Stakes

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld highly partisan state election maps that permit one party to win most seats, even when most voters cast ballots for the other side.

Partisan gerrymandering has allowed Republicans to control power in several closely divided states. And it has been repeatedly condemned for depriving citizens of a fair vote and letting politicians rig the outcomes.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., speaking for a 5-4 conservative majority, ruled that citizens may not sue in federal court over the issue.

Partisan gerrymandering claims “present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts,” he said, tossing out lower court rulings that North Carolina’s Republicans and Maryland’s Democrats had drawn skewed districts to entrench their party in power.

Although the Supreme Court has repeatedly said racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional, it has never struck down an election map because it was unfairly partisan, despite four decades of lawsuits over the issue.

Thursday’s decision goes even further, closing the courthouse door to future claims. “Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions,” he wrote in Rucho vs. Common Cause.

The court’s four liberal justices dissented, warning that new technology has made partisan gerrymandering easier and more precise than ever before.

“These are not your grandfather’s — let alone the framers’ — gerrymanders,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

“The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people,” she said, reading her dissent in the court. “Of all the time to abandon the court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government.”

The ruling substantially raises the stakes for the 2020 election. In many states, whichever party controls the state legislature and the governor’s office at that time will be in a prime position to gerrymander electoral districts in their favor and lock in political power for years to come.

“This is obviously a deeply disappointing outcome,” said Allison Riggs, a voting rights lawyer who represented the League of Women Voters in the North Carolina case. There, the state’s Republican leaders drew an election map that aimed to lock in 10 of 13 seats for the GOP.

“Unlike citizens in some other states, North Carolinians cannot force redistricting reform upon recalcitrant legislators,” Riggs said. “We must raise our voices even more loudly, demanding change.”

While reform advocates were distraught over the decision — envisioning an era of ruthless, no-holds-barred gerrymandering — there is reason to believe the result may not be as drastic as feared.

Numerous states, including California, have taken the line-drawing process away from politicians and placed it in the hands of independent commissioners charged with drawing fair and competitive political maps.

Roberts appeared to endorse these state reforms, even though he voted in dissent four years ago in an Arizona case to strike down these voter initiatives as improper. He said then the power to draw election districts was reserved to the state legislature alone.

“Where we go from here is where we’ve been,” said Justin Levitt, an election law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “Most of the real action has been in state courts or through ballot initiatives. … We are back to a limited set of tools, but tools that are still immensely powerful.”

States are also getting more involved. He noted that state supreme courts in Pennsylvania and Florida have struck down maps as overly partisan. The Supreme Court’s decision blocks federal lawsuits over gerrymandering, but it does not alter the authority of state courts to make rulings based on their own state constitutions. In 2018, voters in five states — Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Utah — overhauled their redistricting processes by creating independent or bipartisan map-drawing commissions.

This year’s cases began with the 2010 midterm elections, in which Republicans won sweeping victories and took full control in politically divided states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina. Armed with new census data, GOP lawmakers drew election maps that all but guaranteed their candidates would win a majority. In Pennsylvania, Republicans won 13 of 18 congressional seats, and 12 of 16 in Ohio.

Last year, however, political reformers had high hopes that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy would join the four liberals and cast the crucial fifth vote against partisan gerrymandering. He had voiced repeated concern that voters were being cheated if politicians could decide the outcomes in advance.

But those hopes were dashed last June when the chief justice engineered a procedural ruling that scuttled a gerrymandering case from Wisconsin.

Kennedy then retired, and his replacement, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, cast the fifth vote with Roberts on Thursday to close the doors to these claims.

Justices reviewed two cases in reaching the decision.

In North Carolina, Republican leaders flatly admitted they drew an election map for “partisan advantage.” One state leader said he drew a map to give Republicans a 10-to-3 advantage, only because he could not devise a map that would yield an 11-to-2 advantage.

In Maryland, Democratic leaders shifted hundreds of thousands of voters with the aim of ousting a veteran Republican from Congress and creating a reliably Democratic district.

A three-judge court in North Carolina declared the election map unconstitutional and said it deprived Democrats of a fair vote. Another three-judge panel ruled Maryland’s Democrats deprived Republicans of a fair vote and free election.

In January, the justices agreed to hear appeals from both states. Last month, the court also put on hold gerrymandering rulings from Ohio and Michigan.

The chief justice wrote one opinion for the two cases and overturned the rulings from North Carolina and Maryland. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh signed on to the Roberts opinion.

Joining Kagan in dissent were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

More stories from David G. Savage »

In the seven months since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, Wall Street’s major stock indexes have been taken on quite the ride.

The president’s unveiling of his tariff and trade policy on April 2 spawned the fifth-biggest two-day percentage decline in the benchmark S&P 500 (^GSPC 1.52%) in 75 years, as well as hurled the Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC 1.88%) into a full-fledged (but ultimately short-lived) bear market.

