states

Far-right AfD defeated German chancellor’s CDU in recent Saxony-Anhalt state election, casting doubt on his future.

Voters in the eastern German states of Berlin and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania are heading to the polls as far-right and far-left gains threaten to affect the political standing of Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

About 2.5 million people are eligible to vote in the city-state of Berlin, Germany’s capital, and nearly 1.3 million in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania on Sunday. Polling booths in both states – traditionally seen as more left-leaning – opened at 8am local time (06:00 GMT) and will close at 6pm (16:00 GMT).

Pressure on Merz has been mounting after the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) delivered a major defeat to his Christian Democratic Union party (CDU) party two weeks ago in the key state of Saxony-Anhalt. The AfD fell just short of an absolute majority, which would have allowed it to govern on its own.

And after just 16 months in power, Merz’s approval ratings have plunged to about 14 percent, the latest polls suggest, as he struggles to push through promised economic and social welfare reforms with his centre-left coalition partners, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), raising doubts among fellow party members whether he can continue to lead.

In Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Merz’s party is an onlooker to the main battle between the SPD’s popular state premier Manuela Schwesig and the AfD’s lead candidate, former radio presenter Leif-Erik Holm.

While the AfD was polling at 36 percent against the SPD’s 37 percent, Merz’s CDU, at just 6 percent, was dangerously close to the 5 percent hurdle needed to stay in the state parliament, according to public broadcaster ZDF.

Reporting from a polling station in Schwerin, Al Jazeera’s Dominic Kane said there was “very much all to play for” in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

“The race between the AfD here and the Social Democrat government is very close indeed,” he added, pointing out to the recent opinion polls.

In  Berlin, the CDU is running a tight race against the far-left Die Linke (The Left), which promises drastic measures to solve a dire housing crisis and is popular with young people.

Regional elections would not usually draw much interest outside Germany, but the AfD’s success in Saxony-Anhalt, which it sees as the first step towards winning federal elections due in 2029, has sent shockwaves through Europe.

“Saxony-Anhalt was certainly a revolution for the German party system,” Florian Hartleb, a professor of international relations at Modul University in Vienna and an expert on far-right movements, told Al Jazeera.

Hartleb said the AFD had been “fundamentally excluded” from the power system, with the other political parties trying “everything” against it in recent years. “But it didn’t work out,” he said, citing voters’ dissatisfaction over migration, the economy and social inequality.

Merz has reportedly scheduled a crisis CDU meeting and cleared his calendar to deal with potential aftershocks from Sunday’s elections.

For an issue that received so much publicity at its peak — images of prisoners in triple bunk beds and overflowing into multipurpose rooms — the end of California’s prison crisis came quietly last week, when the state brought home the last of its inmates held in a private lockup northwest of Tucson.

Making good on a pledge by Gov. Gavin Newsom to finish the process begun in 2012, state prison officials have wrapped up the contracts with all out-of-state prisons. California’s prison overcrowding problems are now a thing of the past.

“At one point, at the height of our overcrowding, we had nearly 10,400 inmates out of state,” said Ralph Diaz, secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. “To me, that meant 10,400 inmates away from their families, away from California. It was just a place we didn’t want to be.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed his first budget. Here’s where the $215 billion will go »

The use of private prisons — six facilities in states as far away as Mississippi — began in 2006. Inmates were shuttled away at various intervals over the 13 years that followed, a cost that was unavoidable to help resolve a problem that was years in the making.

Lawsuits challenging conditions inside California’s crowded prisons resulted in a fixed cap on the inmate population, one imposed by federal judges in 2009 and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 and again in 2013. Those decisions came in the wake of a 2006 announcement that outside experts would run the state’s prison healthcare system. Some of that independent oversight continues, though the state has made strides to resume control of health services.

Prison spending in the state’s new fiscal year will total some $15.7 billion — a $2.6-billion increase in the last four years and only slightly lower, by percentage, than what the budget earmarks for colleges and universities.

