rejects

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday sharply criticized “fake MAGA-manufactured outrage” over his comments about his low SAT score in Atlanta Sunday during his national book tour.

Conservative commentators, Trump loyalists and right-wing media outlets accused the California governor and potential 2028 presidential candidate of disparaging Black Americans when he was discussing his struggles with dyslexia.

“First MAGA mocked his dyslexia and now they’re calling him racist for talking about his low SAT scores,” said Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for Newsom, in a statement. “The governor has said this publicly for years — including with [the late conservative commentator] Charlie Kirk and dozens of other audiences.”

During a conversation with Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens, who is a Black politician, Newsom was asked what he wanted the audience and readers to know about him. The governor, in a long-winded response, said he wasn’t trying to impress anyone, but “press upon you I’m like you.”

“I’m no better than you,” Newsom said. “I’m a 960 SAT guy.”

The governor continued to discuss his dyslexia and struggle to read.

Right-wing personalities pounced.

President Trump’s political operation accused Newsom of calling “black people dumb.” Former Fox News personality Megyn Kelly declared that the comment would “haunt him forever,” and Republican Sens. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Rick Scott of Florida belittled the governor. Rapper Nicki Minaj, an outspoken Trump supporter, criticized him too.

“@GavinNewsom Thinks a 960 SAT Makes Him ‘Like’ Black Americans. Let That Sink In,” Fox News commentator Sean Hannity posted on the social media platform X.

Newsom offered a profanity-laced retort to Hannity, accusing him of long ignoring President Trump’s racist remarks and social media posts, then feigning outrage at Newsom’s remarks.

“You didn’t give a shit about the President of the United States of America posting an ape video of President Obama or calling African nations shitholes — but you’re going to call me racist for talking about my lifelong struggle with dyslexia?” Newsom posted on X. “Spare me your fake fucking outrage, Sean.”

Gardon pointed out that Newsom was speaking to a mixed-race audience during the conversation with Dickens.

Dickens also rejected the allegations that Newsom was being racist.

“Take it from someone who was actually in the chair asking the questions: context matters more than a headline,” Dickens said on Instagram. “The conversation around his new book included him speaking about his own academic struggles, including not doing well on the SAT. That wasn’t an attack on anyone. It was a moment of vulnerability about his own journey.”

Sunday’s event wasn’t the first time Newsom has mentioned his SAT score. The governor has cited his performance on the test many times in conversations about his dyslexia and issues with self-esteem growing up, including during an interview with The Times about his new memoir “Young Man in a Hurry” earlier this month.

“Come on, I’m a 960 SAT guy, governor of the fourth largest economy in the world,” Newsom told The Times. “I’m a guy, you know, with sweaty hands as described in the book, you know, who can’t read a speech, and I’m governor. I’m talking to you. Come on, the whole thing is sort of fascinating.”

Newsom used the low score as an example of the grit and resilience he learned from his mother.

The governor is accustomed to sparring with Republicans on social media. Ring-wing furor over his remarks, whether justified or politically motivated, is likely to continue as he flirts with a 2028 presidential run.

“We’ve gotten so used to loud, chest-pounding politics that when someone speaks about shortcomings, people try to twist it into something else,” Dickens, said in his post on Instagram. “Let me be clear though. This is Atlanta. We don’t need anyone to tell us when to be offended. And history has shown… when we are, you’ll know.”

Feb. 23 (UPI) — A Hong Kong court has rejected the appeals of 12 pro-democracy lawmakers and activists seeking to overturn their convictions in connection with a 2020 unofficial election primary that Beijing-aligned officials said was intended to undermine the city’s existing political system.

The dozen people are members of the so-called Hong Kong 47, who were sentenced in November 2024 to between 51 and 120 months in what is still the largest case so far brought under the city’s draconian National Security Law.

Eleven of the activists were convicted during the trial, while one pleaded guilty.

The court on Monday rejected their appeals. For some, they have already served their sentences and been released from prison.

Lawrence Lau Wai-chung, a barrister and democracy activist, had been acquitted in the case, but the government had appealed the decision. The court on Monday upheld that decision.

The defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit subversion under the National Security Law that Beijing imposed on Hong Kong in connection with their unofficial primary.

Held in July 2020 amid the fraying of democratic norms in Hong Kong, the activists used the primary to coordinate candidates and win a pro-democracy majority in the city’s legislature, which prosecutors said they planned to use to veto budget bills to force the resignation of Hong Kong’s chief executive.

The primary was held following protests that erupted in Hong Kong in 2019 against extradition that grew into a broader pro-democracy movement following allegations of excessive force used by police against the protesters.

In response to the protests, China imposed a new national security law on Hong Kong in July 2020, and police arrested dozens of pro-democracy figures on Jan. 6, 2021, with 47 charged with conspiracy to commit subversion in late February of that year.

The government accused them of seeking to use the legislature, under the guise of democracy, to threaten Hong Kong’s political system.

Their convictions were widely condemned by democratic nations, including Britain, Canada and the United States. Washington vowed to impose visa restrictions on officials responsible for their sentencing.

US President Donald Trump writes on Truth Social that a ‘great hospital boat’ is going to Greenland as he mocks its healthcare system.

Greenland said “no thanks” to US President Donald Trump’s plan to send a hospital ship to the Arctic island after he repeatedly threatened to seize the Danish autonomous territory for “national security” reasons.

Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said in a post on Facebook on Sunday that Trump’s proposal to send the US medical vessel had been “noted”.

“But we have a public healthcare system where treatment is free for citizens. It is a deliberate choice,” Nielsen said, reiterating Greenland remained open to dialogue and cooperation.

“But talk to us instead of just making more or less random outbursts on social media,” he added.

The historically strong bilateral ties after World War II between NATO allies Denmark and the United States have come under severe strain in recent months as Trump ratcheted up talk of a possible US takeover of the mineral-rich and strategically located Arctic island.

Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen told Danish broadcaster DR that the population of Greenland “receives the healthcare it needs”.

“They receive it either in Greenland or, if they require specialised treatment, they receive it in Denmark,” he said. “It’s not as if there’s a need for a special healthcare initiative in Greenland.”

On Saturday, Trump said in a post on his Truth Social account – with an AI-generated image of the US Navy vessel the USNS Mercy – that it was on its way to Greenland to treat those being medically neglected.

“We are going to send a great hospital boat to Greenland to take care of the many people who are sick, and not being taken care of there. It’s on the way!!!” Trump wrote.

Trump has repeatedly expressed his interest in the US taking control of Greenland, citing it as a way to secure US national security. However, Greenland and Europe rejected the US desire to take the Arctic island and have upheld Greenlandic sovereignty.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said she was “happy to live in a country where access to healthcare is free and equal for all”.

Greenland is a place “where insurance or wealth does not determine whether one receives dignified treatment,” she added in an apparent criticism of the US healthcare system, which is not universal.

Threats to take Greenland ebbed after Trump struck a “framework” deal with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in January to ensure greater US influence.

China adopts a stance rejecting the US militarization of the Middle East, viewing the increasing American bases and military buildup in the region as a strategy of containment and undermining Chinese influence. Beijing seeks to achieve regional balance through counter-diplomacy, both economic and security, and sees the American escalation as a threat to global stability, prompting it to strengthen its partnerships to protect its interests in the region. The Chinese perspective on the militarization of the region is that the American strategy in the Middle East is an extension of the policy of deterrence and containment, which extends from the Pacific to broader spheres of influence. China views American bases, such as Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, and other US military bases in Kuwait and the UAE, as an indirect tool to undermine Chinese economic and geopolitical stability. China considers the American military bases in the Middle East as instruments of hegemony and an attempt to contain and diminish its influence. Therefore, Beijing seeks to strengthen its military, diplomatic, and economic presence in the region as a strategic alternative, expanding its influence through its Belt and Road Initiative.