This sharp downturn was followed by Donald Trump announcing a 90-day pause on higher “reciprocal tariff rates” on April 9. The S&P 500, Nasdaq Composite, and ageless Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI 1.89%) responded by logging their largest single-session point increases in history with this announcement and have been in a seemingly unstoppable rally ever since.

President Trump delivering his State of the Union address. Image source: Official White House Photo.

But tariffs represent just one of the ways the Trump administration can potentially influence equities on Wall Street.

According to reports and recent statements made by a member of Trump’s cabinet, the federal government is pondering equity stakes in some of the world’s leading semiconductor companies, including Intel (INTC 5.64%), Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing (TSM 2.58%) (commonly known as “TSMC”), Micron Technology (MU 1.82%), and Samsung Electronics (SSNL.F 9.01%). While the rationale behind this idea might be intriguing on paper, it runs the risk of setting a dangerous precedent on Wall Street.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick proposes converting CHIPS Act grants into equity

Before diving further into the proposed details, some background is sorely needed.

Three years ago, in August 2022, President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act (commonly known as the “CHIPS Act”) into law. This law authorizes grants from the federal government to encourage the domestic manufacture of semiconductor chips, as well as to promote biotechnology and clean-energy technology innovation within the U.S. More than $52 billion was set aside by the CHIPS Act to support the construction and/or expansion of chip fabrication plants in the U.S., as well as advanced semiconductor research and development.

During President Trump’s State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in March, he referred to the CHIPS Act as a “horrible, horrible thing,” and encouraged lawmakers at the time to defund the program. But his tune may have changed, courtesy of U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick.

In a recent interview with CNBC, Lutnick laid out something of a take-it-or-leave-it style proposal that would convert CHIPS Act grants into stock equity for the federal government. Said Lutnick:

The Biden administration literally was giving Intel for free, and giving TSMC money for free, and all these companies just giving them money for free. Donald Trump turns that into saying, “Hey, we want equity for the money. If we’re going to give you money, we want a piece of the action.”

Lutnick clarified his statements by noting that these equity stakes wouldn’t provide the U.S. government with any voting power in these businesses. Instead, it would be all about the American people getting a stake in the businesses U.S. funds are supporting.

Trump has reportedly favored the idea of the U.S. government being given equity stakes in exchange for CHIPS Act funds, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ind.-VT) also voicing his support for such a move. “Taxpayers should not be providing billons of dollars in corporate welfare to large, profitable corporations like Intel without getting anything in return,” extolled Sanders.

If this proposal were to move forward, the Trump administration would take up to a 10% stake in Intel, valued at roughly $10.9 billion. Multibillion-dollar stakes would also be made in TSMC, Micron, and Samsung.

Image source: Getty Images.

Government ownership of stocks can be a slippery slope

Though there’s a logical argument to be found in the Trump administration’s proposal to transform these grants into equity stakes, there are also reasons for concern.

Looking to the past as a predictor of the future, there have been previous instances where the federal government took equity stakes in public companies. However, these prior occurrences correlate with periods of historic economic instability.

For instance, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) gave the federal government the green light to take equity stakes in struggling financial institutions during the Great Recession. Additionally, select airline companies issued stock warrants to the U.S. Treasury during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 as partial compensation for the financial assistance they received. Equity stakes on a for-profit basis, as proposed by Lutnick, would be a new and potentially dangerous precedent.

Although the Commerce Secretary told viewers these would be nonvoting equity stakes, the Trump administration nevertheless passes the laws and fiscal policy that can directly impact chip manufacturers. While the federal government might not be voting on executive compensation packages, it’ll have a direct and undeniable influence on the stock(s) it owns. This is effectively the same debate of whether members of Congress should be able to own individual stocks while passing laws that directly impact said stocks… just taken to another level.

For example, a solid argument can be made that President Donald Trump’s tariff and trade policy is far more powerful than a 10% voting share in Intel, or a single-digit percentage voting share in TSMC, Micron, or Samsung. Pardon the necessary pun, but Trump has previously used chip companies, including Nvidia, as bargaining chips to negotiate trade deals. There would be nothing to stop the president or members of his administration from using these bargaining tools to influence corporate strategy and decision-making.

Furthermore, adjusting the funding strategy for the CHIPS Act three years after its passage might encourage chip fabricators to keep their distance from the U.S. government. While subsidies of $6.6 billion, $6.2 billion, and $4.75 billion were awarded to TSMC, Micron, and Samsung, respectively, in 2024, none of these three companies necessarily need this funding to build/expand their chip fabrication presence on U.S. soil. If they had known that an equity stipulation was a possibility, they may not have agreed to a dime in funding.