How the inmate population came down, though, is a story of criminal justice programs that sought to limit prison time to those convicted of the most serious and violent felonies. In the year before a major realignment of criminal justice services to California’s counties, 58% of new prison sentences were for property or drug crimes.

But the changes that shifted many of those crimes away from prison — keeping more offenders in local jails, reducing penalties for property crimes and a sweeping expansion of parole — have not come without controversy. Critics have said too many lower-level offenders have been responsible for new crimes. And a vocal coalition of victim advocates drafted a plan for voters to change those parole rules through a measure that has qualified for the November 2020 ballot.

State prison officials said last week the total population across 34 facilities now stands at just under 126,000 inmates — below the maximum number allowed by the courts. But the room for growth is not sizable enough to return to the era of long prison sentences, a shift that would require the state to do something almost unheard of in recent years: build more prisons.

Nor will it be as cheap to house those inmates in California. Corrections officials said it cost an average of $31,106 per inmate sent out of state last year — but those in state cost an average of $82,910 a year.

Still, the end of the out-of-state transfers marks an important moment. Diaz, who was appointed by the governor in March to run the prison system, said it sends an important message about accountability.

“It feels a lot better when I’m able to pick up the phone and send someone directly within a day to a prison under my care,” he said.

john.myers@latimes.com

Follow @johnmyers on Twitter and sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter

‌Gulf foreign ministers plan to meet their Iranian counterpart in a push by Oman and Iran ‌to ‌secure buy-in for ‌a temporary deal to manage shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the Financial Times reported on ‌Friday. The ‌gathering is ‌scheduled to ‌be held on Monday in the Omani coastal ‌city of Salalah, the report said, citing two people briefed on the matter.

Reuters could not immediately verify the report.

Sept. 10, 2026 9:42 AM PT

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is promising $500 rebate checks to an estimated 1 million Affordable Care Act enrollees across 30 states, who the White House alleged were overcharged by the Biden administration for exchange fees.

The promise comes after Trump pledged Wednesday to send every American adult $5,000 if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections and as affordability has become a central issue for voters heading into November.

“The relief begins with refunding everyone who was overcharged and the rebates are going out in just a few weeks,” President Trump said in a recorded address released on the White House X account Thursday. Enrollees who can expect refunds are those who do not receive premium assistance.

Critics called the move a “gimmick” that doesn’t represent a plan for addressing soaring healthcare costs.

Trump in his address accused former President Biden’s administration of “gross mismanagement” of ACA funds, without providing evidence, and said that the Biden administration collected user fees from insurance companies that consumers paid through higher premiums.

In a fact sheet, the White House claimed that Biden’s administration “accumulated a significant surplus of funds that were not used to benefit the Americans who paid these higher premiums.” It said the rebates would be sent out beginning next month.

It is unclear whether the $500 rebate represents what each enrollee may have overpaid, where the money for the rebates would come from and whether it requires congressional approval for disbursement.

Trump’s announcement comes as the price of ACA insurance has skyrocketed for many Americans during his own second term. The Trump administration opposed extending COVID-era subsidies that had helped offset the costs of health insurance for most enrollees during Biden’s term.

After the Republican-led Congress allowed the subsidies to expire this year, premiums doubled or tripled for many enrollees, prompting millions to downgrade their plans or exit the program entirely.

Brad Woodhouse, a Democratic strategist and executive director of advocacy group Protect Our Care, called the rebate plan “an absolute joke” in a statement.

“Since Republicans took away tax credits from working families, millions of people have seen their monthly premiums rise by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars,” Woodhouse said. “At a time when people are scraping by to keep up with the high cost of groceries, rent, and healthcare, this $500 gimmick won’t even begin to dig them out of the hole that Trump and Republicans created.”

Officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services did not respond to Associated Press requests for comment, and a White House official referred back to the fact sheet.

Roughly 19 million people receive insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchange.

Hussein and Swenson write for the Associated Press.

California and nearly two dozen other states warned the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday that allowing the U.S. Postal Service to move forward with President Trump’s new rules for mail ballots in the November election would cause “chaos” and could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.