China adopts an approach that opposes the American military presence in the Middle East, prioritizing economic stability to serve its interests. This opposition manifests itself in several ways: supporting parallel security partnerships with Iran and Saudi Arabia, pressuring host countries like the UAE to prevent American expansion, and pursuing civil-military integration in strategic ports. The Egyptian researcher will attempt to identify and present specific examples of China’s rejection of the American military presence in the Middle East, such as China’s obstruction of the UAE’s F-35 deals. Beijing exerted pressure and raised security concerns that led to the stalling of negotiations for the UAE to acquire American F-35 fighter jets, due to Washington’s apprehension about the growing Chinese presence at the UAE’s Khalifa Port. Another example is China’s intensification of joint military exercises with Washington’s and Israel’s adversaries: China has increased its naval and air military exercises with Iran, a direct rival of the American presence in the region, thus posing a strategic challenge to American hegemony. China has also tried to secure oil routes away from Washington’s protection: China seeks to secure its oil interests through independent partnerships in the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf ports, reducing the Arab states’ need for American security protection and reinforcing Beijing’s vision of rejecting American “hegemony.” With (China’s criticism of the US “offensive strategy”): Chinese diplomacy criticizes the excessive US presence and instead calls for diplomatic solutions and “civil-military integration” through infrastructure investment, thus undermining traditional US bases. Here, China uses “soft power” and economic investments in ports, such as those in Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran, as tools to diminish the strategic importance of US military bases.

The Chinese perspective is that US bases are used to restrict its movement in vital maritime routes and are viewed as tools of deterrence within the context of great power competition. Therefore, China seeks to secure its economic interests by ensuring its oil and gas import routes and protecting its projects, which has led it to strengthen its military presence, including its base in Djibouti, to match its economic influence. With China offering a “developmental and security alternative”: By enhancing its influence through massive investments and security and technology partnerships, such as developing Huawei’s 5G digital infrastructure and China’s defense partnerships with Egypt, Iran, and the Gulf states, to serve as an alternative to direct military presence. Here, China seeks to achieve “absolute security” by protecting its supply chains and projects without directly engaging in managing regional crises in the American manner, preferring instead to project geoeconomic influence.

Here, China adopts a stance rejecting the US militarization of the Middle East, deeming it an “adventure” that threatens stability and pushes the region toward the brink. Beijing instead seeks to enhance its influence through diplomacy and economics, with Chinese efforts aimed at undermining the American military presence and supporting regional stability through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative. The most prominent features of China’s rejection of the US militarization of the Middle East are China’s opposition to the “militarization” of the region and China believes that US strategies based on military bases and deterrence, particularly against Iran, increase instability. (China’s focus on finding a diplomatic and economic alternative): China focuses on comprehensive economic partnerships, such as the Belt and Road Initiative, and prioritizes diplomacy to resolve conflicts, making it appear as a strategic alternative to the US “gunboat diplomacy.” The US “gunboat diplomacy” is a declared strategy of President Trump to counter Beijing’s influence in the Western Hemisphere. To counter this, China is focusing on partnerships and economic interests. From the Chinese perspective, regional stability ensures secure energy supplies and massive infrastructure investments in the region.

This coincides with China’s exploitation of the American retreat in the region. China seeks to capitalize on the relative decline in American strategic interest to act as a balancing power, without direct involvement in crisis management, but with an increasing role in maintaining regional equilibrium. Conversely, China fears that American policies will lead to its encirclement and the curtailment of its economic influence, prompting it to strengthen its military ties with certain regional actors as a form of indirect response.

Therefore, China rejects the principle of American militarization of the Middle East. China seeks to find alternatives to American hegemony by strengthening its diplomatic and economic presence, especially given the recent escalation of American military activity. Chinese military analyses indicate that the recent American military buildup, including aircraft carriers and air forces in the region, increases the likelihood of widespread regional conflicts. To that end, China promotes the concept of “common security,” directly rejecting American military involvement that puts pressure on China’s traditional allies in the region, such as Iran.

Concerned circles in Beijing view the American militarization of the Middle East as a perpetuation of a “Cold War mentality.” This is evident in China’s rejection of the ongoing military alliances established by Washington, which Beijing considers attempts to contain its rising influence and force regional states into alignment, a situation Beijing describes as “American hypocrisy.” The Chinese alternative to American militarization in the region is centered on its strategy of “development over militarization.” China seeks to market itself as a “peaceful partner” focused on development and infrastructure, capitalizing on the partial American retreat to expand its diplomatic and economic influence. Beijing adopts a policy of “cautious neutrality,” committing to “non-interference” in regional conflicts and avoiding replacing the American role as the region’s policeman militarily, preferring instead to focus on its strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific. While fully aware that the militarization of the region impacts China’s energy security, China prefers to address this through diplomacy and economic partnerships rather than direct military presence. China aims to protect its interests by deepening its economic engagement, thereby prompting a gradual US withdrawal, especially as China continues to present itself as a “responsible power” in the Global South.

Feb. 20 (Asia Today) — People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyuk rejected calls to sever ties with former President Yoon Suk-yeol on Thursday, intensifying internal divisions within South Korea’s main conservative party ahead of local elections.

At a press conference at the National Assembly, Jang said Yoon’s life sentence in a first-instance ruling does not negate the principle of presumption of innocence.

“This is still a first trial,” he said. “The presumption of innocence must apply to everyone without exception.”

Jang dismissed demands from within the party to formally break with what critics call the “Yoon Again” faction. He argued that forces seeking to distance the party from Yoon are instead fueling division.

“Division is the worst form of incompetence,” he said. “Those who exploit the president’s name for their own interests, and those who use calls for severance to split the party, are the ones we must decisively cut ties with.”

His remarks appeared aimed at the pro-Han Dong-hoon faction and a group of younger lawmakers who had urged the leadership to declare a clear break from Yoon following Wednesday’s verdict.

Rep. Lee Sung-kwon criticized Jang’s stance, saying it showed a refusal to accept the judiciary’s decision. “By shifting responsibility for unconstitutional emergency rule onto others, he cannot call himself the leader of a conservative party before the people,” Lee said.

Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon also weighed in on social media, warning that politics centered on the slogan “Yoon Again” would fail to persuade centrist voters and younger generations.

Former party leader Han Dong-hoon issued a sharper rebuke, writing online that Jang was “merely a host for the Yoon faction” and calling for him to be removed to save the conservative movement.

The controversy has exposed differences within the party leadership. Floor leader Song Eon-seok said a day earlier that the party “deeply regrets” the guilty verdict against a former president it produced and apologized to the public, reaffirming that no one stands above the law.

A party official said views appear to be divided even between the party leader and the floor leader, complicating efforts to present a unified message.

With tensions rising, lawmakers are expected to convene a general meeting as early as next week to discuss the party’s direction. Observers warn that continued infighting could weigh on the party ahead of the June 3 local elections.

— 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=20260220010006110

Boston Celtics star Jaylen Brown is not satisfied with an apology he received from the city of Beverly Hills on Thursday, days after police shut down an event he was hosting in the city’s Trousdale Estates neighborhood.

The apology was not for shutting down the event. Instead, it was for including what the city called “inaccurate information” in its initial statement about the event.

Brown told ESPN’s Andscape he is considering legal action against the city after it “embarrassed my brand and my team” and then continued “to tell untruths in [its] apology statement.”