Even Intel, which has struggled mightily under the weight of increasing competition and the high costs of organically building out its foundry division, may not have opted for government funding if it would have resulted in a forced equity stake. Over the trailing-12-month period, Intel has generated more than $10 billion in cash flow from its operations.

Though discussions are ongoing and nothing is set in stone, as of this writing in the late evening of Aug. 20, the Donald Trump administration potentially becoming shareholders of some of Wall Street’s leading semiconductor stocks likely wouldn’t be a development to cheer.

The coming week could bring an important moment in the war between Russia and Ukraine, as President Trump’s deadline for the Kremlin to reach a peace deal approaches — or it could simply melt away.

Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff was expected in Moscow in the middle of this week, just before Trump’s Friday deadline for the Kremlin to stop the killing or face potentially severe economic penalties from Washington.

Previous Trump promises, threats and cajoling have failed to yield results., and the stubborn diplomatic stalemate will be hard to clear away. Meanwhile, Ukraine is losing more territory on the front line, although there is no sign of a looming collapse of its defenses.

Trump envoy expected at Kremlin

Witkoff was expected to land in the Russian capital on Wednesday or Thursday, according to Trump, following his trip to Israel and Gaza.

“They would like to see” Witkoff, Trump said Sunday of the Russians. “They’ve asked that he meet so we’ll see what happens.”

Trump, exasperated that Russian President Vladimir Putin hasn’t heeded his calls to stop bombing Ukrainian cities, a week ago moved up his ultimatum to impose additional sanctions on Russia as well as introduce secondary tariffs targeting countries that buy Russian oil, including China and India.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday that officials are happy to meet with Trump’s envoy. “We are always glad to see Mr. Witkoff in Moscow,” he said. “We consider [talks with Witkoff] important, substantive and very useful.”

Trump not sure sanctions will work

Trump said Sunday that Russia has proved to be “pretty good at avoiding sanctions.”

“They’re wily characters,” he said of the Russians.

The Kremlin has insisted that international sanctions imposed since its February 2022 invasion of its neighbor have had a limited impact.

Ukraine insists the sanctions are taking their toll on Moscow’s war machine and wants Western allies to ramp them up. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday urged the United States, Europe and other nations to impose stronger secondary sanctions on Moscow’s energy, trade and banking sectors.

Trump’s comments appeared to signal he doesn’t have much hope that sanctions will force Putin’s hand.

The secondary sanctions also complicate Washington’s relations with China and India, who stand accused of helping finance Russia’s war effort by buying its oil.

Since taking office in January, Trump has found that stopping the war is harder than he perhaps imagined.

Senior American officials have warned that the U.S. could walk away from the conflict if peace efforts make no progress.

Putin shows no signs of concessions

The diplomatic atmosphere has become more heated as Trump’s deadline approaches.

Putin announced last Friday that Russia’s new hypersonic missile, the Oreshnik, has entered service.

The Russian leader has hailed its capabilities, saying its multiple warheads that plunge to a target at speeds of up to Mach 10 cannot be intercepted. They are so powerful, he said, that the use of several of them in one conventional strike could be as devastating as a nuclear attack.

Also, one of Putin’s top lieutenants warned that the Ukraine war could nudge Russia and the U.S. into armed conflict.

Trump responded to what he called the “highly provocative statements” by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev by ordering the repositioning of two U.S. nuclear submarines.

Putin has repeated the same message throughout the war: He will only accept a settlement on his terms and will keep fighting until they’re met.

Thousands of troops, civilians have died

Russia’s relentless pounding of urban areas behind the front line have killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians, according to the United Nations. It has pushed on with that tactic despite Trump’s public calls for it to stop over the past three months.

On the 620-mile front line, Russia’s bigger army has made slow and costly progress. It is carrying out a sustained operation to take the eastern city of Pokrovsk, a key logistical hub whose fall could open the way for a deeper drive into Ukraine.

Ukraine has developed technology that has allowed it to launch long-range drone attacks deep inside Russia. In its latest strike it hit an oil depot near Russia’s Black Sea resort of Sochi, starting a major fire.

THE HAGUE — Whether the United States launches a broader war against Iran after bombing its nuclear facilities may come down to President Trump’s meetings with NATO partners this week at a summit of the alliance, a gathering long scheduled in the Netherlands now carrying far higher stakes.

So far, Washington’s transatlantic partners have praised the U.S. operation, which supplemented an ongoing Israeli campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, air defenses and military leadership. But European officials told The Times their hope is to pull Trump back from any flirtation with regime change in Iran, a prospect that Trump and Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have openly discussed in recent days.

Trump is scheduled to arrive in The Hague on Tuesday morning for two days of meetings, now expected to focus on the nascent crisis, as U.S. intelligence and military officials continue to assess the outcome of U.S. strikes over the weekend against Iran’s main nuclear sites at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.

