Hezbollah has condemned a US-brokered ceasefire framework accepted by Israel and Lebanon, describing it as harmful to Lebanon’s interests. The plan would establish Lebanese army-controlled security zones near the border, contingent on Hezbollah withdrawing its fighters.
Published On 4 Jun 20264 Jun 2026
Share
Israel’s supreme court annuls a government ban on the International Committee of the Red Cross visiting Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.
Published On 5 Jun 20265 Jun 2026
Share
Al Jazeera’s Obaida Hitto brings you the latest from southern Lebanon where a new diplomatic push has done little to quell the violence.
Published On 4 Jun 20264 Jun 2026
Share
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi accuses China of lacking military transparency and stresses the importance of dialogue for regional stability.
Published On 31 May 202631 May 2026
Japanese Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi has dismissed claims that Tokyo is pursuing “new militarism” and accused China of rapidly expanding its military with limited transparency.
China continues to increase its defence spending at a high level, Koizumi said on Sunday at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore.
list of 3 itemsend of list
“China’s external approach and military activities are matters of serious concern for Japan and the international community at the same time,” he added.
“Think about it. There’s a country that has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and strategic bombers. Japan has neither of such weapons, and yet Japan is labelled ‘new militarism’?”
Koizumi said Japan’s record since World War II “speaks for itself”, citing its adherence to international law and commitment to the United Nations Charter alongside efforts to uphold a “free and open international order”.
In May, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs called on Asia Pacific countries to be vigilant and “jointly resist the reckless actions of Japan’s neo-militarism”.
At the Singapore forum, Chinese delegate Major General Meng Xiangqing criticised Japan.
“I deeply doubt whether a country that has not thoroughly eradicated the toxic legacy of militarism is qualified to talk extensively about defence cooperation on international occasions and whether it can win the trust of the international community, especially the Asian countries it once invaded,” he said.
Ties between Japan and China sank to their worst level in years after Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi warned in November that a hypothetical Chinese attack on Taiwan could draw a Japanese military response.
China claims Taiwan as its own territory over the objections of the island’s government.
Koizumi said transparency comes from “discussion and dialogue” and lamented that China had not sent its defence minister to the conference, but he insisted Japan remains open to engagement.
“We keep the door open,” he said, reaffirming Japan’s commitment to dialogue with China and other regional players to foster stability.
As China has been rapidly expanding and modernising its military, Japan has been reshaping its own defence policy. Last month, Takaichi’s cabinet scrapped a ban on lethal weapons exports, a major change in its post-war pacifist policy.
Separately on Sunday, Koizumi praised US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for his commitment to the Asia Pacific but at the same time stressed the continued need for strong coalitions globally.
“Division weakens deterrence. Unity strengthens deterrence,” he told the conference in Singapore.
“If gaps emerge among the United States, Europe and allies and like-minded countries, forces which take it as an opportunity will surely come in,” he said.
“We must prevent such a situation. We must keep our cooperation going on. Now is the time to make our cooperation even stronger.”
US President Donald Trump has been harsh about fellow members in NATO, and the comments at the Shangri-La conference came the day after Hegseth again chided Western European allies at the forum for not devoting enough resources to defence.
JOHANNESBURG — The government in South Africa and Afrikaner advocacy groups on Wednesday rejected the position of the Trump administration that there’s a humanitarian emergency affecting white people in South Africa.
The argument served as the rationale for raising the U.S. refugee cap, but only for white Afrikaners. The Trump administration said Tuesday that it will admit an additional 10,000 white South Africans into the U.S. as refugees this year, increasing its annual cap, but blocking people from other countries from entering through the program.
President Trump’s announcement on the Federal Register that he was increasing the refugee cap because of “an unforeseen emergency refugee situation.” He blamed the South African government for “recent increases in the incitement of racially motivated violence,” but Trump gave no specific information.
The South African government’s international relations department said Wednesday that accusations of systemic persecution of white Afrikaners are unfounded, pointing out that some beneficiaries of an immigration program have chosen to return to South Africa.
“This reality is further corroborated by the actions of individuals who, despite having availed themselves of this preferential immigration program, have since resolved to return home,” spokesman Chrispin Phiri said.
Afrikaner trade union, Solidariteit, argued that refugee status isn’t a viable solution for Afrikaners, who should thrive in South Africa instead. Spokesman Jaco Kleynhans said that the organization hadn’t discussed any “unforeseen emergency refugee situation” with the Trump administration, but respects the autonomy of U.S. refugee policy toward Afrikaners.
The union “is in no way aware of anything that the Trump administration could be referring to,” Kleynhans said.