The promotional event for Brown’s performance brand, 741, was held last weekend at the home of Oakley founder Jim Jannard on the eve of the NBA All-Star Game at Intuit Dome. It was scheduled to include a panel discussion featuring National Basketball Players Assn. president Andre Iguodala followed by an after-party with around 200 invited guests.

In an X post after his event was stopped, Brown wrote, “300k down the drain.” On Thursday, in response to the city’s statement, Brown wrote on X: “You targeted me and my @741Performance event based on biased information then you give a half a— apology after the damage is already done.”

The Times reached out to the city of Beverly Hills on Friday for a response to Brown’s comments concerning the incident, including his mention of possible legal action. A representative referred The Times to the statement released the previous day.

The city’s first statement, issued Sunday, said that “an event permit had been applied for and denied by the City due to previous violations associated with events at the address” and “organizers still chose to proceed with inviting hundreds of guests knowing that it was not allowed to occur.”

On Thursday, the city issued a second release saying that upon further internal review it had determined that “no permit application was submitted nor denied for the event and the residence does not have any prior related violations on record.”

The release included a statement from city manager Nancy Hunt-Coffey, who apologized for the inaccurate information but asserted that the city still had reason to shut down the event.

“The City’s previous statement about the weekend event at the Trousdale home was inaccurate, and on behalf of the City, I would like to apologize to Jaylen Brown and the Jannard family,” Hunt-Coffey said.

“The City has a responsibility to its residents and neighborhoods to ensure adherence to established regulations for events held at private residences. These are designed to support the safety and welfare of neighbors and attendees. City staff observed circumstances that are believed to be City code violations and for that reason alone, the event was ended.”

Brown was far from satisfied with the apology.

“The city has now stated the event was shut down because officials believed codes were being violated,” he said in a statement released by Jalen Brown Enterprises Inc. “A private gathering cannot lawfully be terminated based on assumption alone, particularly when no official ever entered the residence to observe conditions or verify any alleged violation.

“This was a private, invitation-only gathering at a private home among friends and partners, not a public or commercial event requiring a permit. … No proof of any alleged violation was ever produced to the homeowner, our team, or legal counsel. Without observation, documentation or confirmed violations, enforcement action based on belief alone raises serious due-process concerns.

“Jalen Brown Enterprises Inc. supports lawful compliance and cooperative engagement with municipalities wherever we operate. However, this private residential gathering was interrupted without substantiated cause, resulting in significant financial and reputational harm.”

“We remain open to a constructive resolution with the city of Beverly Hills.”

Brown had more to say on the matter after the Celtics’ 121-110 win over the Golden State Warriors on Thursday night in San Francisco.

“This is All-Star Weekend at 7 p.m. I just wanted to enjoy myself. And I feel like that got taken away, and I got embarrassed to some degree,” said Brown, who was named an All-Star starter for the first time this year. He added, “I feel like that apology, you know, even in the statement they put out, they included some stuff that wasn’t true, even in an apology. So I don’t think that apology was acceptable.

“I lost a lot of money … and then people were making assumptions, like we didn’t go through the proper protocols. So that’s just all around a bad look, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I’m extremely offended. My team is offended still. I’m not sure what the conclusion is going to be. All I know is that, that was some bulls—.”

Brown said he heard about the city’s most recent statement on his way to the game and that it fueled his third triple-double of the season (23 points, 15 rebounds, 13 assists).

“I wasn’t even thinking about the game,” said Brown, who will be back in Los Angeles when the Celtics play the Lakers on Sunday. “I was pissed. I was still pissed.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Friday that President Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs are illegal and cannot stand without the approval of Congress.

The 6-3 decision deals Trump his most significant defeat at the Supreme Court.

Last year, the justices issued temporary orders to block several of his initiatives, but Friday’s ruling is the first to hold that the president overstepped his legal authority.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for the court, said Congress has the power to impose taxes and tariffs, and lawmakers did not do so in an emergency law that does not mention tariffs.

“The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” he wrote.

“And until now no President has read the International Emergency Economics Act to confer such power. We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution. Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch in a concurring opinion stressed the role of Congress.

“The Constitution lodges the Nation’s lawmaking powers in Congress alone,” he said.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Brett M. Kavanaugh dissented.

Trump claimed his new and ever-shifting tariffs would bring in trillions of dollars in revenue for the government and encourage more manufacturing in the United States.

But manufacturing employment has gone down over the past year, in part because American companies have been hurt by higher costs for parts that they import.

Critics said the new taxes hurt small businesses in particular and raised prices for American consumers.

The justices focused on the president’s claimed legal authority to impose tariffs as responses to an international economic emergency.

Several owners of small businesses sued last year to challenge Trump’s import taxes as illegal and disruptive.

Learning Resources, an Illinois company which sells educational toys for children, said it would have to raise its prices by 70% because most of its toys were manufactured in Asia.

A separate suit was filed by a New York wine importer and Terry Precision Cycling, which sells cycling apparel for women.

Both suits won in lower courts. Judges said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 cited by Trump did not mention tariffs and had not been used before to impose such import taxes.

The law said the president in response to a national emergency may deal with an “unusual and extraordinary threat” by freezing assets or sanctioning a foreign country or otherwise regulating trade.

Trump said the nation’s long-standing trade deficit was an emergency and tariffs were an appropriate regulation.

While rejecting Trump’s claims, the lower courts left his tariffs in place while the administration appealed its case to the Supreme Court.

Mahdawi, a Palestinian student activist, faced deportation proceedings amid a protest crackdown under the Trump administration.

An immigration judge in the United States has ruled against an attempt under President Donald Trump to deport Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University student arrested last year for his protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

The decision, issued on February 13, became public as part of court filings on Tuesday from Mahdawi’s lawyers.

The filing was submitted to a federal appeals court in New York, which has been considering a challenge from the Trump administration against Mahdawi’s release from custody.

In a public statement released through the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Mahdawi thanked the immigration court for its decision, which he framed as a strike in favour of free-speech rights.

“I am grateful to the court for honoring the rule of law and holding the line against the government’s attempts to trample on due process,” Mahdawi said. “This decision is an important step towards upholding what fear tried to destroy: the right to speak for peace and justice.”

But the ACLU indicated that the immigration court’s decision was made “without prejudice”, a legal term that means the Trump administration could refile its case against Mahdawi.

Raised in a Palestinian refugee camp in the occupied West Bank, Mahdawi is a lawful permanent resident who has lived in Vermont for 10 years.

He enrolled at Columbia, a prestigious Ivy League university, to study philosophy. But he was also a visible member of the campus’s activist community, founding a Palestinian student society alongside fellow student Mahmoud Khalil.

Columbia became a hub for pro-Palestinian protests in 2024, and Trump campaigned for re-election, in part, on cracking down on the demonstrations.

Khalil became the first student protester to be detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in March of last year, less than three months into Trump’s second term.

Then, on April 14, Mahdawi was arrested at a meeting set up by the government, allegedly to process his citizenship application.

ICE detained him in “direct retaliation for his advocacy of Palestinian rights”, the ACLU said in a statement at the time.

The Trump administration attempted to transfer Mahdawi out of state to Louisiana, but a court order ultimately blocked it from doing so.

Mahdawi was ultimately released on April 30, after US Judge Geoffrey Crawford accused the Trump administration of doing “great harm” to someone who had committed no crime.

Human rights advocates have described the Trump administration’s attempts to deport foreign-born student activists as a campaign to chill free speech.

After his release last year, Mahdawi walked out of the court with both hands in the air, flashing peace signs as supporters greeted him with cheers.