NATO was directly involved in the last two U.S. wars in the Middle East, taking part in a U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks and helping to train and advise security forces in Iraq. And while not a member of NATO, Israel coordinates with the security bloc through a process called the Mediterranean Dialogue, which includes work against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

At the Mauritshuis on Monday evening, overlooking The Hague’s historic court pond and under the gaze of Vermeer’s “Girl with a Pearl Earring,” NATO officials, European military leaders and U.S. senators discussed the obvious: A summit that had been seen as an opportunity to show Trump that Europe is willing to pay more for its defense — with NATO members now committing to spend 5% of their GDP on military essentials and expenditures — will now be consumed instead with the possibility of a new war.

As the event was ending, Iran struck the U.S. military base in Qatar, its largest in the Middle East. But the Iranians gave Doha advance notice of the strike in an effort to avert casualties, the New York Times reported, indicating Tehran might be looking for an off-ramp from continuing escalation with Washington.

While the Pentagon said the U.S. bombing run, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, “severely damaged” Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, American and Israeli officials acknowledged to The Times that it is not entirely clear how much equipment and fissile material Tehran was able to salvage before the attacks began.

And as concerns emerge that Iran may have been able to preserve a breakout capability, Israel’s target list across Iran seemed to broaden on Monday to reflect military ambitions beyond Iran’s nuclear program, including the headquarters of the Basij militia and a clock in downtown Tehran counting down to Israel’s destruction.

“Trump spoke too soon,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute, of the president’s declaration that the United States had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capacity with its weekend strikes.

“We may have simply waited too long with our hand-wringing, and given the Iranians time to evacuate their enriched stockpiles. If so, that represents a failure of leadership,” he added, noting reports that trucks could be seen at the Fordo site leading up to the U.S. attack. “If they then scattered and the U.S. intelligence community lost track of where they went, then that is an intelligence failure that could potentially be as costly as the one that preceded the Iraq war.”

European powers, particularly France, Germany and the United Kingdom, have been careful to praise Trump for ordering the strikes. But they have also urged an immediate return to negotiations, and expressed concern that Israel has begun targeting sites tangential and unrelated to Iran’s nuclear program.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, warning of “volatility” in the region, encouraged Iran “to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.” And Germany’s foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, questioned whether Tehran’s nuclear knowledge could be bombed away. “No one thinks it’s a good thing to keep fighting,” he told local media.

“I called for deescalation and for Iran to exercise the utmost restraint in this dangerous context, to allow a return to diplomacy,” said French President Emmanuel Macron. “Engaging in dialogue and securing a clear commitment from Iran to renounce nuclear weapons are essential to avoid the worst for the entire region. There is no alternative.”

Later Monday, after Israel had struck Iran’s notorious Evin prison, where foreign nationals are held, France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, issued a more scathing rebuke. “All strikes must now stop,” he said.

One European official said that efforts would be made once Trump arrives to underscore his military successes, noting the example he has made — using military force to deter an authoritarian foe — could still be applied to Russia in its war against Ukraine. Now that Trump has demonstrated peace through strength, the official said, it is time to give diplomacy another chance.

But it’s unclear if Iran would be receptive to pleas for a diplomatic breakthrough.

In a post on X on Sunday, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, noted that Israel’s attacks last week and the U.S. strikes this week coincided with negotiations, torpedoing any chance for talks to succeed.

“Last week, we were in negotiations with the U.S. when Israel decided to blow up that diplomacy. This week, we held talks with the E3/E.U. when the U.S. decided to blow up that diplomacy,” he wrote, adding that European calls to bring Iran to negotiations were misplaced. The E3 represents France, Germany and Italy.

“How can Iran return to something it never left, let alone blew up?” he added.

On Monday, before its strikes against the U.S. base in Qatar, Iranian military leaders vowed vengeance against the United States for the strikes.

The retaliation “will impose severe, regret-inducing, and unpredictable consequences on you,” said Lt. Col. Ebrahim Zolfaqari, head of the Iranian military’s central command headquarters, in a video statement on Iranian broadcaster Press TV. He added that the U.S. attack “will expand the range of legitimate and diverse targets for Iran’s armed forces.”

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.

Around 270,000 spectators are expected at the Berkshire track over the five days.

Ascot is confident it can cope with a week of warm weather, with temperatures expected to reach as high as 29C by Saturday.

“Thoroughbred racehorses are able to run in very hot temperatures, including in countries such as Dubai,” said a course spokesperson.

“To ensure their welfare here at Royal Ascot we provide them with lots of water and ice if necessary.

“We’ve had days at Royal Ascot over 30C and we have a dedicated team of people to help cool the horses after they’ve raced.”

Going conditions are described as good to to firm, with the ground watered to help with safety for runners and riders.

The course’s dress code was relaxed for the first time during a heatwave three years ago, but the same is not expected to happen this week.

