rejects

A United States court has tossed a lawsuit from President Donald Trump that accused every federal judge in the Maryland district court system of having “used and abused” their powers.

On Tuesday, District Judge Thomas Cullen, a Trump appointee, granted the Maryland judges’ request to have the case dismissed.

Cullen normally serves in the federal court system for the western district of Virginia, but since all 15 judges in Maryland’s district court system were named as defendants in the case, someone from outside the state had to be brought in to resolve the case.

The lawsuit was a highly unusual, broad-strokes attack on the federal judicial system in Maryland, where Trump’s immigration agenda has faced several high-profile setbacks.

Critics also say the lawsuit was yet another indication of Trump’s adversarial approach to the judicial branch of the government, which he has repeatedly accused of over-stepping its authority in the wake of unfavourable rulings.

But during hearings on the subject, Cullen had expressed doubt about the Trump administration’s case early on.

He questioned what might happen to the government’s separation of powers if Trump and his officials decided to sue an appellate court or even the Supreme Court for disagreeing with his policies.

Cullen described the lawsuit against all of Maryland’s federal judges as an escalation in Trump’s fight with the judiciary: “taking it up about six notches”, he said.

“I think you probably picked up on the fact that I have some scepticism,” Cullen told lawyers for Trump’s Department of Justice.

Cullen also suggested that the Trump administration would have been better served by appealing the specific court injunctions it disagreed with, rather than suing an entire district court system.

“It would have been more expeditious than, you know, the two months we’ve spent on this,” he said.

Origins of the lawsuit

The Trump administration first filed its lawsuit on June 25. At the time, the Justice Department explained that it objected to the “automatic injunctions” that the court system “issued for federal immigration enforcement actions”.

Trump has been leading a campaign of mass deportation since taking office for a second term in January. That effort, in turn, has prompted a slew of legal challenges over immigrants’ right to a court hearing, among other issues.

In announcing June’s lawsuit, Attorney General Pam Bondi argued that Trump had been subject to “an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda”.

The complaint cited a May 20 order from Chief Judge George Russell of the Maryland district court system, which barred the Trump administration from immediately deporting immigrants who had filed a habeas corpus petition — a petition for a court to review the lawfulness of their detention.

Under Russell’s order, the block against deportation would remain in place for two business days, unless a judge decided to extend it.

In justifying the order, Russell explained that the Trump administration’s deportation push had resulted in “hurried and frustrating hearings” that lacked “clear and concrete” information.

He added that his order would ensure access to the court, allowing both the government and immigrants “fulsome opportunity” to present their cases.

Maryland has also been the site of other court hurdles for the Trump administration’s agenda, though Russell’s order was the only one singled out in the lawsuit.

For example, in April, Maryland District Judge Paula Xinis ruled that the Trump administration had to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man whose wrongful deportation came in spite of a 2019 court protection order barring his removal.

Xinis has since warned that she was weighing contempt charges against the Trump administration for failing to comply with her orders.

What arguments were made in the case?

But the Trump administration has maintained that the judges’ court orders amount to the “unlawful restraint” of the president’s powers.

“Injunctions against the Executive Branch are particularly extraordinary because they interfere with that democratically accountable branch’s exercise of its constitutional powers,” the complaint said.

In an August 13 hearing, lawyers for the Justice Department presented those arguments before Judge Cullen.

“Every single time one of these orders gets entered, our sovereign interests in enforcing duly-enacted immigration law are being inhibited,” Justice Department lawyer Elizabeth Hedges argued.

The extraordinary nature of an entire court system being sued required Maryland’s 15 federal judges to hire their own legal team in their defence.

Paul Clement — a conservative lawyer from the law firm Clement & Murphy who previously served under former President George W Bush — represented them at that hearing and called the Trump administration’s attacks “no ordinary matter”.

He pointed out that the lawsuit disrupted the everyday business of the court system, including by requiring Judge Cullen to travel from Virginia to oversee the case.

“All of the alternatives that are available avoid that kind of nightmare scenario,” Clement said. “That nightmare scenario is part of the reason that we don’t have a tradition of suits that are executive versus judiciary.”

Clement also argued that the Trump administration aimed to limit the power of the judiciary to weigh constitutional matters related to immigration.

“The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a coequal branch of government,” Clement said. “There really is no precursor for this suit.”

Iran and European countries agree to resume nuclear talks next week despite threats of unilateral sanctions.

Iran and three major European powers have agreed to resume nuclear talks next week, even as the threat of revived sanctions looms.

Iranian state media reported on Friday that Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held a call with his French, British and German counterparts, during which they agreed deputy ministers would meet on Tuesday.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul confirmed the talks, warning that Europe was prepared to re-impose United Nations sanctions under the so-called “snapback” mechanism unless Iran committed to a verifiable and lasting deal. “Time is very short and Iran needs to engage substantively,” he said.

According to Iranian outlets, Araghchi rejected the threat, accusing the European trio of lacking “legal and moral competence” to trigger snapback sanctions and warning of consequences if they did so.

The three European governments, backed by the United States, have accused Tehran of advancing uranium enrichment in violation of international commitments and say its programme could be used to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran has said its work is strictly for civilian purposes, and Western governments have not provided any evidence that Tehran is weaponising its nuclear programme.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog, has said Iran remains far from building a nuclear weapon. In March, US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard testified that intelligence agencies had found no evidence of Iran moving towards a bomb.

Talks between Iran and the US collapsed in June after Washington and Israel attacked Iranian nuclear sites during a 12-day conflict.

Since then, IAEA inspectors have not been allowed into Iran’s facilities, despite the agency’s chief, Rafael Grossi, stressing that inspections are essential.

President Masoud Pezeshkian has warned the IAEA to abandon its “double standards” if it hopes to restore cooperation over the country’s nuclear programme, amid an acute mistrust following Israeli and US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, and the UN nuclear watchdog’s refusal to condemn the strikes.

In July, Pezeshkian signed a law suspending Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA, with Tehran making it clear that it no longer trusts the agency to act impartially.