As he spoke, he shared a message for Trump. “I am not afraid of you,” Mahdawi said to Trump.

He also addressed the people of Palestine and sought to dispel perceptions that the student protest movement was anything but peaceful.

“We are pro-peace and antiwar,” Mahdawi explained. “To my people in Palestine: I feel your pain, I see your suffering, and I see freedom, and it is very soon.”

Mahdawi’s arrest comes as part of a wider push by the Trump administration to target visa holders and permanent residents for their pro-Palestine advocacy.

Trump has also pressured top universities to crack down on pro-Palestine protests in the name of combating anti-Semitism. In some cases, the Trump administration has opened investigations into campuses where pro-Palestinian protests were prominent, accusing them of civil rights violations.

Last July, Columbia University entered into a $200m settlement with the Trump administration, with a further $21m given to end a probe into allegations of religious-based harassment.

The university, however, did not admit to wrongdoing.

Islamabad, Pakistan – The sister of former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has told Al Jazeera that the family has rejected a government board’s claims that the cricketer-turned-politician’s eyesight has improved since a court report last week said he had lost most vision in one eye.

A government-appointed medical board examining the jailed ex-leader reported a significant improvement in his eyesight after weeks of controversy over his deteriorating vision. Its medical report, seen by Al Jazeera, claims that Khan’s vision in his right eye has improved from 6/36 to 6/9. His left eye remains at 6/6 vision with the use of glasses.

In ophthalmic terms, 6/6 vision means the person’s eyesight is fine. A 6/9 reading means the person can see at 6 metres (20 feet) what someone with normal vision sees at 9 metres (30 ft).

The assessment was carried out on Sunday by a two-member board comprising doctors Nadeem Qureshi and Muhammad Arif Khan. The specialists conducted a detailed examination at Adiala jail in Rawalpindi, where the 73-year-old founder of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party has been imprisoned since August 2023.

But Khan’s family said it had “no trust” in the authorities.

His sister, Aleema Khan, described it as “extremely concerning and unacceptable” that the government had resisted allowing Khan’s personal doctor and a family representative to be present during the examination and treatment.

“Without the physical presence of both his personal doctor and family representative, we categorically reject any claims made by the government regarding his examination, treatment or medical condition,” Aleema told Al Jazeera.

Aasim Yusuf, chief medical officer of the Imran Khan-founded Shaukat Khanum Memorial Hospital and one of Khan’s personal physicians, said in a video message that he had held a 40-minute conversation with the two doctors who examined Khan on February 15.

In the video, shared by the PTI on social media, Yusuf said the visiting doctors briefed him on the treatment and future plan of care, adding that according to their latest assessment, “Khan had shown significant improvement as a result of treatment and his vision had improved significantly as well”.

“I would be extremely happy if I was able to confirm that this was the case. Unfortunately, because I have not seen him myself and have not been able to participate in his care or to talk to him, I am unable to either confirm or deny the veracity of what we have been told,” Yusuf said.

Disputed diagnosis

The latest examination comes after reports last month that authorities had taken Khan late at night to a government facility for a medical procedure without informing his family. Following the outcry, Pakistan’s Supreme Court appointed Barrister Salman Safdar as amicus curiae to meet Khan and assess his condition.

In a seven-page report filed last week, Safdar painted a troubling picture. He wrote that Khan had suffered rapid and substantial vision loss over the past three months and that despite repeated complaints of persistent blurred and hazy vision, “no action was taken by the jail authorities to address these complaints”.

Safdar quoted Khan as saying that “only 15 percent” vision remained in his right eye.

PTI General Secretary Salman Akram Raja told reporters in Islamabad on Monday that the two doctors, one of whom was recommended after consultations with Yusuf, confirmed that Khan’s vision had improved.

“The two doctors who met him in jail said that Khan confirmed to them that he was unable to see the clock on the wall for a few weeks, [but] can now not only see that, but also the clock hands. According to doctors, this was an incredible improvement in his vision,” Raja said.

Aleema, however, insisted that the family could not accept any medical report until Khan’s physician examined him in person. She renewed the demand that he be transferred to Shifa International Hospital in Islamabad.

She accused the government of repeatedly misleading the family about Khan’s health.

“After our protest and Salman Safdar’s report, we were told that he would be taken to Shifa International Hospital, along with [the] presence of his physician as well as a family member, but then, abruptly, they [the government] changed the plan. How can we be suddenly denied?” she asked.

Aleema said authorities had asked the family to provide the names of doctors and relatives who could accompany Khan, only to reject each proposal.

“There have been repeated back-and-forth phone calls. We gave them the names of his personal doctors, including Dr Aasim. Another name we gave was our sister, Uzma Khan, to represent the family. But the response from the government was that no sister will be allowed to meet him,” she claimed.

She added that her brother had no underlying medical conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, and described him as a political prisoner.

“Our hearts are breaking, and we are so frustrated. This is deliberate. When Salman Safdar went there and came back, he told us the story, and we cried hearing about Khan’s current situation. This is not just criminal negligence, this is outright criminal and deliberate,” she said.

Standoff over medical access

The PTI and its allies, who are holding a sit-in outside parliament, have promised to continue their protest until their demands are met, including access to Khan and his transfer to Shifa International Hospital.

Sheikh Waqas Akram, the party’s central information secretary, said the demand was straightforward and focused on securing “specialised treatment” for Khan.

“When you deny the family access, or the physicians recommended by the family, and when you break promises, how can we trust? We don’t even know what they have done with him. We believe the government is certainly hiding something,” he told Al Jazeera.

Aleema said she would hold a news conference on Tuesday outside Adiala jail and added that the family had not sought any concessions from authorities beyond medical access.

“Imran’s sons have been trying to visit Pakistan since last year and have applied several times, but their visa has not been processed. It is in limbo, they do not get a denial, nor an approval,” she said, referring to Kasim and Suleman, Khan’s two sons, who are nationals of the United Kingdom.

The sons were born during Khan’s first marriage to Jemima Goldsmith. The couple divorced in 2004 after nine years of marriage. Both sons are based in London.

Government rejects negligence claims

The government, meanwhile, has defended the medical board’s work. Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said the treatment provided to Khan had led to improvement and that the specialist team had expressed satisfaction with his progress.

Speaking at a public event on Monday, Tarar said opposition leaders and Khan’s personal doctors had been briefed.

Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Tariq Fazal Chaudhry also said the examination inside the jail was conducted “in accordance with government directives and with complete transparency”.

“The government provided every necessary facility on site to ensure no question of any negligence arises,” Chaudhry wrote on social media, adding that Gohar Ali Khan, the PTI chairman in Khan’s absence, had been kept informed.

Imran Khan, a former Pakistan cricket captain who led Pakistan to its 1992 World Cup victory, became prime minister in 2018.

He was removed in 2022 through a parliamentary no-confidence vote, which he said was orchestrated by the military in collusion with Washington and his political rivals. Both the military and the United States have denied the allegations.

Since his ouster, Khan has blamed Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir for his legal and political troubles and has repeatedly urged supporters to protest.

In June 2024, a United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that Khan’s detention “had no legal basis and appears to have been intended to disqualify him from running [for] political office”.

The unification ministry on Wednesday rejected media criticism that it maintains a “submissive” stance toward North Korea after Unification Minister Chung Dong-young made back-to-back remarks expressing regrets over actions that strained ties with the regime.

“Some are portraying the government’s peace efforts as a submissive stance toward the North … but the government is seeking to create conditions for inter-Korean trust in pursuit of peaceful coexistence,” the ministry said in a press release.