AfriForum, a lobbying organization for the country’s white Afrikaner minority with more than 300,000 members, said it “does not have information” regarding the specific assertion that there’s an emergency refugee situation.
The organization’s CEO, Kallie Kriel, said the group’s focus is “fighting to create the circumstances in South Africa where there is no need for Afrikaners to leave.”
Trump suspended the U.S. refugee program on his first day in office and, since then, has turned it into a vehicle to allow Afrikaners — a group of white South Africans descended mainly from Dutch settlers — into the United States. Advocates say the decision to focus a decades-old program on one group has left people around the world fleeing war and strife stranded and with few options.
Refugee groups have questioned why white South Africans are being prioritized ahead of people from countries facing war and natural disasters. Vetting for refugee status in the U.S. often takes years.
The Trump administration’s preference for white Afrikaner refugee admissions, according to Dr. Bryony Fox, a social justice researcher at Stellenbosch University, raises questions about selective humanitarianism, inconsistent refugee protection and favoring privileged groups, while ignoring other refugee populations experiencing severe hardships.
“This risks politicizing refugee protection in a way that may ultimately weaken the legitimacy and universality of the refugee regime itself,” she said.
Gumede writes for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Florida’s long-shot attempt to sue California and Washington state over the issuance of commercial driver licenses to truckers who don’t speak English and are not authorized to be in the United States.
The case stems from a crash in Florida last year that killed three people. The driver, Harjinder Singh, is accused of making an illegal U-turn that caused the accident. Singh, who is from India, was carrying a valid commercial driver’s license from California and had earlier been granted one by Washington state.
Republican-led Florida has accused the Western states, led by Democrats, of openly defying immigration laws and asked the justices to rule that states lack the authority to issue CDLs to people who are not citizens or legal permanent residents.
The Supreme Court typically hears appeals of lower-court decisions, but it sometimes takes on what are known as original lawsuits in which states sue each other in the nation’s highest court.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented from Tuesday’s order, as they often do when the court rejects an original lawsuit, saying that the court has no choice but to hear such cases.
Separately, a federal appeals court has blocked a Trump administration proposal to impose new restrictions that would severely limit which immigrants can get commercial driver’s licenses to drive a semitrailer truck or bus.
AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Supreme Court on Friday refused to declare that Democratic lawmakers who briefly fled the state in 2025 to block a vote on new congressional voting maps pushed by President Trump had vacated their office.
The all-Republican court dealt a blow to Gov. Greg Abbott and state Republicans in their efforts to severely punish the more than 50 Democrats who bolted for New York, Illinois and Massachusetts in a bid to stop a vote on the maps during a special session. State Republicans had sought their arrest and threatened fines to bring them back to the state Capitol.
Abbott had argued in a lawsuit filed directly to the state’s highest civil court that state Rep. Gene Wu, the leader of the House Democratic caucus, and others had effectively abandoned their office.
Wu had argued that he was not abandoning his office in the quorum break, but was exercising a right to dissent.
In denying Abbott’s request, the court opinion written by Justice James Blacklock noted that the Republican-majority Legislature had adequately resolved the problem itself through measures such as fines against the missing lawmakers, and that they eventually returned on their own within a few weeks.
“In the end, a quorum was restored in two weeks’ time, without judicial intervention, by the interplay of political and practical forces,” Blacklock wrote.
“Courts have uniformly recognized that it is not their role to resolve disputes between the other two branches that those branches can resolve for themselves,” the opinion said.
If the issue rises again and the Legislature cannot effectively compel lawmakers to return, the court may someday consider whether the courts should step in, the opinion said.
“When Greg Abbott threatened to arrest and expel us for denying him a quorum, we told him he should ‘come and take it.’ He tried!” Wu said in a statement Friday. “Abbott was wrong, weak, and after all his bluster, he couldn’t come and take a damn thing.”
Wu and the other lawmakers eventually returned to Texas, and the new map was passed and signed into law by Abbott.
Wu had argued that because he had returned to the Capitol and the map was eventually signed into law, there was no longer any reason for the court to weigh in.
“Their return is robust proof that they never intended to abandon their offices,” Wu argued in legal briefs. “Despite the overheated rhetoric, this quorum break was always understood to be temporary.”
The Texas walkout intensified into a high-stakes national drama as Trump urged Texas and other GOP-controlled states to redraw their congressional districts to help Republicans maintain control of the U.S. House. The Texas map effort set off a wave of similar efforts across several states as governors from both parties pledged to redraw maps with the goal of giving their political candidates a leg up in the 2026 midterm elections.