“In some States … compliance with USPS’ rule would be impossible ahead of the midterms, meaning that millions of voters would be unable to vote by mail and some would not be able to vote at all,” the states argued. “In the remaining States, there would be chaos — and a significant risk that millions more voters would be denied the ability to vote.”

The Democrat-led coalition — which includes California, 23 other states and the District of Columbia — also cited objections from lower-ranking state and elections officials in conservative states that have not objected to the Postal Service’s position, including the lieutenant governor and other officials in Utah saying implementation of the new rules would “be an unmitigated disaster.”

Similar warnings have emanated from Florida, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin.

“Whatever else may be said of USPS’ new rule, it would wreak havoc on States and their voters if it takes effect at this late point,” the Democrat-led states wrote, pointing out that some States, including North Carolina and Wisconsin, have already begun to mail out ballots.

The states’ arguments were in response to the Trump administration over the weekend filing an emergency appeal to the high court, asking it to overturn a lower-court ruling halting the plan from being implemented for the Nov. 3 election.

The new rules — developed in response to a March executive order from Trump — require states to submit their complete voter lists to the Postal Service, and to adopt new ballot envelopes with individualized voter bar codes designed by the Postal Service. They require the Postal Service to then reject any mail ballots that don’t match those lists.

Trump’s order also directed the Department of Homeland Security to develop its own list of eligible citizen voters, ostensibly to be compared against the state lists.

Trump and other supporters of the changes — including top officials from a dozen Republican-led states — argue they are necessary to prevent widespread voter fraud, including by non-citizens. Elections experts say there is no evidence of such widespread fraud, despite robust audits and other searches for it.

The Democrat-led states sued to block the changes on multiple grounds, including that neither Trump nor the Postal Service have any authority to regulate state-run elections, that the changes would illegally prevent eligible voters from casting ballots, and that the timeline imposed by the new rule — formally issued by the Postal Service on Aug. 21 — made compliance by November impossible.

Independent voting rights groups also sued, alleging the new rules threatened to disenfranchise voters and make their work educating voters on their options for casting a ballot impossible to carry out.

A Postal Service whistleblower recently added skepticism to the agency’s ability to implement the new rules on its end, alleging in a statement published by congressional Democrats that the agency’s online portal for verifying ballots was built in a “slapdash” manner, is “fundamentally flawed” and threatens as built to reject thousands of ballots if just a single one cannot be properly read.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted requests from the states and the independent groups to halt the plans from being implemented nationwide, issuing a preliminary injunction requiring the Postal Service to cease all work on them.

The Trump administration then bypassed the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to ask the Supreme Court for relief from Talwani’s order.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, the administration’s top litigator, argued that the warnings from states that the changes are unworkable, represent an overreach of federal authority or would cause chaos in November are all baseless.

“The Rule ensures that States remain responsible for determining voter eligibility and eligibility to vote by mail, and it does not dictate ballot content, mailing or receipt deadlines, or ballot-counting procedures,” Sauer wrote. “The Rule thus plainly does not seize control of States’ administration of elections — it simply imposes reasonable preparation requirements for certain election-related mail.”

Sauer argued that if the court does not allow the changes to proceed, it would cause “serious irreparable harm on the federal government, the States themselves, and the voting public” by “nullifying the Postal Service’s efforts to address the risk that the federal mails will be used to perpetrate voter fraud.”

Experts have consistently rejected those claims — including in their own filings before the high court.

Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, joined three other election experts to argue to the lower court that the Trump administration’s claims of injury were “speculative and weak.” They noted that the administration had “offered no evidence” in court that the new rules would “stop any appreciable amount of voter fraud or even that voter fraud through the mails is a widespread problem that USPS should address.”

Meanwhile, they wrote, there was “undisputed evidence” presented to the lower court that the Postal Service is “still not prepared to implement its new rule or do so accurately and efficiently, even as states have begun mailing out their ballots,” and that the “harm to the states and to voters is enormous, as the rule threatens to disenfranchise millions of elderly voters, disabled voters, military voters and all others including the most vulnerable who depend on mail voting, in both red and blue states.”