The media criticism came after Chung expressed regret the previous day over the alleged privately led drone dispatch to North Korea in recent months and Seoul’s 2016 shutdown of the Kaesong Industrial Complex, a symbol of inter-Korean cooperation.

“We need the courage to acknowledge the wrongs we have committed, and in that perspective, the drone dispatch was a clear wrongdoing,” the ministry said, adding that such past missteps must be overcome.

The Lee Jae Myung administration has repeatedly extended overtures for dialogue to Pyongyang since taking office last June, although Pyongyang has remained unresponsive.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Feb. 10 (UPI) — A grand jury rejected the Justice Department’s effort to indict congressional Democrats for their recent online video telling military members they don’t have to obey illegal orders.

The grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday evening declined to indict the lawmakers, all of whom either are veterans or served in the national intelligence community, The New York Times reported.

The lawmakers are Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, along with Reps. Jason Crow of Colorado, Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania.

Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, organized the video, which did not cite any specific orders or provide context. The video was published online after the Trump administration began carrying out deadly aerial strikes on alleged drug-running vessels in the Caribbean Sea in September.

It’s unclear if all or only some of the lawmakers were subject to the grand jury proceedings, according to NBC News.

The news outlet said the effort by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro is an example of the Justice Department targeting the president’s political enemies.

Slotkin described the grand jury that declined to indict her and her Democratic colleagues as “anonymous American citizens who upheld the rule of law.”

“Today wasn’t just an embarrassing day for the Administration. It was another sad day for our country,” she said in a social media statement Tuesday night.

“Because whether or not Pirro succeeded is not the point. It’s that President [Donald] Trump continues to weaponize our justice system against his perceived enemies. It’s the kind of thing you see in a foreign country, not the United States we know and love.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the effort to indict them was “a despicable, vindictive abuse of power” targeting lawmakers and veterans “because the administration didn’t like the content of their speech.”

In the video published online in mid-November, the six lawmakers all said military members can refuse to carry out illegal orders, and some said that “threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but right here at home.”

Trump called the video “seditious behavior” and suggested George Washington would have had all six hanged for treason.

The six lawmakers later said the FBI had contacted the respective House and Senate sergeants-at-arms to arrange interviews as part of a criminal investigation.

The four House members issued a joint statement in which they accused Trump of using the FBI to “intimidate and harass members of Congress.”

They said that “no amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also tried to censure Kelly and seek to demote, the senator said in a lawsuit.

Tehran, Iran – Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has called on the United States to respect his country as the two nations look ahead to another round of nuclear negotiations next week following mediated discussions in Oman.

“Our reasoning on the nuclear issue is based on rights stipulated in the Non-Proliferation Treaty,” he wrote in a post on X on Sunday. “The Iranian nation has always responded to respect with respect, but cannot withstand the language of force”.

Pezeshkian described the indirect talks held in Oman on Friday as a “step forward” and said his administration favours dialogue.

Iranian officials are highlighting sovereignty and independence and are signalling eagerness for nuclear-only negotiations, while rejecting a military build-up in the region by the US.

Speaking at a forum hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran, the country’s chief diplomat Abbas Araghchi pointed out that the Islamic Republic has always emphasised independence since overthrowing US-backed Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in a 1979 revolution.

“Before the revolution, the people did not believe their establishment to have possessed true independence,” Araghchi said.

The messaging comes as the anniversary of the revolution approaches on Wednesday, when state-organised demonstrations have been planned across the country. Iranian authorities have in previous years exhibited military equipment, including ballistic missiles, during the rallies.

Araghchi said during the event in the capital that Iran is unwilling to forego nuclear enrichment for civilian use even if it leads to more military attacks by the US and Israel, “because no one has the right to tell us what we must have and must not have”.

However, the diplomat added that he told US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner in Muscat on Friday that “there is no way but negotiations”. He said China and Russia have also been informed of the content of the talks.

“Being afraid is lethal poison in this situation,” Araghchi said about Washington amassing what US President Donald Trump has called a “beautiful armada” near Iran’s waters.

‘Push the region back years’

Iran’s top military commander on Sunday issued a new warning that the entire region will be engulfed in conflict if Iran is attacked.

“While being prepared, we genuinely have no desire to see the outbreak of a regional war,” Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi told a gathering of air force and air defence commanders and personnel.

“Even though aggressors will be the target of the flames of regional war, this will push back the advancement and development of the region by years, and its repercussions will be borne by the warmongers in the US and the Zionist regime,” he said in reference to Israel.

According to Mousavi, Iran “has the necessary power and preparedness for a long-term war with the US”.

But many average Iranians are left in limbo without much hope that the talks with the US will lead to results, including for the country’s heavily declining economy.

“I was 20 when the first negotiations with the West over Iran’s nuclear programme were held about 23 years ago,” Saman, who works at a small private investment firm in Tehran, told Al Jazeera.

“Our best years are behind us. But it’s even more sad to think that some of the youth who were born at the start of the negotiations were killed on the streets during the protests last month with many hopes and dreams.”

‘They never returned’

Iran is witnessing tense time and threats of a massive US military strike. But the Islamic Republic has not overcome anti-government protests that shook the nation, denouncing the collapse of the national currency, soaring prices and economic hardship.

State television continues to broadcast confessions of Iranians arrested during the nationwide protests, many of whom are accused by the state of working in line with the interests of foreign powers.

In a report aired late on Saturday, a woman and multiple men with blurred-out faces and in handcuffs could be seen saying they were led by a man who allegedly received weapons and money from Mossad operatives in neighbouring Iraq’s Erbil.

“He only wanted more people to die; he shot at everyone,” one of the confessing men said about what allegedly transpired during unrest in the Tehranpars district in the eastern part of the capital, backing the state’s claim that “terrorists” are responsible for all deaths.

Iranian authorities have accused the US, Israel and European countries of instigating the protests.

But international human rights organisations and foreign-based opposition groups accuse state forces of being behind the unprecedented killings during the protests, which were carried out mostly on the nights of January 8 and 9.

The Iranian government claims 3,117 people were killed, but the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) says it has documented nearly 7,000 fatalities and is investigating more than 11,600 cases. The United Nations special rapporteur on Iran, Mati Sato, said more than 20,000 may have been killed as information trickles out despite heavy internet filtering.

Al Jazeera cannot independently verify these figures.

Amid numerous reports that dozens of medical staff were arrested for treating wounded protesters and remain incarcerated in harsh conditions, Iran’s judiciary issued a rejection of the allegations late Saturday. It claimed that only “a limited number of medical personnel were arrested for participating in riots and playing a role in the field”.

A large number of schoolchildren and university students were also reportedly among tens of thousands arrested during and in the aftermath of the nationwide protests. The Ministry of Education claimed last week that it did not know how many schoolchildren were arrested, but could confirm that all have since been released.

The Coordinating Council of Iranian Teachers’ Trade Associations on Sunday released the four-minute video below, titled “200 empty school desks”, which shows the schoolchildren and teenagers confirmed killed during the protests. Many were accompanied by their parents when killed.

One month after the killings, countless families are left grieving and continue to release videos commemorating their loved ones online.

A message on Instagram calling on the international community to keep talking about the people of Iran has now been shared more than 1.5 million times.

“One month ago today, thousands woke up and ate breakfast for the last time without knowing it, and kissed their mother for the last time without knowing it,” the message reads. “They lived for the last time and never returned.”

Somalian President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has slammed Israel’s “interference” in his country, saying its recognition of the breakaway region of Somaliland has further increased instability and weakened international order.