Negotiations between Tehran and the Europeans last took place in Geneva on June 20, while the fighting was still under way. Little progress was reported at the time.

Iran’s state broadcaster said an Iranian delegation would travel to Vienna on Friday to meet IAEA officials, but offered no further details.

Aug. 21 (UPI) — The California Supreme Court has rejected a Republican challenge to Gov. Gavin Newsom‘s plan to redraw the state’s congressional districts, a move the Democrat is pursuing as retaliation against Texas for approving maps that favor Republicans.

The court issued its refusal Wednesday, the same day Texas state Republicans passed maps that are expected to produce five additional GOP seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

According to a note on the decision in the docket, “Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief.”

The ruling was issued two days after four California state Republican lawmakers filed the lawsuit against Democratic lawmakers who had introduced legislation on Monday to initiate the state’s redistricting.

The litigation comes amid something of a congressional redistricting arms race that kicked off with Texas.

Congressional maps are generally redrawn once a decade based on new Census Bureau data, with the next census scheduled for 2030. Democrats are accusing Texas Republicans of redrawing their maps now under pressure from President Donald Trump to help ensure the GOP maintains its control of the House following next year’s midterm elections. Republicans currently hold a narrow majority in the congressional chamber.

Newsom has been among the most vocal critics, and has vowed to redistrict California to neutralize those seats to be gained in Texas. Other states on both sides of the political aisle have suggested they might do the same.

The lawsuit was filed by Republican state Sens. Tony Strickland and Suzette Martinez Valladares and Assemblymembers Tri Ta and Kathryn Sanchez, who have pledged to continue their fight despite the California Supreme Court decision.

“We will continue to challenge this unconstitutional power grab in the courts and at the ballot box,” they said in a statement. “Californians deserve fair, transparent elections, not secret backroom deals to protect politicians.”

SEOUL, Aug. 14 (UPI) — The influential sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Thursday denied Seoul’s claim that the North had begun removing propaganda speakers inside the DMZ and dismissed South Korean outreach efforts as a “pipedream,” state-run media reported.

South Korea is “misleading the public opinion by saying that we have removed the loudspeakers installed on the southern border area,” Kim Yo Jong said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

“It is unfounded unilateral supposition and a red herring,” she said. “We have never removed loudspeakers installed on the border area and are not willing to remove them.”

The South’s military removed its anti-Pyongyang propaganda loudspeakers from border areas inside the DMZ last week. The Joint Chiefs of Staff reported over the weekend that North Korea began dismantling its own speakers in some forward areas,

On Tuesday, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung commented on the North’s “reciprocal measures” during a cabinet meeting, saying he hoped it would lead to renewed inter-Korean dialogue and communication.

Lee’s administration has made efforts to improve relations between the two Koreas since he took office in June. In addition to the loudspeaker removal, Seoul has cracked down on activists floating balloons carrying anti-Pyongyang leaflets over the border and recently repatriated six North Koreans who drifted into southern waters on wooden boats.

Kim’s statement comes days before Seoul and Washington are scheduled to commence their summertime Ulchi Freedom Shield joint military exercise, set for Aug. 18-28. North Korea regularly denounces the allies’ joint drills as rehearsals for an invasion.

Half of Ulchi Freedom Shield’s 44 planned field training exercises have been rescheduled to next month, with local media reports claiming the move was made to avoid provoking Pyongyang.

Kim, however, rejected Seoul’s gestures as “nothing but a pipedream.”

“Whether the ROK withdraws its loudspeakers or not, stops broadcasting or not, postpones its military exercises or not and downscales them or not, we do not care about them and are not interested in them,” she said, using the official acronym for South Korea.

In response to Kim’s statement, South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff maintained the military’s account that the North had removed some of its loudspeakers.

“The military has explained the facts regarding what it observed, and I believe we need to be careful not to be misled by the other side’s stated intentions,” JCS spokesman Col. Lee Sung-jun said at a briefing Thursday. “North Korea has always made claims that are untrue.”

Aug. 14 (UPI) — A federal judge in Illinois has rejected Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton‘s request to enforce arrest warrants for Democrats who fled the Lone Star State earlier this month to block Republican redistricting plans.

Paxton has filed a slew of lawsuits in the nearly two weeks since state Democrats left Texas early this month to deny Republicans quorum to pass controversial redistricting maps that will give the GOP five extra seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Democrats went to Democratic strongholds, including Illinois, and Texas state House Speaker Dustin Burrows issued civil arrest warrants to force their return to Texas. On Aug. 7, Paxton and Burrows filed a lawsuit seeking Illinois to enforce the return of the Democratic lawmakers.

In his ruling Wednesday, Illinois Judge Scott Larson rejected the Texans’ request, stating it is outside his court’s jurisdiction to compel the Democrats’ return.

“This Illinois circuit court, under a petition to show cause, does not have the inherent power to direct Illinois law enforcement officers, or to allow the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives of the State of Texas, or any officers appointed by her, to execute Texas civil Quorum Warrants upon nonresidents temporarily located in the State of Illinois,” Larson said in his ruling, which was obtained by Democracy Docket and a portion of which was published on BluSky.

The warrants issued by the Texas House of Representatives are “geographically limited,” Larson said.

Paxton and Burrows have yet to comment on the ruling, which marks a blow in their efforts to compel Democrats to return to the state.

Congressional redistricting generally occurs every decade following the publication of U.S. Census Bureau data. Texas has taken the unusual step to redraw its maps at the urging of President Donald Trump ahead of midterm elections next year The maps are expected to produce an additional five GOP districts in the U.S. House of Representatives where the Republicans hold a narrow 219 to 212 majority.

Critics and Democrats accuse the Republicans of conducting a power grab in an attempt to rig control over the ongressional branch, and have backed their Texas colleagues who have left their home state to prevent the passing of the maps during the special session.

Democrats in other states have also come to their support, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vowed to respond by redistricting his state to produce an additional five Democratic seats to neutralize those GOP seats being created in Texas.

The security chief’s visit comes after Iran expressed opposition to a government plan to disarm Hezbollah.

