rejects

Aug. 9 (UPI) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel rejects a U.S.-backed 15-point plan to disarm Gaza.

Last month, President Donald Trump‘s Board of Peace created the plan for the gradual disarmament of Gaza and withdrawal of Israeli troops from the territory.

But in a cabinet meeting Sunday, a readout from Netanyahu’s office from a meeting of government ministers said, “I want to be clear here — Israel is ruling out the 15-point plan.”

He said he has told the Trump administration about his concerns.

The Israeli military “will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is genuinely disarmed and will continue to thwart threats against our forces and our citizens,” Netanyahu said.

“We are now discussing this with the Americans,” he said. “They have ideas, some of which are acceptable to us and some are not, and we know how to stand up to those things.”

He reiterated his opposition to a two-state solution.

“As long as I am prime minister, no Palestinian state will be established — not in Gaza and not in the West Bank,” Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu and his coalition are facing a difficult re-election vote in late October.

“Contrary to all those who preach to us, we do what must be done for Israel’s security and we can and will stand our ground even against our best friends when necessary,” Netanyahu added.

Hamas has said that handing over its heavy weapons was contingent on Israel ending “all forms of aggression” and withdrawing from Gaza.

“We expect the mediators and the American guarantor to pressure Netanyahu and his government to adhere to the roadmap and not obstruct the process for internal political and electoral reasons,” Bassem Naim, a member of Hamas’ politburo, said on X Sunday.

Since the cease-fire last October, Israel has continued to strike Gaza.

Israel’s military occupies more than half of Gaza, and Netanyahu’s far-right allies have implied that they want to expand the control. They lauded Netanyahu’s comments.

“The [Israeli military] cannot retreat one millimeter in the Gaza Strip,” Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said.

A state judge Thursday rejected a challenge to how California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office summarized a strict new voter ID measure on November ballots — ruling that the summary language accurately describes the measure’s effects were it to pass.

Another judge dealt the backers of the measure a second loss by tentatively finding that their description of the measure, submitted for the official state voter’s guide, was misleading. They had claimed that Proposition 39 would make voting easier.

In the first case, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell ruled that the label, title and summary of the certified ballot measure accurately describe Proposition 39 as a measure that “prohibits citizens from voting” — language the measure’s backers specifically objected to — unless they provide a government-issued ID.

According to minutes from a Thursday hearing on the matter, Rockwell concluded that, to the extent the measure’s backers object to that language, they are objecting to “the provisions of the measure itself.”

Rockwell rejected the argument put forth by the measure’s backers that it would not prevent people without ID from voting, only their votes from being counted — a distinction the judge found lacking.

Both parties had asked the court to move quickly ahead of printing deadlines for November ballots.

The attorney general’s office is responsible for preparing titles and summaries for ballot measures, and is not required by law to use the same language as a measure’s proponents when gathering the necessary voter signatures to place the measure on the ballot.

Bonta’s office had argued in court that his office applied the same standard of review to the voter ID measure as every other ballot measure that has come before his office.

Bonta praised Rockwell’s decision on social media Thursday, writing that it “confirms what we have said from the start: the ballot materials at issue — the ballot title and summary and ballot label — give a true and impartial statement of Proposition 39’s chief purpose and points.”

“My office followed the law and fulfilled its duty to provide California voters with clear, accessible, and accurate information,” he wrote. “We’re pleased that the court agreed with us.”

California Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), the chief backer of the court challenge and chairman of the group Reform California, responded to the ruling with a video post to social media, writing that it was “expected” but nonetheless “disappointing.”

DeMaio accused Bonta of trying to “manipulate the vote” with “rigged” language, and Rockwell of being a “liberal judge” who had unsurprisingly decided that Bonta “gets to do corruptly what he wants to do.”

“It’s pissing me off,” DeMaio said in his video post.

DeMaio predicted that Proposition 39 will still pass, but that it will take “all of us spreading the word that the attorney general has tried to manipulate the title on the ballot measure.”