In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera broadcast on Saturday, Mohamud said Somalia “will never allow” the establishment of an Israeli base in Somaliland and will “confront” any such move.

He also warned that the proposed Israeli base could be used as a springboard to attack neighbouring countries.

Mohamud’s comments came amid a regional outcry over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision in December to recognise Somaliland, a breakaway part of Somalia comprising the northwestern portion of what was once the British Protectorate.

The territory sits astride one of the world’s most critical maritime choke routes, flanked by multiple conflicts in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East.

Israel’s move made it the first country in the world to recognise Somaliland as an independent state and came months after The Associated Press news agency reported that Israeli officials had contacted parties in Somaliland to discuss using the territory for forcibly displacing Palestinians amid Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Israel and Somaliland have denied the claims, but a Somaliland official from the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation told Israel’s Channel 12 in January that an Israeli military base is “on the table and being discussed”, though its establishment depends on the terms.

Somalia has denounced Israel’s move as an attack on its territorial integrity and unity, a position backed by most African and Arab leaders, and urged Netanyahu to withdraw the recognition.

But Somaliland’s leader, Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi, known as Cirro, has welcomed Israel’s diplomatic move, praising Netanyahu for his “leadership and commitment to promoting stability and peace” in the region.

‘We will defend ourselves’

In his interview with Al Jazeera, Mohamud described Israel’s diplomatic manoeuvre as a “reckless, fundamentally wrong and illegal action under international law”.

He also pledged to fight back against any Israeli military presence in Somaliland.

“We will fight in our capacity. Of course, we will defend ourselves,” he said. “And that means that we will confront any Israeli forces coming in, because we are against that and we will never allow that.”

The Israeli recognition represents a dramatic shift in Somaliland’s fortunes after years of diplomatic isolation.

The region seceded from Somalia during a brutal civil war that followed decades under the hardline government of Siad Barre, whose forces devastated the north. While large parts of Somalia descended into chaos, Somaliland stabilised by the late 1990s.

Somaliland has since developed a distinct political identity, with its own currency, flag and parliament. But its eastern regions remain disputed by communities that do not back the separatist programme in the capital, Hargeisa.

In recent years, Somaliland developed ties with the United Arab Emirates – a signatory to the Abraham Accords with Israel – and Taiwan as it sought international acceptance.

In his interview, Mohamud said Israel’s move “interfering with Somalia’s sovereign and territorial integrity” also “undermines stability, security and trade in a way that affects the whole of Africa, the Red Sea and the wider world”.

He added that Israel’s deadly use of force against Palestinians in Gaza cannot be separated from what is happening in Somaliland, adding that it reflects the weakening of the foundations of global governance.

“Key among the global concerns is the weakening of the established rules-based international order. That order is not intact any more,” Mohamud said.

He warned that institutions created after World War II “are under grave threat”, as “the mighty is right” increasingly replaces adherence to international law.

The United States, meanwhile, has yet to signal a major shift on the question of Somaliland.

But in August, US President Donald Trump – who has previously lobbed insults at Somalia and Mohamud – suggested he was preparing to move on the issue when asked about Somaliland during a White House news conference.

“Another complex one, but we’re working on that one – Somaliland,” he said.

Najaf, Iraq – Leaders of Iraq’s Coordination Framework – the Shia political coalition that came out on top in November’s parliamentary elections – are adamant that Nouri al-Maliki will be their candidate for the Iraqi premiership, even after threats from United States President Donald Trump.

Trump warned in late January that if al-Maliki, who previously served as Iraq’s prime minister between 2006 and 2014, returned to the role, then the US would cut off aid to Iraq.

“If we are not there to help, Iraq has ZERO chance of success, prosperity or freedom,” the US president wrote in a post on his Truth Social website.

Trump, and the US administration, view al-Maliki as part of Iran’s direct network of influence in Iraq, and fear that his return would undermine American efforts to weaken Iran’s power in its western neighbour, including limiting the reach of Iran-backed armed groups.

But, even with pressure ramping up, it appears that a majority of the Coordination Framework’s most influential actors are not willing to give up on al-Maliki, and are determined to find a way to push his candidacy forward.

Coordination Framework divided

The Coordination Framework (CF) is a coalition of Shia political parties established in 2021. It represents the biggest Shia bloc in the Iraqi parliament.

The loose nature of the coalition that makes up the CF means that opinions on al-Maliki’s candidacy are varied, with some opposing it, others willing to bend to Trump’s will and switch their backing, and still others who are adamant that they will push forward.

And it seems as though the majority are in the latter camp.

The CF issued a statement on Saturday reiterating its support for al-Maliki. “Choosing the prime minister is an exclusively Iraqi constitutional matter … free from foreign interference,” the statement added.

The statement reflects the position of various pro-Maliki forces in the CF, including former deputy parliament speaker Mohsen al-Mandalawi; the Badr Organization, led by Hadi al-Amir; and the Islamic Supreme Council, led by cleric Humam Hamoudi.

Current Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, whose party received the most votes in the elections but who did not receive the CF nomination despite his membership within it, is also officially supportive of al-Maliki’s nomination, even if he has not abandoned the possibility of continuing as prime minister himself.

Several of these factions did well in last year’s parliamentary elections, including al-Maliki’s own State of Law Coalition, as well as Badr and al-Sudani’s Reconstruction and Development Coalition.

But, with support from Kurdish and Sunni parties, the Shia al-Maliki sceptics have enough seats, and enough of a voice, to block the nomination if they desire to do so.

These include important Shia figures such as Qais al-Khazali, the leader of the Asaib Ahl al-Haq group; Ammar al-Hakim, the leader of the National State Forces alliance; and former Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.

Al-Hakim, whose parliamentary bloc has 18 seats, warned that there would be “incoming economic repercussions” if al-Maliki was chosen, and added that “public interest must be prioritised over private interests”.

Meanwhile, the Victory Alliance, led by al-Abadi, issued a statement calling for “[the prioritisation of] the people’s vital interests given the exceptional circumstances Iraq and the region are experiencing”. Al-Abadi’s group has no seats in parliament, but retains an important voice within the CF.

Both statements contain a tacit acknowledgment of Iraq’s inability to withstand US pressure and the need for an alternative candidate suited to the current reality.

Other roadblocks

The CF, therefore, still has an uphill battle to confirm al-Maliki as prime minister. Outside of the Shia political groups, there is also opposition to al-Maliki, a divisive figure remembered negatively by many Iraqis, particularly Sunnis.

And there are also divisions within the non-Shia groups that are also slowing down the nomination process.

Under the Iraqi Constitution, parliament must first elect a president for Iraq, who then mandates the nominee of the largest parliamentary bloc to form the government. According to Iraq’s post-2003 “muhasasa” system of dividing political offices by sect and ethnicity, the prime minister must be a Shia, the president a Kurd, and the parliamentary speaker a Sunni.

To date, the main Kurdish factions – the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) led by Masoud Barzani and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) led by Bafel Talabani – have failed to agree on a consensus candidate for the presidency.

The CF is attempting to broker an agreement between the Kurds. Recent efforts included a delegation led by al-Sudani meeting with both parties, and a personal visit by al-Maliki to Barzani. But these initiatives have not yet succeeded, and without a political agreement on the presidency, the process of designating a prime minister cannot proceed.

And even if the Kurds reach an agreement and don’t stand in the way of al-Maliki, the CF must persuade a long list of the former prime minister’s opponents.

Among them is Mohammed al-Halbousi, former speaker of parliament and leader of the Takadum Party, who issued a statement prior to the US veto implicitly rejecting al-Maliki’s candidacy.