Lebanon’s president has told a senior Iranian official that Beirut rejects any interference in its internal affairs and has criticised Tehran’s statements on plans to disarm Hezbollah as “unconstructive”.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council chief Ali Larijani’s visit to Beirut on Wednesday comes a week after the Lebanese government ordered the army to devise plans by the end of 2025 to disarm the Iran-aligned Lebanese armed group.

Iran expressed opposition to the plan to disarm Hezbollah, which before a war with Israel last year was believed to be better armed than the Lebanese military.

“It is forbidden for anyone … to bear arms and to use foreign backing as leverage,” Aoun told Larijani, according to a statement from the Lebanese presidency posted on X.

Larijani responded to Aoun by stating that Iran does not interfere in Lebanese decision-making, and that foreign countries should not give orders to Lebanon.

“Any decision taken by the Lebanese government in consultation with the resistance is respected by us,” he said after separate talks with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, whose Amal Movement is an ally of Hezbollah.

“Iran didn’t bring any plan to Lebanon, the US did. Those intervening in Lebanese affairs are those dictating plans and deadlines”, said Larijani.

He said Lebanon should not “mix its enemies with its friends – your enemy is Israel, your friend is the resistance”.

Larijani further added that Lebanon should appreciate Hezbollah, and its “value of resistance”.

Reporting from Beirut, Al Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr said Larijani appeared to have softened his language on the visit.

“Ali Larijani has been using more diplomatic language than … a few days ago [when] he was blunt that Iran opposes the Lebanese government’s decision to disarm Hezbollah.”

“He said that Iran’s policy is about friendly cooperation, not giving orders and timetables, so he was referring to the United States, the US envoy, which presented a plan to end tensions with Israel, and that plan involves disarming Hezbollah [on] a four-month timetable.”

A ‘state-by-state’ relationship

Dozens of Hezbollah supporters gathered along the airport road to welcome Larijani on Wednesday morning. He briefly stepped out of his car to greet them as they chanted slogans.

“If … the Lebanese people are suffering, we in Iran will also feel this pain and we will stand by the dear people of Lebanon in all circumstances,” Larijani told reporters shortly after landing in Beirut.

The Iranian official is also scheduled to meet Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, as well as Berri, who is close to Hezbollah.

Iran has suffered a series of blows in its long-running rivalry with Israel, including during 12 days of open war between the two countries in June.

Hezbollah, meanwhile, was weakened during the war with Israel, which ended in a November 2024 ceasefire that Israel continues to violate.

The new Lebanese government, backed by the United States, has moved to further restrain the group.

“What the new Lebanese leadership wants is a state-by-state relationship, not like in the past where …  the Iranians would be dealing with Hezbollah and not [with] the Lebanese state,” said Khodr.

Hezbollah has called the government’s disarmament decision a “grave sin”.

Khodr said the tensions have sparked concern about potential unrest in the country.

Hezbollah is part of Iran’s so-called “axis of resistance” – a network of aligned armed groups in the region, including Hamas in Gaza and Yemen’s Houthi rebels, who oppose Israel.

Real Madrid has said that it “firmly rejects” having a regular-season Spanish league game played in the United States and warned of “a turning point in the world of football”.

Villarreal, in contrast, is promising free travel and tickets for season-ticket holders if its match against Barcelona in Miami is approved, in what would be a first for the league. The 17th-round match in La Liga would be played at Hard Rock Stadium, the home of Barca legend Lionel Messi’s Inter Miami.

Madrid said on Tuesday that it has taken action to keep the December 20 match from happening in the US, claiming it would hurt the “integrity of the competition” and the “legitimacy of the results”.

“The measure, which was taken without prior information or consultation of the clubs participating in the competition, infringes the essential principle of territorial reciprocity, which applies in two-legged league competitions (one match at home and the other at the home of the opposing team), upsetting the competitive balance and giving an undue sporting advantage to the applicant clubs,” Madrid said.

The club said the match would set “an unacceptable precedent that opens the door to exceptions based on non-sporting interests, clearly affecting sporting integrity and risking the adulteration of the competition”.

“If this proposal were to be carried out, its consequences would be so serious that it would be a turning point in the world of football,” Madrid said.

The Europe-wide fan group Football Supporters Europe (FSE) said it was “liaising” with members, soccer stakeholders, affected groups and partner organisations to “collectively resist the latest threat to the very nature of football”.

“We are following the broader impact on football with the utmost concern,” the group said. “Moving games from their domestic territories strikes at the heart of the relationship between fans and their teams, breaking vital links between clubs and their communities.”

The group also criticised a similar move by the Italian league to play a match abroad.

The Italian football federation said in July that a plan was in motion to play the Serie A match between AC Milan and Como in the Australian city of Perth in February.

Madrid asks FIFA and UEFA to withhold permission for Barcelona game

Madrid said it has asked FIFA, UEFA and Spain’s top sport body to not authorise the game in the US. The Spanish football federation on Monday approved a request for the match to be played in Miami. UEFA and FIFA now have to approve the request before it can be made official.

“Any modification of this nature must, in any case, have the express and unanimous agreement of all the clubs participating in the competition, as well as strictly respecting the national and international rules governing the organization of official competitions,” Madrid said.

Madrid and the Spanish league president, Javier Tebas, have often been at odds on various issues.

The club said UEFA should deny the request to play the game abroad, based on the “criterion established in 2018 that prevents official matches in domestic competitions from being played outside national territory, except in duly justified exceptional circumstances, which are not present here”.

Madrid said it asked the country’s high sport council “not to grant the necessary administrative authorization without such unanimous consent”.

“Real Madrid reaffirms its commitment to respect the national and international rules that guarantee the fairness and proper functioning of official competitions, and will defend its compliance with them before all competent bodies,” the club said.

Villarreal hoping to expand its brand in US

Villarreal earlier on Tuesday said that its season ticket-holders can travel for free and receive free tickets for the match. It said those who do not want to go, or cannot go, will get a 20 percent discount on their season tickets.