Voter ID requirements are being pushed by Republicans across the country — from President Trump down — as necessary to prevent voter fraud, including by noncitizens, despite elections experts saying that such fraud is exceedingly rare and that there is no evidence that it exists in volumes large enough to swing elections.

Democrats, including in California, have argued that states already have robust measures to ensure that only eligible voters cast ballots, including through existing security measures such as signature verification. They said stricter voter ID requirements would lead to eligible voters without ready access to documents being denied access to voting — including poorer, elderly and rural voters and married women who have changed their names.

A majority of California voters back stricter voter ID requirements, according to recent polls.

The Trump administration has been pressing for new voter ID requirements nationwide, including in Congress, without success.

Passage of Proposition 39 in liberal California would represent a massive win for the administration and a setback for California’s Democratic leaders. It would require substantial reforms to how the state accepts ballots both in person and through the mail — the latter being the preferred option for the vast majority of voters in recent California elections.

Backers of Proposition 39 also took a hit in a separate court proceeding Thursday, where another judge — siding with top Democratic lawmakers — issued a tentative finding that the measure’s backers were misleading voters by claiming in voter guide language that the measure would make voting easier in the state were it to pass.

“It is hard to conceive how it would be ‘easy’ or ‘easier’ to vote if a voter has to take the extra step of either bringing government-issued identification when voting in person or search for their government-issued identification and supply the last four digits if they vote by mail,” wrote Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang.

The voter guide language will need to change as a result.

California leaders who brought the challenge — including State Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) — praised the decision.

“Prop 39 is a MAGA-backed power grab by Donald Trump’s closest allies,” Rivas said in a statement. “As today’s ruling underscores, Prop 39 isn’t about election security or fair elections — the real goal of the MAGA activists who wrote Prop 39 is to make it harder for Californians to vote.”

DeMaio denounced the decision, accusing Chang of having “sided with the politicians” in California to “strike legitimate arguments on why Voter ID is needed to improve election integrity.”

New York City’s Mayor Zohran Mamdani congratulated Abdul El-Sayed on winning Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, praising his focus on healthcare and cost of living. He dismissed Republican claims branding El-Sayed a ‘mini Mamdani’, joking, ‘he can lift a lot more than I can’.

Iran rejected US President Donald Trump’s claim that ships damaged by Iran in the Gulf would be compensated from frozen Iranian funds. IRGC spokesperson Ebrahim Zolfaghari warned that any vessel taking such money will be banned from transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

July 17 (Asia Today) — A South Korean court Thursday rejected an arrest warrant for former Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung over allegations that he participated in former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s failed declaration of martial law.

The Seoul Central District Court said prosecutors had not sufficiently demonstrated that Shim was likely to destroy evidence.

The court also said the progress of the investigation and related court proceedings made it difficult to conclude that he posed a flight risk.

The court separately rejected an arrest warrant for Jeon Moo-gon, a former head of the policy planning division at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office.

The court said Jeon’s arguments, the progress of the investigation and the evidence collected did not indicate that he was likely to flee or destroy evidence.

Shim and Jeon are accused of reviewing plans to dispatch prosecutors to a joint martial law investigation headquarters under instructions from then-Justice Minister Park Sung-jae on Dec. 3, 2024.

Investigators also suspect they discussed how to handle crimes that would fall under military court jurisdiction after the martial law declaration.

They are further accused of participating in the preparation of a document concerning court jurisdiction under martial law.

The second special counsel team led by Kwon Chang-young requested arrest warrants for Shim and Jeon on Tuesday on allegations of participating in an insurrection and abusing their authority to obstruct the exercise of rights.

The special counsel team’s failure to secure their detention could complicate its investigation into allegations that senior prosecution officials participated in the martial law attempt.