EastEnders viewers will be treated to huge episodes in the coming weeks, with Zoe Slater actress Michelle Ryan promising ‘high stakes’ after a big night shoot this week

Zoe Slater will feature in “high stakes” scenes on EastEnders in a couple of months time.

Michelle Ryan returned to the BBC soap on Monday night, reprising the role after 20 years. Zoe is in “a mess” with more set to be revealed about her return and what’s gone on with her in the past two decades.

But with her on screen for a few episodes this week it’s been revealed that she will be back full-time in the summer. Now, we’ve got a glimpse at some of the big scenes ahead for the character when she heads back to the show.

Michelle took to Instagram on Tuesday morning to confirm that on Monday evening she and the cast filmed a night shoot. Most night shoots seem to be around huge and dramatic episodes.

While she gave nothing away, she did tease fans can expect big scenes ahead and “high stakes”. She addressed the “new block of episodes” filmed this week, that will likely air in six to eight weeks time, as she returns in the summer.

She spilled in a post online: “Ahh coffee, much needed after the night shoot last night. So excited for this new block of episodes, I can’t reveal anything but wow.

READ MORE: Zoe Slater makes dramatic EastEnders return after 20 years as Michelle Ryan reprises role

“High stakes. I’m carrying around the scripts to prep, new lilac pages. Well done to the writers, who have knocked it out of the park!” Viewers were left reacting to the post, excited for what was ahead.

Commenting under the post, one fan said: “Getting so excited! You and Jessie in them scenes are going to be amazing can’t wait!” Another wrote: “Can’t wait for what’s in store in the months ahead!!!”

A third fan said: “So excited to see what’s going to happen so happy your back!” while a fourth commented: “I am literally so excited for what’s to come for Zoe and I’m equally excited for you Michelle.” It comes amid the mystery surrounding Zoe’s return with her seemingly hiding something.

Michelle teased what fans could expect from the return, hinting that Zoe could be in a bad way. She spilled: “I can’t say too much as there is a lot of drama to come, but Zoe is a mess. She’s not the girl that left Walford twenty years ago, and she’s been really struggling on her own.

“She has her defences up, but this week you will see that she needs help, but whether she is willing to accept it is another story.” So what help does Zoe need, and can her family help her?

According to the soap, Zoe carries twenty years of deep-rooted resentment towards her mum. She’s not even met her other siblings including Tommy and the twins, while it’s not known if her own twin brother Dermott will be addressed.

EastEnders airs Mondays to Thursdays at 7:30pm on BBC One and BBC iPlayer. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok, Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads.

There are two things that can help make a sport popular: dynasties and rivalries. Horse racing is immune from dynasties because the sport is built mostly around breeding, which is where the money is. But, after Saturday’s 157th running of the $2 million Belmont Stakes, it certainly has a rivalry, if only for one year.

The winners of the Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes hooked up in a much-anticipated rematch of the Kentucky Derby with the same result — Sovereignty running down Journalism in deep stretch to etch his name in history as the 52nd winner of two legs of the Triple Crown.

Sovereignty’s three-length win leaves a lot of people asking “what if” Sovereignty had run in the second leg of the Triple Crown, the Preakness, and won. He would have been the 14th winner of the Triple Crown, although with an asterisk.

Both the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes were run at 1¼ miles because Belmont Park is undergoing a rebuilding project forcing the race to move to Saratoga Race Course in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The New York Racing Assn. opted to run the Belmont at 1¼ miles instead of the usual 1½ miles so the race wouldn’t start on a turn.

But that technicality didn’t dampen the spirits of Sovereignty’s trainer, Bill Mott, after the race.

“I think there are three really good horses and I’m glad he was able to come back and put in a race like he did in the Derby,” Mott said. “If we wouldn’t have won today, we would have taken a lot of criticism, but it turned out good. Sometimes you make the right decision and a lot of times you make the wrong ones, but today it really worked out well.”

Mott, and the colt’s owner Godolphin, decided that running in Belmont was the better move. It allowed Journalism, second in the Derby, to run and win the Preakness in a race for the ages, where he bulled his way through horses at the top of the stretch and ate up incredible ground in the final furlong to win by half a length. And a rivalry was born.

Sovereignty was the first horse to intentionally skip the Preakness after winning the Derby and then come back and win the Belmont. It was the first time in the last 22 Triple Crown races that there was a repeat Triple Crown race winner, a streak going back to Justify in 2018. The Triple Crown is restricted to 3-year-olds, meaning a horse only gets one year to compete in those races.

Sovereignty crosses the finish line ahead of Journalism to win the Belmont Stakes on Saturday.