The Democrat-led states also noted that the Trump administration hadn’t proven that widespread voter fraud is a legitimate threat, but had shown it is ill prepared itself to implement the changes without causing widespread disruption — as evidenced in part by the whistleblower’s claims.

It’s unclear when the Supreme Court will rule, though a relatively quick decision is expected given the emergency nature of the appeal.

Is a hissy fit worth $200 million?

That was the tab in 2021, when California held a recall election less than a year before Gov. Gavin Newsom was set to face voters.

There was angst — the COVID-19 pandemic was raging. There was anger — the lifesaving restrictions imposed by Washington and Sacramento made daily living a chore and drove many small businesses to the brink. Others went clear over the edge.

There was also no small amount of political opportunism at play.

The recall gave Newsom’s critics, mainly on the right, a chance to try to chase the Democrat from an office that Republicans, under normal circumstances, stood little chance of winning.

In the end, the recall effort amounted to scarcely more than a partisan tantrum. The result — 61.9% voting no, 38.1% voting yes — matched the outcome of the 2018 gubernatorial race down to the decimal. All that money and effort wasted on an election in which voters said pretty much, yep, we meant what we said. Not too long after, they gave Newsom a second term.

The plebiscite, and its pointlessness, underscored the many flaws inherent in California’s recall system. In November, voters will get a chance to remedy at least one of them, eliminating the chance a candidate could take office with just marginal support from voters.

Trigger warning: What follows is a somewhat wonky explanation of election rules and procedures.

One choice, not two

Currently, a recall election is conducted in two parts. Voters are asked whether a lawmaker should be removed and, if so, who their replacement should be. If the incumbent is ousted, whoever gets the most votes takes their place, even if they fall well shy of attaining majority support. (Which is not out of the question in a large multi-candidate field; in 2003, 135 people were on the ballot, vying to replace Gov. Gray Davis.)

Among its provisions, Proposition 5 would amend the state Constitution so that voters would be asked a simple yes-or-no question: Do you wish to recall the incumbent? If so, the lieutenant governor would serve as governor for the rest of the ousted executive’s term — unless the recall occurred during the first two years a governor was in office and before the filing deadline for the next statewide election.

In that case, a special election would be held on the same date as the next primary and a candidate receiving a majority of votes would serve out the governor’s term. If no candidate received a majority, the top-two finishers would face each other in a November runoff, with the winner taking over as governor.

Still there?

Proposition 5 has two benefits. It would save taxpayer dollars by consolidating elections and it would enhance the legitimacy and political standing of a replacement governor by ensuring he or she assumed office with at least 50% support.

But there’s still more to be done.

Ending political promiscuity

California makes it way too easy to qualify a gubernatorial recall measure.

Of the 19 states that allow their governor to be booted, California is by far the most permissive. Forcing an election requires signatures reflecting just 12% of the ballots cast in the prior gubernatorial contest. In Newsom’s case, proponents needed just under 1.5 million signatures in a state with more than 22 million voters and nearly 40 million residents.

Not exactly a thundering roar.

The threshold should be higher and the reasons for kicking a governor out of office should be more serious, such as corruption, official malfeasance or conviction for a serious crime. Not just because a governor is a member of the opposite party, or people on the losing end of an election are unhappy with the result.

“The system in its current form offers bad actors an incentive to target an elected official with whom they disagree and to have the official replaced by someone who otherwise would not enjoy the support of a majority of voters,” Josh Newman of Fullerton and Isaac Bryan of Los Angeles said in advocating change. The two Democratic lawmakers authored the constitutional amendment, which was placed on November’s ballot by the Legislature.

If you think overhauling the process is simply about protecting partisan interests, consider: Should Republican Steve Hilton pull off an epic upset and become California’s next governor, is there any doubt a recall effort would be underway before he and Mrs. Hilton even had the chance to start boxing their belongings for the move to Sacramento?

The recall is a vestige of the Progressive-era good-government movement. But the process needs to be revamped to reflect today’s bad-faith political environment.