Collectively, the anti-al-Maliki groups could gather roughly a third of the seats in parliament, enough to prevent a presidential election session due to a lack of quorum.

To avoid that scenario, the CF would have to either reset internal negotiations regarding the next prime minister, or nominate al-Sudani for a second term.

Al-Sudani’s party issued a statement on January 28 calling for “positive relationships with the United States” – a move interpreted as an indirect pitch for his renewal, leveraging his proven track record of managing relations with Washington during his tenure.

US leverage

The US may no longer be the occupying power in Iraq, but it still has enormous economic leverage over the country.

The revenue from Iraq’s main export – oil – is routed through the US Federal Reserve Bank in New York.

Trump may decide not to renew a presidential executive order, issued originally by President George W Bush in the wake of the Iraq War, that grants legal protection for the oil revenue funds and prevents them from being frozen by Iraq’s creditors. The order had been expected to be renewed as a formality upon its expiration in May.

If the US president decides against renewal, creditors will seek to claim their funds, and New York courts may issue rulings to freeze the Iraqi assets. This would disrupt the transfer of funds necessary to pay public salaries and sustain the economy for months or even years. In practical terms, the Iraqi economy would grind to a halt.

That therefore explains why the pro-al-Maliki bloc in the CF is attempting to persuade the US to change its position, rather than simply ignore Trump.

A high-ranking source in the CF’s State of Law coalition, who wished to remain anonymous in order to speak freely on the topic, told Al Jazeera there are “ongoing attempts to convince the US administration to lift the veto on al-Maliki”.

Aqeel al-Fatlawi, the State of Law spokesperson, also said he was hopeful that the US “will change its stance in the coming period”.

While blaming regional states, including Turkiye and Syria, for the US position towards him, al-Maliki himself has sought to soften his positions.

Syria has been one of the main points of difference between al-Maliki and the US, which has backed Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa, even as the former Iraqi prime minister has denounced him for his past membership of al-Qaeda.

In a televised interview on Tuesday, al-Maliki used al-Sharaa’s full name, rather than the Syrian leader’s nom de guerre of “al-Jolani”, an attempt to emphasise that he was willing to move on from the past. Al-Maliki also attempted to soften his stance towards the Syrian government, directing his criticism towards the former regime of ousted President Bashar al-Assad and its role in supporting “terrorism” in Iraq.

Whether these attempts will go far enough to placate the US remains to be seen.

Reports indicate that US Special Envoy to Iraq Mark Savaya may have been removed from his position, although there is no official confirmation. His replacement would likely be Tom Barrack, currently the US ambassador to Turkiye and special envoy to Syria.

The CF favours Savaya, who has proven to be more supportive of using a more gradual approach in reducing the power of Iraq’s Shia militias, versus Barrack, who is viewed by the CF more negatively for his role in weakening Hezbollah in Lebanon and his support for Syria’s al-Sharaa.

An official announcement of a change could indicate where Trump’s thoughts are in the critical next few weeks – and whether the president will choose to not renew the US guarantee to protect Iraq’s oil revenue in May.

WASHINGTON — Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan is refusing to voluntarily comply with a Justice Department investigation into a video she organized urging U.S. military members to resist “illegal orders” — escalating a dispute that President Trump has publicly pushed.

In letters first obtained by the Associated Press, Slotkin’s lawyer informed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro that the senator would not agree to a voluntary interview about the video. Slotkin’s legal team also requested that Pirro preserve all documents related to the matter for “anticipated litigation.”

Slotkin’s lawyer separately wrote to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, declining to sit for an FBI interview about the video and urging her to immediately terminate any inquiry.

The refusal marks a potential turning point in the standoff, shifting the burden onto the Justice Department to decide whether it will escalate an investigation into sitting members of Congress or retreat from an inquiry now being openly challenged.

“I did this to go on offense,” Slotkin said in an interview Wednesday. “And to put them in a position where they’re tap dancing. To put them in a position where they have to own their choices of using a U.S. attorney’s office to come after a senator.”

‘It’s not gonna stop unless I fight back’

Last November, Slotkin joined five other Democratic lawmakers — all of whom previously served in the military or at intelligence agencies — in posting a 90-second video urging U.S. service members to follow established military protocols and reject orders they believe to be unlawful.

The lawmakers said Trump’s Republican administration was “pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens” and called on troops to “stand up for our laws.”

The video sparked a firestorm in Republican circles and soon drew the attention of Trump, who accused the lawmakers of sedition and said their actions were “punishable by death.”

The Pentagon later announced it had opened an investigation into Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, a former Navy pilot who appeared in the video. The FBI then contacted the lawmakers seeking interviews, signaling a broader Justice Department inquiry.

Slotkin said multiple legal advisers initially urged caution.

“Maybe if you keep quiet, this will all go away over Christmas,” Slotkin said she was told.

But in January, the matter flared again, with the lawmakers saying they were contacted by the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia.

Meanwhile, security threats mounted. Slotkin said her farm in Michigan received a bomb threat, her brother was assigned a police detail due to threats and her parents were swatted in the middle of the night.

Her father, who died in January after a long battle with cancer, “could barely walk and he’s dealing with the cops in his home,” she said.

Slotkin said a “switch went off” in her and she became angry: “And I said, ‘It’s not gonna stop unless I fight back.’”

Democratic senators draw a line

The requests from the FBI and the Justice Department have been voluntary. Slotkin said that her legal team had communicated with prosecutors but that officials “keep asking for a personal interview.”

Slotkin’s lawyer, Preet Bharara, in the letter to Pirro declined the interview request and asked that she “immediately terminate any open investigation and cease any further inquiry concerning the video.” In the other letter, Bharara urged Bondi to use her authority to direct Pirro to close the inquiry.

Bharara wrote that Slotkin’s constitutional rights had been infringed and said litigation is being considered.

“All options are most definitely on the table,” Slotkin said. Asked whether she would comply with a subpoena, she paused before responding: “I’d take a hard look at it.”

Bharara, who’s representing Slotkin in the case, is a former U.S. attorney in New York who was fired by Trump in 2017 during his first administration. He’s also representing Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California in a separate case involving the Justice Department.

Kelly has similarly pushed back, suing the Pentagon last month over attempts to punish him for the video. On Tuesday, a federal judge said that he knows of no U.S. Supreme Court precedent to justify the Pentagon’s censuring of Kelly as he weighed whether to intervene.

Slotkin said she’s in contact with the other lawmakers who appeared in the video, but she wouldn’t say what their plans were in the investigations.

A rising profile

Trump has frequently and consistently targeted his political opponents. In some cases, those attacks have had the unintended consequence of elevating their national standing.

In Kelly’s case, he raised more than $12.5 million in the final months of 2025 following the “illegal orders” video controversy, according to campaign finance filings.

Slotkin, like Kelly, has been mentioned among Democrats who could emerge as presidential contenders in 2028.

She previously represented one of the nation’s most competitive House districts before winning a Senate seat in Michigan in 2024, even as Trump carried the state.

Slotkin delivered the Democratic response to Trump’s address to Congress last year and has since urged her party to confront him more aggressively, saying Democrats had lost their “alpha energy” and calling on them to “go nuclear” against Trump’s redistricting push.

“If I’m encouraging other people to take risk, how can I not then accept risk myself?” Slotkin said. “I think you’ve got to show people that we’re not going to lay down and take it.”

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a California redistricting measure meant to net the Democratic Party more congressional seats, rejecting a challenge from the state Republican Party.

There was no dissent in Wednesday’s decision, and the conservative-majority court did not offer any explanation for its decision.