(Seth Wenig / Associated Press)

The race ran pretty much to form with Rodriguez going immediately to the front with Crudo close by as they headed into the first turn. But as the horses went down the backstretch Journalism started to get engaged with Sovereignty close by. Entering the homestretch, Journalism poked his head in front as Rodriguez started to slow. Sovereignty was working his way to the outside of Journalism and with 200 yards to go moved swiftly to the front and won easily.

The top three finishers were exactly the same as the Derby with Baeza finishing third. He was followed by Rodriguez, Hill Road, Heart of Honor, Uncaged and Crudo. Journalism, Baeza and Rodriguez are all currently based at Santa Anita.

Sovereignty paid $7.00 to win.

After the race, winning jockey Junior Alvarado and Umberto Rispoli, who rode Journalism embraced while atop their horses.

“It’s about two great horses,” Alvarado said. “[Journalism] ran amazing again for coming back after the Preakness. He fought very hard but he didn’t make it easy for my horse.

“It’s unreal to be honest. There was a point in my career, I think probably four or five years ago when I kind of saw everything fading away, to be honest. And now here I am. It’s unbelievable.”

It was Alvarado’s first Belmont Stakes win. It was also his first Kentucky Derby win, although he was fined $62,000 and suspended two days for using his riding crop eight times on Sovereignty, two over the allowable number.

The race was run on what was labeled either fast or good after rain pelted the track all morning. It even resulted the postponing until Sunday of two Grade 1 turf races for safety reasons. The track and Equibase, the official statistician of racing, do not have to agree on the quality of track surfaces.

“Look, anytime good horses get space in between their races, they are very, very dangerous,” said Journalism’s trainer Michael McCarthy. “He [Sovereignty] is a very good horse, he trains up here, he’s been up here for a while, he’s in his backyard. Let’s hope everybody stays happy and healthy, and we’ll see him in Del Mar hopefully in November, in our backyard. I can’t say enough good things about that horse or about my horse. It has been a fantastic experience for me and my guys.”

Jockey Junior Alvarado, center, holds up the August Belmont Trophy after riding Sovereignty to victory in the Belmont Stakes.

(Jessica Hill / Associated Press)

McCarthy did not rule out running in the Travers at Saratoga later this summer.

Journalism appeared to have stumbled coming out of the gate but Rispoli dismissed it as a reason for the loss.

“[It was a ] perfect trip,” Rispoli said. “I was lucky to be on the outside today to take the chance. I would say he had a little bit of a stumble coming out of the gate, but I don’t think it would’ve been an excuse that affected anything.

“I had a good trip. I was running down the lane, Junior [Alvarado] was just coming by, easing past, so the only thing I can say is probably the freshness. He [Journalism] is a warrior, he ran in three legs. He [Sovereignty] ran in one and had five weeks to recover, but that’s no excuse. Obviously, I would say the fresh horse won, but he’s a great horse, he beat me already. He beat me twice.”

The rivalry may not be Affirmed and Alydar or Dodgers-Yankees or Lakers-Celtics. But it’s the best horse racing has had to offer in a few years and that’s something to take note of.

Normally, the running of the Belmont Stakes without a chance at a Triple Crown winner makes the third leg of the series about as interesting as a television procedural — the Chicagos, FBIs or Law & Orders — in the last two minutes after the culprit has been identified and prosecuted.

But not this year. The 157th running of the Belmont Stakes has about as many plot lines as a season of “The White Lotus.” It’s easily the best race of the year, and, yes, that includes the Kentucky Derby.

You’ve got your sentimental favorite in Journalism, whose stretch drive in winning the Preakness Stakes could make almost anyone a fan of horse racing.

You’ve got your villain in Sovereignty, who kicked racing tradition in the teeth after winning the Kentucky Derby when his connections refused to enter him in the Preakness Stakes because of the short time frame — two weeks — between the first two legs of the Triple Crown. It killed any opportunity racing had to build a new fan base revolving around the Derby and a possible Triple Crown winner.

You’ve got your fresh-faced wannabe in Rodriguez, whose last race was a win in the Wood Memorial. He was scheduled to run in both the Kentucky Derby and Preakness, but a sore hoof forced him to withdraw from both races. His early speed and front-running ability likely means he’ll be on the lead as the horses head down the backstretch. Add to that the fact that he is trained by Bob Baffert and ridden by Mike Smith, both Hall of Famers who know how to get a horse from gate to wire in winning form.

And finally, you’ve got a wiseguy (professional gamblers) horse in Baeza, whose talent far exceeds his early results. He finished a strong third in the Kentucky Derby and second in the Santa Anita Derby behind Journalism. He is also trying to find a place in history for his mom, Puca, who has produced Kentucky Derby winner Mage and last year’s Belmont winner in Dornoch. If Baeza were to win, he would be the first horse who has a dam who has won three Classic races. That’s a record.

And that’s just half of the eight-horse field.