“We would be the first [Spanish] team to play a league match abroad,” Villarreal’s president, Fernando Roig, told a news conference. “It would greatly help us expand our brand in a key market like the United States.”

Staging a match abroad has long been part of the league’s goal to promote football and its brand in other countries.

It first tried to stage a match in the US in 2018, with a game between Barcelona and Girona, but the idea was dismissed after criticism from players, fans and clubs. Subsequent attempts to play there also failed.

The league had offered compensation packages for Girona fans in 2018.

It was not clear whether it would be Villarreal or the league paying for the travel and tickets for the club’s fans this time.

The attempts to play in the US are part of the league’s long-term partnership with sport and entertainment group Relevent Sports, which is part of Stephen Ross’s portfolio of companies, including Hard Rock Stadium, the Miami Dolphins, the Formula One’s Miami Grand Prix and the Miami Open tennis tournament.

Earlier this year, it was announced that New York-based Relevent Sports has exclusive negotiating rights over the global commercial rights to the UEFA men’s club competitions for the period 2027-2033.

FIFA moved last year towards ending decades of football tradition by ordering a review of its policy that blocks domestic league games from being played in other countries.

Some fan groups in Spain and the country’s players’ association on Monday expressed their disapproval of the plan to move the match thousands of kilometres away.

It has become routine, though, for US pro sport leagues to stage games in Europe, Asia and South America that help build their brands and fan bases.

WASHINGTON — President Clinton on Tuesday rejected demands by veterans for an outside agency to take over the Defense Department’s investigation of Persian Gulf War illnesses, instead extending the life of a presidential advisory panel so it can keep watch over the Pentagon’s efforts.

Clinton also endorsed a proposal by Veterans Affairs Secretary Jesse Brown to allow Gulf War veterans more than two years to document their ailments and still qualify for access to VA disability benefits. Some veterans of the war have said that their symptoms did not show up until too late.

The compromise gestures came after the presidential advisory commission, which is made up of a dozen physicians and scientists, issued a report concluding that nerve gas exposure during the 1991 war was unlikely to have caused any of the ailments suffered by veterans.

Although the panel criticized the Pentagon for failing to take the issue seriously until recently, the report said that the Defense Department and the VA have provided good medical care to the veterans and now appear to be investigating the problem in earnest.

Neither the panel’s findings nor Clinton’s decision to ask the group to exercise “oversight” of the Pentagon’s efforts was a surprise. The committee, which studied the issue for 19 months, had signaled its conclusions in a draft report two months ago.

Clinton promised a veterans group Tuesday that, despite some shaky starts, “we will not stop until we have done all we can to care for our Gulf War veterans, to find out why they are sick and to help to make them healthy” again. “We are on the right track,” he asserted.

Nevertheless, Persian Gulf veterans’ organizations were critical of the report, dismissing it as incomplete and calling for another independent study of the issue, possibly by a special prosecutor equipped with subpoena powers.

“We are very disappointed,” said Chris Kornkven, spokesman for the National Gulf War Resource Center, a coalition of 24 veterans groups. He said that the panel had “done a great disservice to . . . veterans of the Gulf War . . . who claim they are sick.”

Separately, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) disclosed the results of a survey of about 2,000 Persian Gulf veterans in Iowa suggesting that they were as much as three times more likely to suffer one or more symptoms than service members who were not in the 1991 war.

However, outside analysts said that the study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was based on a telephone survey of veterans, without any opportunity for medical officials to confirm their illnesses.

The survey is to be included in a series of studies made public today by the Journal of the American Medical Assn. Officials said that the others, based on a mail survey of 240 naval reservists, would seek to link Gulf War illness to organophosphates exposure.

The advisory committee report did little to resolve the mystery surrounding Gulf War illness. In all, 60,000 of the 697,000 U.S. troops who served in the Gulf War have complained of symptoms ranging from chronic fatigue to muscle aches and memory loss.

The panel’s findings were in line with those of four previous studies of the Gulf War illnesses, by the Pentagon, the veterans’ department, the CDC and the prestigious U.S. Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.

As has been the case in the other studies, Tuesday’s report concluded that, despite all the research, there is no current evidence that would link the symptoms to the contaminants encountered by soldiers during the U.S. intervention there.

It also discounted as unlikely claims by veterans who say that their ailments were caused by exposure to a variety of chemical contaminants, from oil well fires in Kuwait to pyridostigmine bromide pills, which were given to U.S. soldiers to protect them against chemical weapons.

However, the report urged the government to step up efforts to find out how many U.S. soldiers may have been exposed to nerve agents near Khamisiyah, where troops destroyed an Iraqi weapons bunker just after the war ended. The Pentagon is now investigating.

As it has throughout its 19-month investigation, the committee criticized the Pentagon’s initial handling of the Gulf War issue–particularly its refusal to investigate fully reports that U.S. troops may have been exposed to nerve agents at Khamisiyah.

The 174-page report said that the panel had found “substantial evidence” of low-level exposure to chemical warfare agents at several sites in Iraq and Kuwait and said that the Pentagon’s efforts to explain them so far had been “superficial” and “unlikely to provide credible answers.”

Nevertheless, Joyce C. Lashof, chairwoman of the panel, said that she had found “no evidence of a cover-up,” as many Gulf War veterans have alleged.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has staunchly rejected a suggestion by Donald Trump that ‘swapping territory’ could be a way to end Russia’s war on Ukraine. European leaders have reiterated their support for Kyiv ahead of planned talks between the US President and Russia’s Putin.

Iran has said it will block a corridor planned in the Caucasus under a United States-brokered peace accord between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which has been hailed by other countries in the region as beneficial for achieving lasting peace.

Ali Akbar Velayati, a top adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, said on Saturday that Tehran would block the initiative “with or without Russia”, with which Iran has a strategic alliance alongside Armenia.

US President Donald Trump “thinks the Caucasus is a piece of real estate he can lease for 99 years”, Velayati told state-affiliated Tasnim News, referring to the transport corridor included in the peace deal.