The state constitution requires that at least 100 of the 150 House members be present to conduct business, and the quorum break effectively shut down a special legislative session Abbott had called to address redistricting and other issues, including aid to communities hit by the devastating July Fourth floods that killed more than 100 people.
In 2021, the court ruled that the Texas Constitution enables the possibility of a quorum break but also allows for consequences to bring members back.
Last year’s Democratic walkout was the third since 2003, when lawmakers bolted to stop a vote on a redistricting bill. They did it again in 2021 over an elections bill. In both cases, they were temporary victories as Democrats eventually returned and the Republican majority in the Legislature ultimately passed both measures into law.
May 12 (UPI) — The South Carolina Senate voted Tuesday against a measure to extend its legislative session to redraw the state’s congressional map. President Donald Trump has pressured lawmakers to move forward with redistricting to give Republicans an advantage.
Five Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the resolution, which would have extended the session by a week, NBC News reported. This would have given the Senate more time to vote on a plan that would break up the state’s only Black-majority district. The legislative session ends Thursday, and the state’s primaries are June 9.
The redistricting push by Trump comes after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in late April that badly weakened a key part of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, one that had helped ensure minority groups could elect their choice of candidates.
State Sen. Shane Massey, a Republican and Senate majority leader, spoke out about the efforts before the vote, saying it’s a show of weakness to use redistricting to quash minority votes, Greenville News reported.
“My conscience is clear on this one,” Massey said. “I know what the right thing to do is.”
Massey said he’d received a call from Trump in recent days about pushing forward redistricting. On Monday night, Trump posted on social media that he was watching the vote closely.
“South Carolina Republicans: BE BOLD AND COURAGEOUS, just like the Republicans of the Great State of Tennessee were last week!” he wrote.
Last Thursday, the Tennessee state legislature passed a redistricting map that eliminated the state’s last Democrat-leaning, Black-majority district. Other Southern states have also been moving in this direction.
Senate Minority Leader Brad Hutto said the vote sends a message that the state rejects a White House power grab, Greenville News reported.
“The people of this state expect us to focus on real issues affecting their daily lives, not carry out an outside political agenda,” he said.
Later Tuesday, Republican candidates for governor in South Carolina criticized the members of their party who voted against the resolution.
Rep. Nancy Mace, who’s been endorsed by Trump for the governor position, posted on social media that the state needs “a Governor who the statehouse will fear and listen to.”
“You know I’d whip every single ‘NO’ vote into shape if I was Governor,” she posted.
THE HAGUE — Venezuela ’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez told journalists Monday that her country had no plans to become the 51st U.S. state after President Trump said he was “seriously considering” the move.
Rodríguez was speaking at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the final day of hearings in a dispute between her country and neighboring Guyana over the massive mineral- and oil-rich Essequibo region.
“We will continue to defend our integrity, our sovereignty, our independence, our history,” said Rodríguez, who assumed power in January following a U.S. military operation that ousted then-President Nicolás Maduro. Venezuela is “not a colony, but a free country,” she added.
Speaking to Fox News earlier on Monday, Trump said he was “seriously considering making Venezuela the 51st U.S. state,” according to a post by Fox News’ co-anchor John Roberts on social media. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the matter.
Trump has made similar comments about Canada.
Rodríguez went on to say that Venezuelan and U.S. officials have been in touch and are working on “cooperation and understanding.”
Before addressing Trump’s comments, Rodríguez defended her country’s claim to Essequibo at the United Nations’ highest court, telling judges that political negotiations — not a judicial ruling — will resolve the century-old territorial dispute.
The 62,000-square-mile territory, which makes up two-thirds of Guyana, is rich in gold, diamonds, timber and other natural resources. It also sits near massive offshore oil deposits currently producing an average 900,000 barrels a day.
That output is close to Venezuela’s daily production of about 1 million barrels a day and has transformed one of the smallest countries in South America into a significant energy producer.
Venezuela has considered Essequibo its own since the Spanish colonial period, when the jungle region fell within its boundaries. But an 1899 decision by arbitrators from Britain, Russia and the United States drew the border along the Essequibo River largely in favor of Guyana.
Venezuela has argued that a 1966 agreement sealed in Geneva to resolve the dispute effectively nullified the 19th-century arbitration. In 2018, however, three years after ExxonMobil announced a significant oil discovery off the Essequibo coast, Guyana’s government went to the International Court of Justice and asked judges to uphold the 1899 ruling.
Tensions between the countries further flared in 2023, when Rodríguez’s predecessor, Maduro, threatened to annex the region by force after holding a referendum asking voters if Essequibo should be turned into a Venezuelan state. Maduro was captured Jan. 3 during a U.S. military operation in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, and taken to New York to face drug trafficking charges. He has pleaded not guilty.