Whoever finishes first, the victory is likely to be remembered as having an asterisk next to it. The Belmont Stakes, considered the test of champions because of its normal 1 1/2-mile distance, is being run at the less interesting distance of 1 1/4 miles. The reason is the race has been moved from Long Island’s Belmont Park to Saratoga Race Track in Saratoga Springs, a suburb of the New York state capital of Albany, because of a massive rebuild at Belmont Park.

The reason the race was shortened is because to have a 1 1/2-mile race at Saratoga, the horses would have to start on a turn, something the organizers didn’t want to happen.

The starting positions add little clarity as to who might win. Sovereignty (post 2, 2-1 on morning line) should have no problem getting early running room, especially with Rodriguez on his immediate outside. Rodriguez (post 3, 6-1) and Crudo (post 5, 15-1) are expected to battle for the lead early. Crudo’s last win was his last outing with a 7 1/4-length win in the Sir Barton Stakes at Pimlico.

Journalism will be breaking from post 7 at 8-5 morning line odds.

“He’s been kind of the same horse since July of last summer,” Michael McCarthy, trainer of Journalism, told NYRA publicity. “He does everything you ask a good horse to do — eats well, trains well, packs well. I thought the last six or seven weeks here, his energy has been the same throughout. Obviously, Saratoga is very good for horses. He seems reenergized up here. I’m looking forward to a wonderful renewal of the Belmont Stakes on Saturday.”

If either Journalism or Sovereignty wins, they will be the first repeat winner of a Classic race since Justify in 2018, who won all three Triple Crown races. Since then, no horse has won more than one Classic race, making it a 21-race streak. Of course, Triple Crown races are only for 3-year-olds meaning trainers start every year fresh trying to find prospective winners.

Racing is in desperate need of stars and the chase for the Triple Crown is one way of getting them. It’s why there was such consternation when trainer Bill Mott and owner Godolphin, decided to skip the Preakness Stakes.

“You never know until they actually do it in a race,” said Michael Banahan, who heads Godolphin in the U.S. “He always gave us that indication that he’d like to go long. And we thought the Derby as well and then finished up, from the top of the stretch to the wire in very good fashion and galloped all the way through the wire.

Crudo is a 15-1 longshot to win the Belmont Stakes, which features an eight-horse field.

(Seth Wenig / Associated Press)

“So, I’m with the Belmont this year at Saratoga. He just has to do the same distance again. So, I would anticipate that’ll be fine for him. I suppose if it were a regular Belmont at Belmont Park, that’ll be another question to answer going that far. It certainly looks like a mile-and-a-quarter was well [within] his wheelhouse in the Derby and anticipate that it shouldn’t be any issue at Saratoga as well.”

The horse that is poised to pull the upset is Baeza, who has only won one race, a maiden at Santa Anita. His second-place finish in the Santa Anita Derby would have normally been enough to get him in the Kentucky Derby. But Churchill Downs, in an obvious attack at West Coast races, lowered the point total because of a small field.

Trainer John Shirreffs did not want to bring the horse to Churchill Downs, hoping there were enough scratches to get him in the race. Shirreffs was overruled by the owners so he stood on the backside at Barn 41 while hoping for an entry to the world’s most famous race. The reprieve, and entry, came when Rodriguez was scratched because of a sore hoof.

Baeza more than proved his entry into the Derby with a strong third-place finish.

“I think Baeza, week by week, he’s developed a little bit more,” said Shirreffs. “He’s developed a little bit more. I see him, maybe, a little bit taller, a little ‘stretchier’ He seems to be holding his weight really well. And you can really get an image of him now is what he’ll look like as a 4-year-old. So, you’re starting to see him emerge.”

The most likely scenario is the winner of the Belmont Stakes will come from the four most prominent horses. It’s more than possible that the 21-race streak without a repeat winner will be over.

But they run the races to answer that question.

The European country chooses between conservative historian Karol Nawrocki and pro-EU Warsaw mayor Rafal Trzaskowski.

Poles are voting in a decisive presidential run-off that could have a major impact on the nation’s future role in the European Union.

Polling began at 7am local time (05:00 GMT), with pro-EU Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski from the centre-right Civic Platform of the governing Civic Coalition facing off against conservative historian Karol Nawrocki, who is backed by the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) party.

The run-off follows a tightly contested first round on May 18, in which Trzaskowski won just more than 31 percent, and Nawrocki won nearly 30 percent, eliminating 11 other candidates.

The winner will succeed incumbent Andrzej Duda, the outgoing nationalist conservative president who was also backed by PiS and blamed for holding up justice reforms by using his veto against Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s centrist government.

The campaign has highlighted stark ideological divides, with the outcome expected to determine whether Poland continues along a nationalist path or pivots more decisively towards liberal democratic norms.

Trzaskowski, the 53-year-old son of a famous jazz musician, has promised to restore judicial independence, ease abortion restrictions and promote constructive ties with European partners.