“This passage will not become a gateway for Trump’s mercenaries — it will become their graveyard,” he added, describing the plan as “political treachery” aimed at undermining Armenia’s territorial integrity.

The terms of the accord, which was unveiled at a signing ceremony at the White House on Friday, include exclusive US development rights to a route through Armenia that would link Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan, an Azerbaijani enclave that borders Baku’s ally Turkiye.

The corridor, which would pass close to the border with Iran, would be named the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, or TRIPP, and operate under Armenian law.

Velayati argued that it would open the way for NATO to position itself “like a viper” between Iran and Russia.

Separately, Iran’s foreign ministry issued a statement expressing concern about the negative consequences of any foreign intervention in the vicinity of its borders.

While it welcomed the peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the ministry said any project near Iran’s borders should be developed “with respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and without foreign interference”.

For its part, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs cautiously welcomed the deal, saying on Saturday that Moscow supported efforts to promote stability and prosperity in the region, including the Washington meeting.

Similarly to Iran, however, it warned against outside intervention, arguing that lasting solutions should be developed by countries in the region.

“The involvement of non-regional players should strengthen the peace agenda, not create new divisions,” the ministry said, adding that it hoped to avoid the “unfortunate experience” of Western-led conflict resolution in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Turkiye on Saturday said it hoped the planned transit corridor would boost exports of energy and other resources through the South Caucasus.

A NATO member, Turkiye has strongly backed Azerbaijan in its conflicts with Armenia, but has pledged to restore ties with Yerevan after it signs a final peace deal with Baku.

The Turkish presidency said President Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed the peace agreement with Ilham Aliyev, his counterpart from Azerbaijan, and offered Ankara’s support in achieving lasting peace in the region.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan also addressed the planned corridor during a visit to Egypt, saying it could “link Europe with the depths of Asia via Turkiye” and would be “a very beneficial development”.

Armenia and Azerbaijan have fought a series of wars since the late 1980s when Nagorno-Karabakh, a region in Azerbaijan that had a mostly ethnic Armenian population at the time, broke away from Azerbaijan with support from Armenia.

Armenia last year agreed to return several villages to Azerbaijan in what Baku described as a “long-awaited historic event”.

Ahmad Shahidov, of the Azerbaijan Institute for Democracy and Human Rights, told Al Jazeera that he expected a final peace declaration between Armenia and Azerbaijan to be signed in the coming weeks.

Shahidov said Friday’s US-brokered deal constituted a “roadmap” for the final agreement, which appears imminent given there are no unresolved territorial disputes between the two neighbours.

SEOUL, July 28 (UPI) — Kim Yo Jong, the influential sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, said Monday that Pyongyang had “no interest” in efforts by the administration of South Korean President Lee Jae Myung to improve hostile relations between the neighbors.

Her statement was the North’s first official comment on Lee, who was elected in June after former President Yoon Suk Yeol was removed from office over his botched martial law attempt.

“We did not care who is elected president or what policy is being pursued in the ROK and, therefore, have not made any assessment of it so far,” Kim said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

The Republic of Korea is the official name of South Korea.

Kim said that the new administration’s ongoing military ties with Washington made any efforts at rapprochement pointless.

“When only the 50-odd days since Lee Jae Myung’s assumption to power are brought to light … their blind trust to the ROK-U.S. alliance and their attempt to stand in confrontation with the DPRK are little short of their predecessor’s,” Kim said, using the official acronym for North Korea.

“We clarify once again the official stand that no matter what policy is adopted and whatever proposal is made in Seoul, we have no interest in it and there is neither the reason to meet nor the issue to be discussed,” Kim said.

Lee has pledged to improve inter-Korean relations, which have sharply deteriorated in recent years after a period of diplomatic progress in 2018-19. Last month, he suspended propaganda loudspeaker broadcasts at the DMZ and cracked down on activists floating balloons carrying anti-Pyongyang leaflets across the border. Seoul also recently repatriated six North Koreans who drifted into southern waters on wooden boats several months ago.

Kim, however, rejected the administration’s gestures in her statement, calling the loudspeaker suspensions “nothing but a reversible turning back of what they should not have done in the first place.”

“In other words, it is not the work worthy of appreciation,” she said.

Seoul’s Ministry of Unification, which oversees inter-Korean relations, said Kim’s remarks showed that Pyongyang is “closely watching the direction of the Lee Jae Myung administration’s policy toward North Korea.”

“The wall of distrust between the South and the North is very high due to the hostile confrontation policy of the past few years,” ministry spokesman Koo Byung-sam said at a press briefing on Monday.

“The government will not overreact to North Korea’s response, but will continue to calmly and consistently pursue efforts to create inter-Korean relations of reconciliation and cooperation and to realize peaceful coexistence on the Korean Peninsula,” Koo said.

Newly appointed Unification Minister Chung Dong-young emphasized the need to resume dialogue with North Korea when he took office on Friday.

“Restoring disconnected communication channels between North and South Korea is an urgent priority for resuming inter-Korean dialogue and quickly restoring trust,” Chung said during a visit to the border truce village of Panmunjom inside the DMZ.

In her statement, Kim called for the Unification Ministry to be abolished and said that Chung was “spinning a daydream” with reconciliation efforts.

“There can be no change in our state’s understanding of the enemy and they can not turn back the hands of the clock … which has radically changed the character of the DPRK-ROK relations,” she said.

In October, North Korea revised its Constitution to declare the South a “hostile state” after Kim Jong Un called for the rejection of the long-held official goal of reunification.

A judge on Wednesday rejected a Trump administration request to unseal transcripts from grand jury investigations of Jeffrey Epstein years ago in Florida, though a similar request for the work of a different grand jury is pending in New York.

U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg in West Palm Beach said the request to release grand jury documents from 2005 and 2007 did not meet any of the extraordinary exceptions under federal law that could make them public.

The Justice Department last week asked the judge to release records to quell a storm among supporters of President Trump who believe there was a conspiracy to protect Epstein’s clients and conceal videos of crimes being committed and other evidence.