Rodríguez did not address the referendum in her remarks, but she told the court that the 1966 agreement is designed to allow negotiations between Venezuela and Guyana to resolve the territorial dispute. And she accused Guyana’s government of undermining the agreement with the “opportunistic” decision to ask the court to address the dispute.
“At a time when the mechanisms established in the Geneva agreement were still fully in force, Guyana unilaterally chose to shift the dispute from the negotiating arena to a judicial resolution,” she said. “This change was not accidental; it coincided with the discovery in 2015 of the oil field that would become world-renowned.”
When hearings opened last week, Guyana’s foreign minister, Hugh Hilton Todd, told the panel of international judges that the dispute “has been a blight on our existence as a sovereign state from the very beginning.” He said that 70% of Guyana’s territory is at stake.
The court is likely to take months to issue a final and legally binding ruling in the case.
Venezuela has warned that its participation in the hearings does not mean either consent to, or recognition of, the court’s jurisdiction.
Quell and Cano write for the Associated Press. Garcia Cano reported from Mexico City.
Published on •Updated
Oil prices surged in early trade as investors digested the latest developments in the Middle East, with both Brent and US crude climbing over 4%.
It comes after Trump’s rejection of Tehran’s response to the latest US proposition on bringing the conflict in Iran, and subsequent impact on trade passing through the Strait of Hormuz, to an end.
In other trading, US futures edged lower, while Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 fell 0.4% to 62,486.84 after briefly reaching another record high in intraday trading at above 63,300.
South Korea’s Kospi gained 4.1% to 7,804.71. It also hit an all-time intraday high, led by gains from tech-related stocks including Samsung Electronics and memory chip maker SK Hynix.
Technology-related stocks and growing artificial intelligence-related interest have supported markets in Japan and South Korea despite the Iran war, with the Nikkei 225 and Kospi rising more than 10% and 30%, respectively, over the past month.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump will head to China this week for talks with his counterpart, Xi Jinping. The two leaders are expected to discuss a wide range of topics, including trade concerns.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, in her morning press conference Thursday, rejected criticism from the President Donald Trump over her government’s anti-drug efforts after Trump suggested the United States could take unilateral action against drug cartels operating in Mexican territory. Photo by Isaac Esquivel/EPA
May 7 (UPI) — Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum rejected criticism from the U.S. President Donald Trump over her government’s anti-drug efforts after Trump suggested the United States could take unilateral action against drug cartels operating in Mexican territory.
“President Trump has said this several times before, but we are acting,” Sheinbaum said Thursday during her daily morning press conference.
During a White House event Wednesday, Trump said his administration already had reduced maritime drug trafficking by 97% and would now begin a “land phase” against drug smuggling operations.
“If they are not going to do the job, we will,” Trump said.
Sheinbaum defended her administration’s security strategy and said Mexico has achieved a nearly 50% reduction in homicides, dismantled 2,500 clandestine laboratories used to manufacture synthetic drugs and reduced fentanyl trafficking from Mexico into the United States.
The Mexican president also urged Washington to recognize the severity of the U.S. drug consumption crisis and strengthen efforts to stop the illegal flow of firearms into Mexico.
She said the trafficking of weapons strengthens the operational capacity of criminal organizations and fuels violence across several regions of the country.
During the press conference, Sheinbaum said the 2026 U.S. National Drug Control Strategy, presented Tuesday, marked the first time the Trump administration formally acknowledged the seriousness of domestic drug consumption in the United States.
According to Sheinbaum, the report recognizes that the United States faces “a serious drug consumption problem” by proposing prevention measures, public awareness campaigns and public health programs to combat addiction.
Asked about comments made Wednesday by U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to U.S. network NewsNation regarding possible new investigations into Mexican officials allegedly linked to drug trafficking, Sheinbaum again demanded evidence from U.S. authorities.
“Evidence, send evidence, because extradition treaties and mutual trust agreements require proof,” she said.
The Mexican president reiterated that drug trafficking and drug consumption must be addressed as a shared responsibility between both nations.
She said her government remains willing to cooperate with the Trump administration on security, migration and anti-drug policies, but stressed that any collaboration must respect Mexico’s sovereignty.
The 2026 U.S. National Drug Control Strategy identifies Mexico as the center of Washington’s anti-drug campaign, reaffirming the designation of Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations and classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction.
The document conditions future security cooperation on measurable results in extraditions and the dismantling of drug laboratories, warning that the United States will use “all available capabilities” against criminal networks.