— 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=20260716010006339

Sheinbaum has denounced remarks from DEA head Terry Cole as a baseless ‘political statement’ about Mexico.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has rejected a claim from the head of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that there is a deadly connection between her government and the country’s influential criminal cartels.

During her daily news conference on Wednesday, Sheinbaum pushed back, saying the DEA’s remarks seemed “more ‌like a political statement than one backed by evidence”.

She added that the DEA should focus on combating drug trafficking, distribution and money laundering within its own country. The US, she pointed out, is the world’s largest market for illicit drugs.

Sheinbaum has repeatedly faced accusations under US President Donald Trump that her country is “run” by cartels.

Several Trump officials have mirrored that assertion. On Tuesday, for instance, DEA Administrator Terry Cole said ⁠the Mexican government and cartel networks were “one and the same”.

The Mexican government responded by saying Cole’s remarks did not reflect its efforts to work with the US to combat cartels.

It added that Mexico continues to be willing to collaborate with the US to combat crime, as long as its sovereignty was respected.

Since Trump took office for a second term, Sheinbaum has faced pressure from her northern neighbour to crack down on crime in her country.

In response, she has pledged close cooperation with the US, while pushing back against Trump’s militaristic approach to Latin America.

Her administration has repeatedly rejected the prospect of the US conducting military operations on its soil without the federal government’s consent.

Initially, Trump and Sheinbaum appeared to forge warm relations, with the US president praising his Mexican counterpart as “marvellous”.

But Sheinbaum has become increasingly vocal in her criticism of the Trump administration in recent months.

In April, for instance, she rebuked the US for issuing an indictment against ⁠Sinaloa Governor Ruben Rocha, amid allegations his campaign worked with the Sinaloa Cartel to violently influence the 2021 gubernatorial election.

Sheinbaum said no evidence had been produced to back the US’s claim against Rocha. She also argued that rooting out corruption was a domestic issue, not an international one.

Earlier this week, Mexico filed criminal complaints with US prosecutors over the deaths of ‌Mexican ‌nationals swept up in Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

Sheinbaum’s remarks on Wednesday came as the US Department of the Treasury announced that two more criminal organisations in Mexico — the Juarez Cartel and Los Viagras — had been designated “foreign terrorist ⁠organizations and specially ⁠designated global ⁠terrorists”.

The Trump administration has made such designations in the past, as it has sought to frame its actions in Latin America as a war on so-called “narco-terrorists”.

ATLANTA — The U.S. Department of Justice cannot have the names of and contact information for every person who worked during the 2020 election in Georgia’s Fulton County, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

The Justice Department in April obtained a grand jury subpoena seeking the names and personal contact information of county employees and volunteer poll workers. President Trump has long claimed without evidence that widespread voter fraud in Georgia’s most populous county, a Democratic stronghold, cost him victory in the state in 2020.

Fulton County asked a judge to quash the subpoena, arguing it was meant to “target, harass and punish the President’s perceived political opponents” and that it was “grossly over broad and untethered to any reasonable need.”

“Given the low need for the subpoenaed information and the highly burdensome nature of the disclosure of the same, the Subpoena is unreasonable and must be quashed,” U.S. District Judge William Ray wrote in his ruling, calling the scope of the request “staggering.”

Emails seeking comment were sent to both the Justice Department and Fulton County.

Although grand juries often work with federal prosecutors to investigate alleged crimes, “that does not give the DOJ the right to use the Grand Jury to do whatever the DOJ wants,” he wrote.

Even if the records sought by the Justice Department could help find people who worked for the county during the 2020 election who support the theory that the election was unfair, the information couldn’t be used to charge anyone, Ray wrote.

“That is because the statute of limitations for any possible crime arising from the 2020 Election has long expired,” he wrote.

The subpoena came after the FBI in January served a search warrant at the Fulton County election hub and seized hundreds of boxes of ballots and other documents from the 2020 election. A federal judge in May denied the county’s request to force the federal government to return the ballots.

