.5 million — with some attorneys billing the city roughly $1,300 an hour.

And last year, City Council took a 12-0 vote to direct Feldstein Soto to withdraw an effort to halt a federal judge’s order prohibiting LAPD officers from targeting journalists with crowd control weapons.

“When I first heard about this idea, I thought it was probably the greatest indictment of the current city attorney that I’ve heard yet,” said John McKinney, a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who is running for city attorney in Tuesday’s primary.

McKinney opposes the bifurcation, saying it will cause overlap and confusion. “If she was doing a good job … we wouldn’t even be having this discussion,” he said.

Marissa Roy, another candidate in the race, hasn’t taken a position on bifurcation but said Feldstein Soto’s actions triggered the proposed change.

“The only reason that bifurcation, or splitting the city attorney’s office, is even going to be going before voters is because we’ve had an incumbent city attorney who has gone so rogue to politicize the role,” said Roy, a deputy state attorney general.

Roy said accused Feldstein Soto of inappropriately blocking an affordable housing project in Venice. And in her office’s role of drafting ordinance language, Roy said, Feldstein Soto has returned to city council ordinance language that isn’t “faithful to the intent of the drafter.”

Feldstein Soto said the proposal to bifurcate the office has nothing to do with her performance.

“This issue comes up every single time charter reform comes up,” Feldstein Soto said. “To me this is all political opportunism.”

Feldstein Soto has opposed the split, and former city attorneys have also come out against it, saying an appointed position threatens the independence of the city attorney’s office, takes away from voters the right to elect a city attorney and could cost taxpayers money in order to split the office.

In a March letter to the Charter Reform Commission, Feldstein Soto said an attorney “serving at the pleasure” of the mayor and city council would face an “innate, human pressure to harmonize legal advice with the political goals of the appointing officials.”

“I have been able to provide honest, accurate legal advice to the Mayor, City Council, Controller and departments — even when that advice is unwelcome — precisely because I am an independently elected officeholder with an ultimate duty to the public,” she wrote. “An appointed City Attorney, serving at the pleasure of the Mayor and City Council, faces enormous political pressure on all of these issues, behind closed doors, cloaked in privilege without an independent voice.”

Burt Pines, a former city attorney who served from 1973 to 1981, deeply opposes the bifurcation proposal, citing the threat to independence as the largest issue at stake. As city attorney, he said, he was empowered to tell city officials when a proposed action was unlawful and refuse to support it.

“You want to be able to call the shots as you see them, true to the law,” Pines said in an interview.

Advocates say other cities have bifurcated offices, and splitting it could reduce conflict and provide a clear delineation of roles.

After consulting with experts and good governance groups, the commission agreed the benefits of bifurcation outweighed the negatives, and it passed unanimously by the commission.

“It was easy to get consensus on this,” said Raymond Meza, chair of the commission. The commission’s proposal calls for the city attorney to be nominated by the mayor, and confirmed by the City Council.

In its report, the commission said that “the current structure creates conflicts when the same office advises the city and prosecutes cases. Separation provides clearer roles, reduces conflicts, and allows each function to be performed effectively.”

Other cities have different models for the city attorney’s office: Long Beach has a similar model with bifurcated duties, while New York City has legal representation split up several ways. The San Francisco City Attorney provides legal representation for the city and county of San Francisco, and the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office handles criminal cases in the city and county.

Mike Bonin, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute, said he has seen the question of splitting the office come up with at least three different city attorneys to varying degrees.

“Given that the city attorney is an elected position, there’s always going to be somebody who doesn’t like them,” Bonin, a former city council member, said. “You need to divorce the question from the occupant and focus on the role — the charter is not about a particular person, the charter is about the function of the office.”