Nawrocki, a 42-year-old former boxer, who is favoured by United States President Donald Trump, has positioned himself as a defender of traditional Polish values, and is sceptical of the EU.

Amid rising security fears over Russia’s war on Ukraine, both the candidates support aid to Kyiv, though Nawrocki opposes NATO membership for neighbouring Ukraine, while Trzaskowski supports it.

The two candidates have taken a similarly hardline approach to immigration, both using anti-Ukrainian rhetoric, building on growing resentment among Poles who see themselves as competing for strained social services with 1.55 million Ukrainian war refugees and migrants.

While Trzaskowski has proposed that only working Ukrainians should have access to the country’s child benefit, Nawrocki has gone further, saying he would also be against Ukraine joining NATO or even the EU.

Polls close at 9pm (19:00 GMT) when an exit poll is expected. Final results are likely to be announced on Monday.

SUPERMARKETS have told The Sun they have no plans to sell American beef, upping the stakes for politicians thrashing out the details of a UK-US trade deal.

Donald Trump and Keir Starmer announced the outline of an agreement last week that would allow up to 13,000 tons of US beef to be imported here tariff-free.

3

3

That is the equivalent of one medium steak per Brit per year.

Currently the UK imports just £24million worth of beef a year, but Trump’s team have called the deal a $5billion opportunity.

However, Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Lidl, Aldi, Iceland and The Co-op all said they have no plan to switch from UK and Irish farmers.

And the Government has said that imports of hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chicken will remain illegal.

Tesco boss Ken Murphy said this week that he had no plan to sell US beef.

He said: “We source 100 per cent Irish and British and for the foreseeable future that policy will be the same.”

Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons also said they don’t intend to change supply or animal welfare and food standards.

Budget pair Lidl and Aldi are also not budging on beef.

Aldi chief exec Giles Hurley said: “British farming is known for its high welfare, food safety and environmental standards — and we know how important that is to our customers.”

Iceland boss Richard Walker said there was no appetite for US beef from customers or supermarket suppliers.

He said: “Consensus is that even at a ten per cent tariff it’s a very price prohibitive option.”

The Co-op’s Matt Hood said: “We’re a long-term supporter of British farming, and the first national UK grocer to switch to 100 per cent British fresh and frozen own brand protein.”

The National Farmers Union said: “It’s brilliant to see supermarkets championing British beef. Consumers value its high standards in animal welfare.”

A government spokesman said: “This is a great deal as we have opened access to a huge American market, without weakening UK food standards on imports.”

Butty giant spreading

GREENCORE, the UK’s biggest sandwiches maker, announced it has agreed a £1.2billion takeover of rival Bakkavor to create a food-to-go giant.

It will see £4billion of revenues generated from selling pizzas, soups, salads and sushi to almost all of Britain’s supermarkets.

But workers fear job cuts after the firms said they would save at least £80million in costs a year after the deal.

GMB union national officer Eamon O’Hearn said: “The likelihood of site closures and drop in headcount confirms our worst fears — that hard-working production staff will be facing job losses.”

ITV’s not love sick with US

LOVE Island broadcaster ITV yesterday shrugged off any US tariff concerns as bosses highlighted its Studios arm made TV shows, not films.

President Trump has spooked Britain’s creative industry by slapping 100 per cent tariffs on movies “produced in foreign lands”.

3

ITV yesterday said it did not “anticipate any direct impact”.

It came as the company toasted a return to growth for the Studios business, with ­revenue up one per cent at £386million after years of ­disruption from the Hollywood writers’ strike.

Speculation about a takeover of ITV or the Studios business continues to run rife, but insiders downplayed rumours.

The broadcaster, fresh from winning a Bafta for Mr Bates vs The Post Office, expects advertising revenue to be lower than last year, when companies spent big on ads during the Euros footie tournament.

Covid fraud axe

MINISTERS have scrapped a Covid fraud recovery unit and transferred investigations to the Insolvency Service — after realising even more taxpayer cash was being wasted.

Around £47billion was paid to firms as bounceback loans but there had been more than 100,000 cases of fraud and error.

The National Investigation Service received £38.5million in state funding but has secured just 14 convictions.

Trade minister Gareth Thomas said transferring the probes would “remove unnecessary waste and inefficiency”.

B&M goes Dutch

DISCOUNT chain B&M has hired a Dutch former Tesco executive in the latest sign of FTSE firms looking abroad for leadership.

Tjeerd Jegen, who recently led Europe’s biggest ebike maker Accell Group, has also worked at German clothing chain Takko Fashion and Dutch retailer Hema.

He led Tesco’s Malaysian business in 2010 and was its chief operating officer in Thailand before that.

B&M pushed out ex-boss Alex Russo after two profit warnings in as many months.