The Justice Department argued in a court filing that the subpoena was the “next step in the normal investigative process” and that it seeks “records identifying persons with relevant knowledge.”

Kamal Ghali, a lawyer for the county, argued that the subpoena “will chill participation by election workers” and that the statute of limitations for any of the alleged misconduct had already lapsed.

Justice Department lawyer William McComb argued the statute of limitations issue is not relevant at the investigative stage. The point of the investigation is to figure out what charges can be brought, he said.

“My point is, as we sit here now, we are not sure what charges can be brought. That’s the whole point of the investigation,” he said.

The request for election workers’ contact information, McComb said, “would simply be a pathway to determine and speak with and interview certain individuals who worked at the polls who may have seen, heard or done something in and of themselves.”

The judge noted that the Justice Department had expressed concern about possible criminal actions in the years that followed the election, including an alleged failure by the county to preserve electronic ballot images. But he pointed out that the subpoena seeks information related to what happened during the 2020 election and its immediate aftermath.

“In these hyper-political times in which we currently live, there are sure to be some who disagree with this decision because they believe the allegations of fraud in the 2020 Election and believe that ‘light’ should be brought to those claims,” Ray wrote.

He added that nothing prevents continued investigation into those allegations by people who believe those claims — such as Congress or even the Justice Department — but the power of the grand jury, “which exists to investigate potential crimes and to bring viable indictments” cannot be used for that purpose. Otherwise, anyone in power could use the grand jury process to subpoena personal information of citizens “with no legitimate law enforcement purpose,” he wrote.

“Thus, everyone, whether you support the President or you do not, or whether you believe the 2020 Election was fair or believe that it was not, should be concerned about the DOJ’s ability to utilize the power of the Grand Jury to appropriate your private information without a legitimate purpose,” Ray wrote.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born here are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were here illegally or temporarily.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.

But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.

The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.

In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.

In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.

He left after an hour having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.

It was the rare Supreme Court case which was decided based simply on the words of the Constitution.

The justices, both conservative and liberal, say they look to what the Constitution says and how its words were originally understood.

The 14th Amendment adopted in 1868 says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside.”

The amendment overturned the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which declared that Black persons could not become U.S. citizens.

In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.

In the 19th Century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.

In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in this country.

The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark who born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.

“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”

Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.

But in his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.

“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote, and in the future, it will not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visa, he said.

His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.

In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”

By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.

Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws. Instead, he chose to try to change the law and revise the Constitution by executive order.

Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney pointed to the surge of illegal immigration in recent decades.

“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.

“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” responded Roberts.

The US Supreme Court will not hear an appeal requested by President Donald Trump to review the civil case that found he defamed and sexually abused writer E Jean Carroll.

A New York jury awarded Carroll $5m (£3.6m) in damages in 2023 over her civil claim that Trump sexually assaulted her in the 1990s, and then branded the incident a hoax on social media.

Trump denied the allegations and repeatedly claimed that the judge who oversaw the civil trial improperly allowed evidence to be presented that affected how the jury viewed him.

A federal appeals court agreed with the jury’s verdict last year and said a new trial was not warranted. Trump then asked the highest court to intervene.

The Supreme Court gave no details about their decision not to take up the case, as is customary.

It was Trump’s final hope of overturning the jury’s unanimous verdict and means he will have to pay Carroll the damages she had been awarded.

“The American People stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes,” a spokesman for Trumps legal team told CBS News, the BBC’s US news partner.

“President Trump will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare, as he continues to focus on his mission to Make America Great Again.”

Caroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said in a statement that the Supreme Court’s decision “affirms once and for all the jury’s unanimous verdict that President Donald J Trump sexually assaulted and defamed E Jean Carroll”.

“His multiple efforts to appeal that verdict have all failed and today’s ruling ends his quest to avoid accountability for his actions,” she added.

Carroll’s counsel had not previously commented on the president’s decision to bring a challenge to the Supreme Court.