In 2008, Epstein cut a deal with federal prosecutors in Florida that allowed him to escape more severe federal charges and instead plead guilty to state charges of procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche had asked judges in Florida and New York to unseal transcripts from grand jury proceedings that resulted in indictments against Epstein and former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, saying “transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.”

Federal grand juries hear evidence in secret and then decide whether there is enough for an indictment. Experts say the transcripts probably would not reveal much because prosecutors typically try to present only enough material to get charges and don’t introduce the entire investigation.

Epstein, a wealthy financier, years later was arrested in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges, and Maxwell was charged with helping him abuse teenage girls.

Epstein was found dead in his cell at a federal jail in New York City about a month after he was arrested. Investigators concluded he killed himself. Maxwell later was convicted at trial and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

The case attracted attention because of Epstein and Maxwell’s links to famous people, including royals, presidents and billionaires. It also led to some of the biggest conspiracy theories animating Trump’s base.

The furor over records has been stoked by the Justice Department. In February, far-right influencers were invited to the White House and provided with binders marked “The Epstein Files: Phase 1” and “Declassified.” The binders contained documents that had largely already been in the public domain.

The department on July 7 acknowledged that Epstein did not have a list of clients. It also said no more files related to his case would be made public.

A two-page memo that bore the logos of the FBI and Justice Department, but that was not signed by any individual, said the department determined that no “further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”

White writes for the Associated Press.

UN rapporteur Francesca Albanese tells Al Jazeera Washington’s move is retaliation for ‘pursuit of justice’ in Israel’s war on Gaza.

United Nations expert Francesca Albanese has slammed the decision by the United States to sanction her as “obscene”, saying she is being targeted for calling out Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

Speaking to Al Jazeera on Thursday, Albanese, who serves as the UN’s special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, said she would not be cowed into silence by the US move against her on Wednesday.

Albanese stressed that the penalties imposed by President Donald Trump’s administration would not stop her “quest for [the] respect of justice and international law”.

The special rapporteur said Washington’s tactics reminded her of “Mafia intimidation techniques” before suggesting that “sanctions will only work if people are scared and stop engaging”.

“I want to remind everyone [that] the reason why these sanctions are being imposed is the pursuit of justice,” Albanese said.

“Of course I’ve been critical of Israel. It has been committing genocide and crimes against humanity and war crimes,” she added.

While announcing the sanctions on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio charged Albanese with waging a “campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel”.

The UN rapporteur hit back on Thursday, noting that the atrocities being committed in Gaza were not just down to “the unrelinquished territorial ambitions of Israel” and the backing of its supporters but also “companies who are profiting from it”.

Last week, she released a report mapping the corporations aiding Israel in the displacement of Palestinians and its genocidal war on Gaza in breach of international law.

Albanese told Al Jazeera that she was still evaluating the effects the US sanctions would have on her.

However, she said her problems are nothing compared with what Palestinians face in Gaza during Israel’s ongoing bombardments, ground operations and blockade of the territory.

Albanese also took aim at the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), calling it a “death trap”. The Israeli- and US-backed group runs the aid distribution sites where hundreds of Palestinians have been shot and killed since late May while queueing for food.

Move against Albanese ‘a dangerous precedent’

The UN expert also defended the International Criminal Court’s (ICC’s) investigation into Israeli actions in Gaza and its decision to call for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s arrest on charges of war crimes.

Rubio has described Albanese’s push for the prosecution of Israeli officials at the ICC as the legal basis for the sanctions.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s spokesman was among those to criticise the US sanctions on Albanese.

While highlighting that Albanese reports to the UN Human Rights Council rather than the secretary-general, Stephane Dujarric called the decision “a dangerous precedent”.

“The use of unilateral sanctions against special rapporteurs or any other UN expert or official is unacceptable,” he said.

UN Human Rights Council Ambassador Jurg Lauber also lamented the move against Albanese.

“I call on all UN member states to fully cooperate with the special rapporteurs and mandate holders of the council and to refrain from any acts of intimidation or reprisal against them,” Lauber said.

Israel’s campaign in Gaza has destroyed most of the territory and killed more than 57,575 Palestinians over the past 21 months, according to local health officials.

AN expert has analysed the awkward moment Brigitte Macron “refuses” her husband.

It comes several months after she appeared to slap Emmanuel as they prepared to disembark a plane in Vietnam.

5

5

5

5

Emmanuel and his wife Brigitte have arrived in the UK ahead of tonight’s state banquet at Windsor Castle.

However, footage of the pair arriving suggests there could be tension between them according to body language expert Judi James.

After Emmanuel is safely on solid ground, he turns around to offer his arm to his wife as she descends the stairs from the plane.

Yet Brigitte refuses Emmanuel’s gesture, leaving him awkwardly holding his arm in mid-air.

The pair then begin to greet members of the Royal Family who have been awaiting their arrival.

Judi said: “Macron appeared determined to take a joyfully tactile approach to everyone he met today, with exception of his wife.

She added that Brigitte looked “less charmed by her husband’s attempts at a more tactile approach, refusing his offer of a hand to help as she stepped down from the plane”.

While Brigitte does smile at her husband once she’s by his side, the couple quickly begin greeting their hosts.

Emmanuel leads, greeting Prince William first.

Judi said: “His greeting ritual for William was almost intimate enough to suggest he was family.

“He clasped William’s hand for several long seconds, using his left hand to perform a volley of add-on pats and clasps as he did so, each one suggesting close bonding and familiarity.”

After placing his hand over William’s, he then moves it to the prince’s lower arm.

This “intensified the familiarity signals” according to Judi, as Emmanuel moves his hand above William’s elbow before moving it back down to the lower arm.

Emmanuel then moves on to greet Kate, while Brigitte in turn greets William.

In a “creakingly out of date ritual” according to Judi, Emmanuel leans down to kiss the back of Kate’s hand.

Judi said: “This gesture looks gallant but it leaves the woman being kissed with little option but to giggle prettily.”

While Emmanuel leaned down to kiss Kate’s hand, Charles instead raises Brigitte’s hand to his lips, as he “gazes adoringly” Judi said.