WASHINGTON — Retired Gen. Colin L. Powell, citing concerns about his privacy and a lack of passion for political combat, on Wednesday proclaimed that he would not run for President in 1996.
For the first time, Powell declared that he was a Republican. And he seemed clearly to leave open the possibility of seeking political office in the future. But he categorically ruled out accepting the vice presidential nomination next year.
In a dramatic afternoon press conference in suburban Washington, Powell, 58, said that entering the political arena “requires a calling that I do not yet hear. And for me to pretend otherwise would not be honest to myself, it would not be honest to the American people.”
“And therefore I cannot go forward,” he said. “I will not be a candidate for President or for any other elective office in 1996.”
Powell’s wife, Alma, stood at his side as he ended months of suspense about his political intentions and disappointed millions of potential supporters. His adult children, Michael, Linda and Annemarie, looked on in the packed hotel ballroom where Powell delivered his fateful verdict.
“I have spent long hours talking with my wife and children, the most important people in my life, about the impact an entry into political life would have on us,” Powell said. “It would require sacrifices and changes in our lives that would be difficult for us to make at this time.”
With the September publication of his best-selling memoirs, “My American Journey,” Powell had become a four-star American icon, the repository of the hopes of millions who dreamed that he could bind up the nation’s racial and political wounds.
But in the end, that task proved too great even for the charismatic general, who braved unfriendly fire in Vietnam and survived the ordeals of bureaucratic combat in four presidential administrations.
Powell said Wednesday he hoped he could help restore civility to American political dialogue and a “sense of shame in our society.” He also said he hoped to bring blacks back into the party by broadening the GOP’s appeal and humanizing its attempts to reform social welfare programs.
“While we’re sending out block grants, while we’re dismantling programs that have not completely satisfied everything we hoped of them, we have to concern ourselves about those who may be cut loose, and we have to be prepared to help them,” Powell said. Over the past months, “I didn’t sense there was enough consideration of that.”
“I will continue to speak out forcefully in the future on the issues of the day, as I have been doing in recent weeks,” Powell said. “I believe I can help the party of Lincoln move once again close to the spirit of Lincoln.”
But–for now–he said he would do so from outside the realm of electoral politics.
Powell largely came to his decision over the weekend and formalized it in a meeting Monday night with two of his closest friends, former Pentagon official Richard L. Armitage and former White House Chief of Staff Kenneth M. Duberstein. With a third aide, retired Col. Bill Smullen, joining in by phone, the three men sat in Powell’s formal office on the ground floor of his McLean, Va., mansion, a room dominated by his Medal of Freedom and three framed photographs of the presidents he has served–Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Bill Clinton.
Alma Powell joined the group about halfway through the 2 1/2-hour meeting, Armitage said in an interview Wednesday.
“By then, the decision was primarily made,” Armitage said. “Over these past weeks, he was up and down, he agonized. He’d go out and meet with crowds and they’d fire him up. Then he’d get back home and wonder, ‘Do I have the necessary fire in the stomach to be worthy of support of these people?’ And he found he did not,” Armitage said.
As it became clear that Powell would not run, the meeting moved quickly to a discussion of the logistics of the announcement. The four discussed various drafts of a statement, then decided that Powell should speak solely in his own words. On Wednesday afternoon, he did just that, speaking largely without reference to the note cards he had carried with him.
He had looked “deep into my own soul” before deciding not to run, Powell said, and had found that he could not summon up the “commitment and passion” he felt every day in his 35 years as a soldier.
Powell also pointedly refused to endorse any of the Republican candidates, or even the party’s eventual nominee. He answered a curt “yes” to the question of whether there were candidates in the current crop of GOP hopefuls who were unacceptable to him.
A close friend said later that Powell was referring specifically to Patrick J. Buchanan, who has harshly criticized Powell’s stands on social issues.
Powell’s decision reopens a presidential contest that had been largely frozen for the last two months as he flirted with running.
Within an hour of Powell’s announcement, House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said that the former general’s withdrawal made it more likely that he would enter the race. Gingrich said he would think about it over the next several weeks and make a decision after the current federal budget deliberations are finished but before the Dec. 15 deadline for entering New Hampshire’s primary.
Powell’s withdrawal was particularly welcome news at the White House and at the headquarters of GOP presidential front-runner Sen. Bob Dole. In a statement, Dole praised Powell’s “outstanding character and leadership” and expressed pleasure that he had joined the Republican Party.
At the White House, aides showed unusual discipline in not admitting that they felt a huge sense of relief at not having to face Clinton’s worst nightmare–a black, centrist, Republican military hero–in the general election next year.