In the petition, Trump’s lawyers argued Carroll’s lawyer should not have let jurors see the 2005 Access Hollywood tape that showed the president saying he groped and kissed women.

Trump’s comments about the jury’s findings in the case led a separate jury to order him to pay Carroll $83m for defaming her. A panel of federal judges denied his appeal of that decision in September.

While Trump was found to have defamed and sexually abused Ms Carroll, the jury rejected her claim of rape as defined in New York’s penal code.

Carroll, a former magazine columnist who is now 81, sued Trump for attacking her in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room in Manhattan. The defamation stemmed from Trump’s post on his Truth Social platform in 2022 denying her claim.

Trump has said Carroll was “not my type” and that she had lied.

June 27 (UPI) — Israel and Lebanon have created a framework for a cease-fire, though Hezbollah is already rejecting it because it calls for disarming the organization.

The neighboring countries signed a cease-fire deal in Washington, D.C., Friday without Hezbollah’s input. The deal says that Israel will withdraw from Lebanon if Hezbollah is disarmed. But Hezbollah leader Naim Kassem said the group will keep fighting until Israel is forced to leave Lebanon.

It’s unclear how Lebanon plans to force Hezbollah to disarm.

Israel then attacked Nabatieh al-Fawqa in southern Lebanon Saturday, Al Jazeera reported.

“The important principle established in the agreement is that there will be no redeployment by Israel in southern Lebanon, no withdrawal, as long as the terrorist organization Hezbollah is not disarmed throughout Lebanon, and the safety of the residents of the north is guaranteed,” Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a video statement Saturday evening.

“This is the basic condition to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and I have pledged and which we are being implemented,” he said.

Israel said it warned its military to plan for an extended stay.

“The test will be in implementing the agreement, and many more challenges are expected,” Katz said. “The Prime Minister and I have instructed the IDF to prepare for an extended stay in the security zone, and to deploy accordingly to protect IDF soldiers and remove threats from northern communities.”

Hezbollah supporters protested in Beirut after the agreement was announced.

A former U.S. diplomat told Al Jazeera that the cease-fire deal benefits Israel more and could be dangerous for Lebanon.

“In the end, I don’t think it will achieve peace. It’s a formula for an open-ended struggle. In the long run, it’s not even really good for Israel, although right now they feel like they have the upper hand,” Middle-East expert Nabeel Khoury said.

But the agreement will allow Israeli troops to return home.

“Essentially, these demands that the Lebanese armed forces do the work that the Israelis couldn’t do, or it proved too costly for the Israelis to do. They want the Lebanese army to do their bidding,” Khoury said.

“If the Lebanese army can go after Hezbollah, all over Lebanon, is what is being demanded of them, and the Israelis simply lend air support, then this is advantageous for Israel,” he added.

The cease-fire framework calls for Israel to initially withdraw from two small areas called pilot zones. But it didn’t say where those areas are. Then, the Lebanese army will gradually take over security for the areas.

June 25 (Asia Today) — A South Korean court has again rejected a request to preserve ballots, ballot boxes and other election materials kept at a counting center in Seoul’s Songpa District.

The First Civil Division of the Seoul Eastern District Court, led by Presiding Judge Joo Jin-am, dismissed an appeal Tuesday filed by the Freedom and Innovation party against the chair of the Songpa District Election Commission.

The materials were stored at a counting center inside the Olympic Park Handball Gymnasium.

The court rejected the party’s initial evidence-preservation request on June 12, prompting the party to appeal.

Freedom and Innovation claimed that ballot-paper shortages, the transportation of ballot boxes and other alleged irregularities during the June 3 nationwide local elections could have affected the voting and counting results.

The party sought court preservation of ballots, ballot boxes and related materials for possible use in future litigation.

The court, however, found that the application failed to satisfy legal requirements including relevance and necessity.

Judges said there was no sufficient connection between the ballot shortages and the requested preservation of ballots and ballot boxes from polling places where voting had been completed normally.