Instead, its order was comprised of a single sentence, stating that the Republican application “is denied”.

Previously, in December, the Supreme Court had allowed a similar redistricting measure, designed to benefit Republicans in Texas, to move forward.

Democratic officials in California have applauded Wednesday’s decision as fair, given that Republican President Donald Trump has led a nationwide push to redraw congressional districts in his party’s favour.

“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a written statement.

“He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November.”

California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed Newsom’s remarks, blaming Trump for launching a kind of redistricting arms race that threatened to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

“The US Supreme Court’s decision is good news not only for Californians, but for our democracy,” Bonta said in the statement.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a win for Democratic efforts to counter the Trump-led redistricting efforts, which began last year in Texas.

In June last year, reports emerged that Trump had personally called Texas state politicians to redraw their congressional districts to give Republicans a greater advantage in Democrat-held areas.

Each congressional district elects one person to the US House of Representatives, which has a narrow Republican majority. Out of 435 seats, 218 are held by Republicans, and 214 by Democrats.

Texas, a Republican stronghold, proceeded to approve a newly revamped congressional map in August, overcoming a walkout by Democratic legislators.

That, in turn, prompted Newsom to launch a ballot initiative in California to counteract the Texas effort.

Just as the new Texas congressional map was designed to increase Republican seats by five, the California ballot initiative, known as Proposition 50, was also positioned to increase Democratic representation by five.

Voters in California passed the initiative overwhelmingly in a November special election, temporarily suspending the work of an independent redistricting commission that had previously drawn the state’s congressional maps.

Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential contender, framed Proposition 50 as a means of fighting “fire with fire”.

The new map approved under Proposition 50, however, will only be in place through the 2030 election, and Newsom has pledged to repeal it, should Republicans in Texas do the same with their new map.

The push to redistrict for partisan gain — a process known as gerrymandering — has long faced bipartisan pushback as an attack on democratic values.

Normally, redistricting happens every 10 years, after a new census is taken, to reflect population changes.

But this mid-decade redistricting battle comes before the pivotal 2026 midterm elections, which are slated to be a referendum on Trump’s second term as president. Trump has already expressed fear that he might be impeached, should Congress switch to Democratic control.

Partisan gerrymandering is not necessarily illegal, unless it purposefully disenfranchises voters on the basis of their race. That, in turn, is seen as a violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, an important piece of civil rights legislation from 1965.

In response to the passage of Proposition 50, Republicans in California sued Newsom and other state officials in an effort to overturn the new congressional map.

They argued the new map was created “specifically to favor Hispanic voters” and would dilute the representation of Republican voters in the state.

The Trump administration joined the lawsuit on November 13, backing the state Republicans.

But Bonta, the California attorney general, argued the redistricting process was legal. In court filings, he also maintained that Trump’s backing of the lawsuit was driven by self-interest.

“The obvious reason that the Republican Party is a plaintiff here, and the reason that the current federal administration intervened to challenge California’s new map while supporting Texas’s defense of its new map, is that Republicans want to retain their House majority for the remainder of President Trump’s term,” his court filing said.

Bonto also called on the Supreme Court not to “step into the political fray, granting one political party a sizeable advantage” by overturning Proposition 50.

The victory for California Democrats on Wednesday comes as redistricting fights continue across the country.

Already, states like North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri have adopted new congressional maps to favour Republicans. There has been pushback, though.

In December, Indiana’s Republican-led legislature voted down a partisan redistricting measure, despite pressure from Trump to pass it.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that California this fall may use its new election map, which is expected to send five more Democrats to Congress.

With no dissents, the justices rejected emergency appeals from California Republicans and President Trump’s lawyers, who claimed the map was a racial gerrymander to benefit Latinos, not a partisan effort to bolster Democrats.

Trump’s lawyers supported the California Republicans and filed a Supreme Court brief asserting that “California’s recent redistricting is tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

They pointed to statements from Paul Mitchell, who led the effort to redraw the districts, that he hoped to “bolster” Latino representatives in the Central Valley.

In response, the state’s attorneys told the court the GOP claims defied the public’s understanding of the mid-decade redistricting and contradicted the facts regarding the racial and ethnic makeup of the districts.

Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed re-drawing the state’s 52 congressional districts to “fight back against Trump’s power grab in Texas.”

He said that if Texas was going to redraw its districts to benefit Republicans so as to keep control of the House of Representatives, California should do the same to benefit Democrats.

The voters approved the change in November.

While the new map has five more Democratic-leaning districts, the state’s attorneys said it did not increase the number with a Latino majority.

“Before Proposition 50, there were 16 Latino-majority districts. After Proposition 50, there is the same number. The average Latino share of the voting-age population also declined in those 16 districts,” they wrote.

It would be “strange for California to undertake a mid-decade restricting effort with the predominant purpose of benefiting Latino voters and then enact a new map that contains an identical number of Latino-majority districts,” they said.

Trump’s lawyers pointed to the 13th Congressional District in Merced County and said its lines were drawn to benefit Latinos.

The state’s attorneys said that too was incorrect. “The Latino voting-age population [in District 13] decreased after Proposition 50’s enactment,” they said.

Three judges in Los Angeles heard evidence from both sides and upheld the new map in a 2-1 decision.

“We find that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming,” said U.S. District Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu.

In the past, the Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not bar state lawmakers from drawing election districts for political or partisan reasons, but it does forbid doing so based on the race of the voters.

In December, the court ruled for Texas Republicans and overturned a 2-1 decision that had blocked the use of its new election map.
The court’s conservatives agreed with Texas lawmakers who said they acted out of partisan motives, not with the aim of denying representation to Latino and Black voters.

“The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a concurring opinion.

California’s lawyers quoted Alito in supporting their map.

WASHINGTON — The Republican chair of a House Committee rejected an offer Monday from former President Clinton to conduct a transcribed interview for a House investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, pushing the threat to hold both Clintons in contempt of Congress closer toward a vote.

The impasse comes as the full House is headed toward potential votes this week on criminal contempt of Congress charges against the Clintons. If passed, the charges threaten Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with substantial fines and even incarceration if they are convicted.

Rep. James Comer, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, said on social media that he would insist on both Clintons sitting for a sworn deposition before the committee in order to fulfill the panel’s subpoenas. A letter from the committee to attorneys for the Clintons indicates that they had offered for Bill Clinton to conduct a transcribed interview on “matters related to the investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein” and for Hillary Clinton to submit a sworn declaration.

“The Clintons do not get to dictate the terms of lawful subpoenas,” Comer, a Kentucky Republican, said.

The Republican-controlled Oversight panel had advanced criminal contempt of Congress charges last month. Nine of the committee’s 21 Democrats joined Republicans in support of the charges against Bill Clinton as they argued for full transparency in the Epstein investigation. Three Democrats also supported the charges against Hillary Clinton.

Bill Clinton’s relationship with Epstein has re-emerged as a focal point for Republicans amid the push for a reckoning over Epstein, who killed himself in 2019 in a New York jail cell as he faced sex trafficking charges.

Clinton, like a bevy of other high-powered men, had a well-documented relationship with Epstein in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He has not been accused of wrongdoing in his interactions with the late financier.

After Bill and Hillary Clinton were both subpoenaed in August by the House Oversight Committee, their attorney had tried to argue against the validity of the subpoena. However, as Comer threatened to begin contempt of Congress proceedings, they started negotiating toward a compromise.

Still, the Clintons remained highly critical of Comer’s decision, saying that he was bringing politics into the investigation while failing to hold the Trump administration accountable for delays in producing the Department of Justice’s case files on Epstein.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.