“Everyone wants some hook to say there was a sigh of relief at the White House–but you’ll have to do it on your own,” said White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry.
He added that Clinton “understands the decision to run for President of the United States is one of the most difficult decisions any human can make. He respects the general and respects the general’s right to make that decision.”
Powell met with the press for 40 minutes at the Ramada Plaza hotel in Alexandria, Va., a few miles down the George Washington Parkway from the Pentagon, where Powell made history by becoming the first African American and youngest chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
His appearance was marked by the good humor, military carriage and unshakable poise he displayed in private meetings with presidents, kings and prime ministers and in public briefings on the American military operations he directed.
He expressed gratitude to the thousands of citizens who urged him to run. “It says more about America than it says about me. In one generation, we have moved from denying a black man service at a lunch counter to elevating one to the highest military office in the nation and to being a serious contender for the presidency,” he said.
Powell drew laughs when asked whether his wife shared his enthusiasm for the Republican Party. “Next!” he boomed. He also fended off a question about whether he had been bothered by published reports that his wife was under treatment for depression.
“It is not a family secret,” he said. “It is very easily controlled with proper medication, just as my blood pressure is sometimes under control with proper medication.”
For her part, Alma Powell made clear her concerns about her husband’s safety should he become a candidate. She and the general denied that fears of assassination were a factor in his decision not to run, but the final call was not made until Monday night, the day slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was buried in Jerusalem.
Had he been elected, Powell said, his priorities in office would have been: “Show leadership. Be a conciliator. Move the government forward toward less government. . . . Try to inspire people. And try to restore a sense of family, restore a sense of shame in our society, help bring more civility into our society.”
Powell said he regretted the disappointment he caused those who enthusiastically promoted his candidacy.
“I am deeply, deeply appreciative of that support, I’m deeply appreciative of the time and talent and energy you put into it. I’m sorry I disappointed you, but I hope you will see that in the next phase of my life I will continue to serve the country in a way that will justify the kind of inspiration and enthusiasm and support you sent my way this time around,” Powell said, addressing the several dozen supporters who attended the press conference and millions more watching on television.
He said he understood the “down and dirty” of American politics and said they were a proper test of a potential leader. He said he was not afraid of that “test of fire,” but that he was not yet ready to face it.
Among those watching on television were about half a dozen disheartened volunteers at the draft-Powell headquarters in the Crenshaw district in Los Angeles. The group, which had just opened the office last week, vowed to launch an effort to change Powell’s mind. Through letters, phone calls and other means, they hope to persuade the retired general “to report for duty as a candidate for the presidency,” said Powell backer Ron Weekly.
Times staff writers Sam Fulwood III in Washington and Erin Texeira in Los Angeles contributed to this story.
* LOCAL REACTION: General’s Orange County kin pleased with his decision. A17
US President Donald Trump says the latest Iranian peace proposal includes demands he ‘can’t agree to’.
Published On 2 May 20262 May 2026
United States President Donald Trump has voiced frustration with Iran’s latest peace proposal, saying “they’re asking for things I can’t agree to”, and cautioning against ending the conflict too early, only for tensions to resurface “in three more years”.
At the same time, Washington has warned that ships paying tolls or fees to Iran to transit the Strait of Hormuz could face US sanctions, signalling a tougher stance on maritime activity linked to Tehran.
Meanwhile, a new Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll shows 61 percent of Americans believe Trump’s use of military force against Iran was a mistake.
Here is what we know:
In a 3-0 ruling, court says Trump administration misread a decades-old immigration law to justify mandatory detention.
A United States federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s practice of subjecting most people arrested in its immigration crackdown to mandatory detention without the opportunity to seek release on bond.
In a 3-0 ruling on Tuesday, a panel of the New York-based US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the administration relied on a novel but incorrect interpretation of a decades-old immigration law to justify the policy.
list of 4 itemsend of list
Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Joseph F Bianco, a Trump appointee, warned that the government’s reading “would send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society”, straining already overcrowded facilities, separating families and disrupting communities.
Lawyers for the Trump administration say the mandatory detention policy is legal under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed in 1996.
But Bianco said the government had made “an attempt to muddy” the law’s “textually clear waters”, arguing that the administration’s interpretation “defies the statute’s context, structure, history, and purpose” and contradicts “longstanding executive branch practice”.
Under the Trump administration policy, the Department of Homeland Security last year took the position that non-citizens already living in the US, not just those arriving at the border, qualify as “applicants for admission” and are subject to mandatory detention.
Under federal immigration law, “applicants for admission” to the US are detained while their cases proceed in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.