The court also determined that obtaining the materials would not help establish the disputed issues in an underlying lawsuit.

It said a separate preservation order was unnecessary because election law already requires the materials to be retained.

— 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=20260625010009154

A United States judge has denied a petition from former Democratic President Joe Biden arguing his right to privacy would be violated should recordings he made for a memoir be made public.

On Friday, US District Judge Dabney Friedrich, an appointee of President Donald Trump, ruled that the recordings could be released to the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank.

The Trump administration had already authorised the release of the recordings and transcripts, which Biden made while out of public office with his ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer.

Together, they released the 2017 memoir, Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose.

In her 26-page ruling, Friedrich acknowledged that Biden was likely to suffer some reputational damage as a result of the recordings being released.

Biden has long been scrutinised about whether his advanced age impeded his ability to serve as president during his term from 2021 to 2025. Previously, he served as vice president from 2009 to 2017.

“The Court agrees that — on these facts involving the frank words of a public figure in his home — disclosure of the Zwonitzer materials risks irreparable harm to Biden’s privacy interests and his reputation,” Friedrich wrote.

But she concluded that such harms may not be irreparable, and they do not supersede the public interest in releasing the files.

“Biden has not identified any public harm that would arise absent an injunction in this case,” Friedrich said. “The harm to Biden’s diminished privacy interest is outweighed by the public’s interest in the Zwonitzer materials.”

Biden filed a lawsuit arguing that the Department of Justice had a duty to protect the private information it collects during criminal investigations.

He petitioned the court for an injunction to prevent the Heritage Foundation, which has supported Trump, from receiving the documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

“Every American, including a sitting or former Vice President, has a right to privacy in the personal conversations he has within his own home,” Biden’s lawyers have said in his court filings.

The recordings and transcripts came to be in the Justice Department’s possession in 2023, during Biden’s own term.

The Justice Department at the time had appointed a special counsel, lawyer Robert Hur, to independently investigate Biden’s alleged mishandling of classified documents while out of office.

A similar investigation, helmed by a second special counsel, Jack Smith, resulted in a short-lived criminal indictment against Trump. Hur, however, concluded that no criminal charges were “warranted” against Biden.

Part of his rationale was “a shortage of evidence”. But another part of his reasoning was that, if any charges were brought to trial, jurors were likely to perceive Biden “as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”.

As part of his investigation, Hur had obtained Biden’s recordings and transcripts with Zwonitzer in order to evaluate whether the Democrat had misused information from his time as president for his memoir.

But he also cited them as evidence to conclude that Biden “appeared to have significant limitations” in his memory.

The scrutiny over Biden’s age increased substantially during his 2024 bid for re-election. At a June 2024 presidential debate against Trump, Biden appeared to drift off topic and make nonsensical statements.

At one point, he issued the non sequitur, “We finally beat Medicare,” referencing a government health insurance programme for the elderly and those with disabilities.

Biden subsequently dropped out of the race, and his replacement, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, lost to Trump after a curtailed campaign. The Democrat, however, has consistently denied that he was unable to perform his duties as president.

Trump, meanwhile, has cited Biden’s age and mental acuity as a reason to undo the Democrat’s actions while in office.

He has also called on the Justice Department to investigate whether any officials attempted to conceal any health conditions Biden may have had while president.

The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee has also sought to obtain the Zwonitzer files for a similar investigation.

Biden was 82 years old by the time he left office in January 2025, making him the oldest sitting president in US history. Trump will be slightly older by the end of his tenure, should he complete his second term.

The Democrat is expected to appeal Friday’s decision to release the recordings.

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.

Israel’s supreme court annuls a government ban on the International Committee of the Red Cross visiting Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.

Al Jazeera’s Obaida Hitto brings you the latest from southern Lebanon where a new diplomatic push has done little to quell the violence.

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.

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.

“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.

Japan pushes for unity

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.