Calling back to the rumoured Vietnam slap, Judi said: “Was this the hand she shoved her husband with back in Vietnam?

“If so, Charles was clearly busy charming it into submission.”

In a similarly familial gesture, Emmanuel went on to pat Charles’ upper arm “in a gesture of macho unity”.

The procession precedes tonight’s state banquet in which 160 guests will dine at Windsor Castle to celebrate the relationship between France and Britain.

Princess Kate and Prince William will both be in attendance for the fabulous event.

5

US President Donald Trump and his Middle East envoy both claimed the talks could happen next week, following the Iranian president’s comments on being open to dialogue.

Iran says it has not requested talks with the United States over its nuclear programme, as claimed by US President Donald Trump.

“No request for a meeting has been made on our side to the American side,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Tuesday in comments carried by the country’s Tasnim news agency.

The clarification came a day after Trump, during a dinner in the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said Iran was actively seeking negotiations on a new nuclear deal following the 12-day war with Israel last month, which the US also joined.

“We have scheduled Iran talks. They want to talk,” Trump told reporters. “They want to work something out. They are very different now than they were two weeks ago.”

Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff – also present during the dinner – had even said the meeting could take place in the next week or so.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote in an opinion piece published in the Financial Times newspaper on Tuesday that Tehran remains interested in diplomacy but “we have good reason to have doubts about further dialogue”.

Sanctions relief

On June 13, Israel launched an unprecedented bombing campaign on Iran that targeted military and nuclear sites as well as residential areas, killing senior military commanders and nuclear scientists. Iranian authorities say the Israeli strikes killed at least 1,060 people. Israel says retaliatory drone and missile fire by Iran killed at least 28 people.

The US joined the war, bombing Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz, just days before a planned meeting between Tehran and Washington, DC on reviving the nuclear talks. Trump then went on to announce a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

The negotiations, aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief, would replace the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – a deal signed with the US, China, Russia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the European Union – which Trump ditched during his first term in office.

Floating the prospect of more talks on Monday, Trump also dangled the prospect of lifting punitive US sanctions on Iran, imposed after the US withdrawal from JCPOA, with further restrictions piled on this year.

This month, the US issued a new wave of sanctions against Iranian oil exports, the first penalties against Tehran’s energy sector since the US-backed ceasefire ended the war between Israel and Iran.

“I would love to be able to, at the right time, take those sanctions off,” said Trump.

Towards the end of last month, Trump said he was working on “the possible removal of sanctions”, but dropped his efforts after Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed “victory” in the Iran-Israel war.

Tehran’s denial regarding talks with the US came after Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told US journalist Tucker Carlson that Iran had “no problem” resuming talks so long as trust could be rebuilt between the two sides.

The interview, aired on Monday, provoked a backlash in Iran, with the critics accusing Pezeshkian of being “too soft” in the wake of last month’s attacks on the country.

“Have you forgotten that these same Americans, together with the Zionists, used the negotiations to buy time and prepare for the attack?” said an editorial in the hardline Kayhan newspaper.

The conservative Javan daily also took aim at Pezeshkian, saying his remarks appeared “a little too soft”.

In contrast, the reformist Ham Mihan newspaper praised Pezeshkian’s “positive approach”.

Human Rights Watch says Asmara’s move was an effort to distract from independent reporting on the ‘country’s dire rights record’.

The United Nations Human Rights Council has rejected Eritrea’s attempt to shut down an independent investigation into alleged rights abuses, in a move hailed as vital to preventing impunity.

Eritrea’s rare bid to scrap the mandate of the UN special rapporteur on its human rights record was defeated on Friday, with only four votes in favour, 25 against, and 18 abstentions.

The move by Eritrea surprised some observers and marked one of the few times a state under active investigation tried to end such scrutiny through a formal vote.

Human Rights Watch welcomed the outcome, calling it “an important message that the international community is not fooled by Eritrea’s efforts to distract from, and discredit, independent human rights reporting on the country’s dire rights record.”

Eritrea’s motion argued that alleged rights violations were not systemic and blamed “capacity constraints” common to other developing nations. But European states responded with a counter-resolution to extend the mandate for another year, which passed with ease.

In his latest report in June, Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker, the UN-appointed special rapporteur and a Sudanese human rights lawyer, said Eritrea had shown “no meaningful progress” on accountability.

He referenced the 2016 UN inquiry that found “systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations … committed in Eritrea under the authority of the Government … may constitute crimes against humanity.”

In the 2016 report, the UN’s Commission of Inquiry (COI) for Eritrea said the government of President Isaias Afwerki had committed heinous crimes since independence a quarter-century ago, including the “enslavement” of 400,000 people.

Many of those abuses are allegedly linked to a harsh national service programme in the secretive Horn of Africa state, which for many is almost impossible to escape and which the COI compared to lifetime enslavement.

Ending investigation would enable ‘impunity’

DefendDefenders, a pan-African human rights organisation, said Babiker’s role remained vital for victims and the wider Eritrean diaspora.

“The expert plays an indispensable role, not only for the victims and survivors of Eritrea’s abuses, but also for the Eritrean diaspora,” the group said in a statement.

The EU warned that terminating the mandate would enable “impunity and repression to deepen in silence.”

Eritrea’s representative, Habtom Zerai Ghirmai, lashed out at the decision, accusing the EU of displaying a “neo-colonial saviour mentality complex”.

He added, “The continued extension of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate is an affront to reason and justice.”

Iran, Sudan and Russia – all under their own UN investigations – supported Eritrea’s motion. China also backed the move, arguing that such mandates were a misuse of international resources.

The UK’s High Court upheld the government’s move to ban activist group Palestine Action as a ‘terrorist organisation’ after it said it damaged two military planes. Al Jazeera’s Sonia Gallego explains what this means, as hundreds of people gathered in London to protest the ruling.

WASHINGTON — Democratic efforts in the Senate to prevent President Trump from escalating his military confrontation with Iran fell short Friday, with Republicans blocking a resolution that marked Congress’ first attempt to reassert its war powers after U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.