The Department of Homeland Security has been denying bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, including those who have been living in the US for years without any criminal history, the Associated Press (AP) news agency reports.
That is a departure from the practice under previous US administrations, when most non-citizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border were given the opportunity to request a bond while their cases moved through immigration court, according to AP.
In such cases, bonds were often granted to people who were deemed not to be flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to those who had just entered the country.
Amy Belsher, director of immigrants rights’ litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the appeals court ruling affirmed “that the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants without any process is unlawful and cannot stand”.
“The government cannot mandatorily detain millions of noncitizens, many of whom have lived here for decades, without an opportunity to seek release. It defies the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and basic human decency,” Belsher said in a statement.
The New York court’s decision comes after two other appeals courts ruled in favour of the Trump administration’s policy.
Acknowledging the opposing rulings, Judge Bianco said the panel was parting ways with them and instead aligning with more than 370 lower-court judges nationwide who have rejected the administration’s position as a misreading of the law.
The split among the courts increases the likelihood that the US Supreme Court will weigh in.
The latest ruling also upheld an order by a New York judge that led to the release of Brazilian national Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, who was arrested by immigration officials last year while driving to work after living in the US for more than 20 years.
“The court was right to conclude the Trump administration can’t just reinterpret the law at its own whim,” Michael Tan, a lawyer for Barbosa at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.
The Department of Justice, which is defending the mandatory detention policy in court, did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump says Tehran did not make satisfactory offer after Iranian foreign minister travelled to Pakistan to present a framework to mediators to end the war.
Published On 26 Apr 202626 Apr 2026
Share
Judges say Trump’s order for swift removal at the border ‘cast aside federal laws affording’ right to seek asylum.
Published On 24 Apr 202624 Apr 2026
An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s ban on asylum applications in the United States is unlawful, dealing a setback to the administration’s immigration crackdown.
In a decision released on Friday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, found that existing laws — namely the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — give people the right to apply for asylum at the border.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Trump had issued the asylum ban in a proclamation on January 20, 2025, on the first day of his second term.
But the appeals court questioned whether suspending asylum unilaterally was within the president’s power.
“Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” the ruling said.
“The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections.”
The decision validated a ruling by a lower court. While the judges blocked Trump’s order, it is unclear what its immediate impact will be. Already, the White House has signalled it plans to appeal.
Trump made immigration a major pillar of his 2024 re-election campaign, pledging to repel what he describes as an “invasion” of migrants by shutting down the southern border of the US.
Asylum in the US can be granted to people facing “persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group”. Such protections have been recognised as a fundamental human right under international law.
But unauthorised border crossings reached record levels during the administration of President Joe Biden, which had itself imposed asylum restrictions.
Millions of migrants — many suffering from gang violence and political persecution in Central and South America — have claimed asylum upon reaching the US.
Nearly 945,000 filed for asylum in 2023, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
In his January 2025 decree, Trump suspended “the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border”.
The proclamation was quickly challenged in court, as other measures in Trump’s immigration crackdown have been.
But the appeals court panel concluded that the INA does not authorise the president to remove the plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making”.
Nor does it allow him to suspend the plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating claims of torture and persecution.
“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,” wrote Judge J Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee.
The Trump administration will likely appeal the ruling to the full appellate court and subsequently to the Supreme Court.
The White House stressed after the court’s decision that banning asylum is part of Trump’s constitutional powers as commander-in-chief.
“We have liberal judges across the country who are acting against this president for political purposes. They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens,” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters.
Hybe Chairman Bang Si-hyuk speaks to reporters as he arrives at the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency on Sept. 15, 2025, for questioning over unfair stock trading allegations. File Photo by Yonhap
Prosecutors said Friday they have rejected a police request for an arrest warrant for Bang Si-hyuk, chairman and founder of K-pop powerhouse Hybe, who is accused of unfair stock trading, citing insufficient evidence.
The Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office sent back to the police the arrest warrant request filed against Bang earlier this week on charges of fraudulent unfair trading under the Capital Markets Act.
The chief was suspected of deceiving investors in 2019 into selling their shares in Hybe before the company held an initial public offering (IPO), through which he allegedly pocketed about 260 billion won (US$175.28 million) in illegal profits.
“At this stage, there is insufficient evidence to justify the necessity of detention, and we have therefore requested a supplementary investigation,” the prosecution said.
The act prohibits obtaining financial gains through false statements or by using deceptive schemes in connection with financial investment products, such as unlisted shares. Violations involving profits exceeding 5 billion won are punishable by life imprisonment or a minimum of five years behind bars.
Bang has denied the allegation, saying the IPO had followed the law and regulations.
Police first received a tip-off on the allegations in late 2024 and raided the Korea Exchange and Hybe’s headquarters the following year as part of the probe. Bang was banned in August from leaving the country, leading to various restrictions on his activities.
The U.S. Embassy in Seoul recently sent a letter to the police agency asking that it allow him to travel to the United States to take part in K-pop supergroup BTS‘ world tour.
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.
Kevin Warsh, the man nominated to lead the Federal Reserve, the world’s most important financial institution, told the US Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday that he had made no secret agreements with the White House over interest rate policy, defending his professional integrity.
He said he would act independently if confirmed to succeed Jerome Powell, despite continued public pressure from US President Donald Trump for lower borrowing costs.
The question of that independence was put sharply to him during the hearing, when Republican Senator John Kennedy asked whether he would be Trump’s “human sock puppet”. Warsh replied: “Absolutely not.”
His comments came amid broader concerns on Capitol Hill about the future direction of the central bank, with lawmakers divided over his past record and approach to monetary policy.
Warsh insisted that the President had never asked him to commit to any specific interest rate path and said he would not have agreed to such a request.
The hearing highlighted the significant pressure facing the Federal Reserve as it maintains its independence while addressing inflation, which remains at 3.3%.
Just hours before the session began, US President Donald Trump stated in a CNBC interview that he would be disappointed if Warsh did not immediately implement rate cuts.
This current friction suggests that the White House may struggle to secure the necessary votes to confirm Warsh before Powell’s term as Fed Chair expires on 15 May.
Democratic senators were particularly vocal in their scepticism, accusing Warsh of shifting his economic stance to suit the political climate.
US Senator Elizabeth Warren labelled the nominee a “sock puppet”, suggesting his installation would facilitate an “illegal takeover” of the institution.
Critics also pointed to his historical record, alleging that he favoured higher rates during Democratic administrations but has become more dovish under Republican leadership.
US Senator Ruben Gallego cited reporting from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), which claimed the President had previously urged Warsh to reduce borrowing costs. Warsh responded by stating that such reports were based on inaccurate sources and reiterated that the independence of the Fed is “essential” for economic stability.
Despite Trump’s backing, the nomination also faces a critical roadblock within the Republican Party.
US Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, reiterated his refusal to support Warsh as long as a Department of Justice investigation into Jerome Powell continues.
The probe, led by Assistant US Attorney Jeannine Pirro, is examining whether Powell committed perjury during testimony last year regarding the budget of a Federal Reserve building renovation project.
Tillis and other Republican colleagues have expressed their support for Powell, arguing that the investigation is meritless. According to Tillis, he will not vote for a successor until the “investigation is dropped,” a stance that effectively freezes the nomination in a closely divided committee.
Federal prosecutors have reportedly continued their efforts to access Fed records as recently as last week, even after a judge previously found no evidence to support the charges.
The proceedings also delved into Warsh’s personal financial interests and the logistical challenges of a potential leadership transition.
US Senator Elizabeth Warren raised questions about the nominee’s investments in private entities, including SpaceX and Polymarket, noting that the specific size of these holdings had not been fully disclosed to the public.
Warsh defended his position by stating that the Office of Government Ethics has already approved his plan to divest all assets within 90 days of his confirmation.
Compounding the uncertainty is the unique situation involving Jerome Powell.
Unlike most departing Chairs, Powell has indicated he intends to remain on the Federal Reserve’s governing board until his separate term ends in 2028, or until the perjury investigation is concluded.
This could create an awkward power dynamic where the former Chair sits alongside his successor, a scenario not seen in Washington since the late 1940s.
While US President Donald Trump has threatened to remove Powell from the board entirely, legal experts suggest such a move would be difficult, particularly given recent US Supreme Court precedents relating to the protection of Fed governors from political dismissal.
Additionally, it said the applications, “through a wholly-owned and financed government club”, were part of an “aim of facilitating transfers of allegiance and enabling those athletes to represent Turkey at future international competitions, including the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games”.
It added: “Given the common features across the applications, the panel assessed them together and determined that such an approach is inconsistent with the core principles of the regulations.
“As a result of the decisions, the athletes are not eligible to represent Turkey in national representative competitions or other relevant international events.”
The other athletes were Catherine Relin Amanang’ole, Brian Kibor, Ronald Kwemoi and Nelvin Jepkemboi from Kenya, Jamaica’s Rajindra Campbell, Jaydon Hibbert and Wayne Pinnock plus Nigeria’s Favour Ofili and Russian Sophia Yakushina.