The resolution, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, aimed to affirm that Trump should seek authorization from Congress before launching more military action against Iran. Asked Friday whether he would bomb Iranian nuclear sites again if he deemed necessary, Trump said, “Sure, without question.”

The measure was defeated in a 53-47 vote in the Republican-held Senate. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, joined Republicans in opposition, while Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote in favor.

Most Republicans have said Iran posed an imminent threat that required decisive action from Trump, and they backed his decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend without seeking congressional approval.

“Of course, we can debate the scope and strategy of our military engagements,” said Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.). “But we must not shackle our president in the middle of a crisis when lives are on the line.”

Democrats cast doubt on that justification, arguing that the president should have come to Congress first. They also said the president did not update them adequately, with Congress’ first briefings taking place Thursday.

“The idea is this: We shouldn’t send our sons and daughters into war unless there’s a political consensus that this is a good idea, this is a national interest,” Kaine said in a Thursday interview with the Associated Press. The resolution, Kaine said, wasn’t aimed at restricting the president’s ability to defend against a threat, but that “if it’s offense, let’s really make sure we’re making the right decision.”

In a statement after Friday’s vote, Kaine said he was “disappointed that many of my colleagues are not willing to stand up and say Congress” should be a part of a decision to go to war.

Democrats’ argument for backing the resolution centered on the War Powers Resolution, passed in the early 1970s, which requires the president “in every possible instance” to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.”

Speaking on the Senate floor ahead of Friday’s vote, Paul said he would back the resolution, saying that “despite the tactical success of our strikes, they may end up proving to be a strategic failure.”

“It is unclear if this intervention will fully curtail Iran’s nuclear aspirations,” said Paul.

Trump is just the latest in a line of presidents to test the limits of the resolution — though he’s done so at a time when he’s often bristling at the nation’s checks and balances.

Trump on Monday sent a letter to Congress — as required by the War Powers Resolution — that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were “limited in scope and purpose” and “designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.”

But after classified briefings with top White House officials this week, some lawmakers remain skeptical about how imminent the threat was.

“There was no imminent threat to the United States,” said Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, after Friday’s classified briefing.

“There’s always an Iranian threat to the world. But, I have not seen anything to suggest that the threat from the Iranians was radically different last Saturday than it was two Saturdays ago,” Himes said.

Meanwhile, nearly all Republicans applauded Trump’s decision to strike Iran. And for GOP senators, supporting the resolution would have meant rebuking the president at the same time they’re working to pass his major legislative package.

Kaine proposed a similar resolution in 2020 aimed at limiting Trump’s authority to launch military operations against Iran. Among the eight Republicans who joined Democrats in approving that resolution was Indiana Sen. Todd Young.

After Thursday’s classified briefing for the Senate, Young said he was “confident that Iran was prepared to pose a significant threat” and that, given Trump’s stated goal of no further escalation, “I do not believe this resolution is necessary at this time.”

“Should the Administration’s posture change or events dictate the consideration of additional American military action, Congress should be consulted so we can best support those efforts and weigh in on behalf of our constituents,” Young said in a statement.

Trump has said that a ceasefire between Israel and Iran is now in place. But he and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have verbally sparred in recent days, with the Iranian leader warning the U.S. not to launch future strikes on Iran.

White House officials have said they expect to restart talks soon with Iran, though nothing has been scheduled.

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Leah Askarinam contributed to this report.

Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez warns the spending hike would undermine EU efforts to build its own security and defence base.

Spain has reportedly asked to opt out of NATO’s proposed defence spending target of 5 percent of GDP, risking disruption to a key agreement expected at next week’s alliance summit.

In a letter addressed to NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Thursday, Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez urged the alliance to adopt a more flexible framework, according to media reports.

The letter, seen by the Reuters and Associated Press news agencies, called for either the target to remain optional or for Spain to be exempt entirely.

“Committing to a 5% target would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive,” Sanchez wrote, warning that it would undermine efforts by the European Union to build its own security and defence base. “As a sovereign Ally, we choose not to.”

Sanchez insisted Madrid does not intend to block the outcome of the upcoming summit. But any agreement on increased defence spending must be approved unanimously by all 32 NATO members, giving Spain leverage to delay or water down the deal.

Spain currently spends approximately 1.28 percent of its GDP on defence, the lowest among NATO members, according to alliance estimates. While Sanchez has pledged to accelerate the country’s path to NATO’s current 2 percent goal, he argues that going beyond that risks harming the welfare state and compromising Spain’s broader policy vision.

NATO’s push for higher spending follows calls by US President Donald Trump and others to share the burden more fairly across the alliance. Rutte has suggested a new formula that allocates 3.5 percent of GDP to core military spending and an additional 1.5 percent to broader security needs.

Pressure to increase defence spending

The United States, NATO’s largest military contributor and Ukraine’s main backer since Russia’s 2022 invasion, is estimated to have spent 3.38 percent of its GDP on defence in 2024. Trump has repeatedly claimed European allies are not pulling their weight, and has threatened to withhold support for those who fall short.

Sanchez, however, said rushing to meet a 5 percent target would force EU states to buy military equipment from outside the bloc, damaging the continent’s attempts to bolster self-sufficiency in defence.

The proposal also faces resistance from Spain’s political left. The left-leaning Sumar party, part of Sanchez’s coalition, opposes the move, while Podemos, not in government but often a key parliamentary ally, has also rejected it.

“If the government needs parliamentary support to approve spending, it will have a very difficult time in the current situation,” said Josa Miguel Calvillo, a professor of international relations at the Complutense University of Madrid, speaking to Reuters.

Italy has also raised concerns, reportedly seeking to shift the proposed deadline for the new target from 2032 to 2035 and drop the requirement to increase spending by 0.2 percent annually.

One senior European official told Reuters that Spain’s rejection complicates talks but said discussions are ongoing. “It doesn’t look good, indeed, but we are not over yet. Spain has demonstrated to be a steadfast ally so far.”