The Little Hoover Commission, California’s independent oversight agency, has recommended several changes, including raising the signature requirement and prohibiting recalls undertaken during the first 90 days and the last six months of an officeholder’s term.

Elections, it’s said, have consequences. They also have — or should have — end dates and final results that are respected, not re-litigated until the losing side gets its way.

Proposition 5 is a step in the right direction. More should follow.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Trump’s economic record is working against him in the midterms
The deep dive: Backlash over data centers hits California, and the midterms
The L.A. Times Special:Integrity on the ballot: Election deniers target secretary of state races in key states

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Free and fair elections are foundational to our representative democracy. A government intended to reflect and honor the will of the people works only if the people can express their will. That’s why we have elections.

But don’t take the word of your friendly political columnist.

John Lewis, the late Georgia congressman and hero of the civil rights movement, said voting is precious and “the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democratic society.” Former President Reagan called the right to vote “the crown jewel of American liberties.”

Alas, we have a president who believes his most precious right, apart from lining his silken pockets, is nursing his over-ripened ego. Donald Trump can’t stand the fact he lost the 2020 election — which he most emphatically did — and so he’s built a carapace of lies: about illegal ballots, rigged election machinery, rampant voting by noncitizens, and so on.

Worse than his deceit — which has deeply undermined faith in our elections and the dedicated people who run them — is Trump’s brazen efforts to rig the system by disenfranchising millions of voters, all so he can keep Democrats from winning office.

Reagan, no less than Lewis, probably is turning cartwheels in his grave.

But there’s a chance to push back. In November, voters in 26 states will elect a secretary of state, choosing the officials who will oversee the 2028 presidential race throughout most of the country. What could possibly go wrong?

Let’s hope we don’t find out.

The secretary of state used to be one of those ministerial posts that few outside government knew or much cared about; from a political standpoint, the office and its occupant seemed dull and dry as Melba toast. That changed after 2000, when Republican Katherine Harris placed her weighty thumb on the scale and helped deliver Florida’s 25 electoral votes, and the White House, to George W. Bush.

What really politicized the office of secretary of state, though, was Trump’s obsessive compulsion with his 2020 defeat.

Spurred by his incessant lies about supposed fraud, allies and opportunists set out to hijack the country’s election machinery and do Trump’s dirty work from the inside. In 2022, a group calling itself the America First SOS Coalition endorsed a slate of cranks and quacks who ran for secretary of state in 14 states, including the presidential battlegrounds of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin.

FILE – Tina Peters, former Mesa County, Colo., clerk, listens during her trial, March 3, 2023, in Grand Junction, Colo. (Scott Crabtree/The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel via AP, Pool, File)

(Scott Crabtree / Associated Press)

Thankfully, all of them lost, save for one candidate in Indiana. Among those defeated was Tina Peters, the former county elections chief in Mesa County, Colo., who went on to infamy, and prison, for orchestrating a security breach aimed at “proving” 2020 votes were stolen from Trump. (Never mind that he won the county by nearly 30 percentage points.)

The SOS Coalition apparently is defunct; its website address now leads to an online gambling portal.

But more than two dozen election deniers ran for secretary of state this year, according to States United Democracy Center, a nonpartisan group that works to promote fair and secure elections nationwide. Six of those candidates won their primaries and made it to November’s ballot, including in three states — Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin — that promise to be key once more to picking the next president.

The stakes in those races are considerable, said Peverill Squire, a University of Missouri expert on state elections. “Who’s going to be administering [election] rules? How they’re going to interpret those rules?” he said, offering examples of the office’s import. “Whether they’re going to try to make it more difficult to vote, or easier to vote. Whether they’re going to try to engage in activities that will further raise doubts in some people’s minds about how fairly the election has been conducted.”

Nevada Republican Jim Marchant is among the election deniers running for secretary of state in November. He lost four years ago after promoting Donald Trump’s false claims he beat Joe Biden.

(Ricardo Torres-Cortez / Associated Press)

The contest in Nevada is a rerun of 2022, when Democrat Cisco Aguilar narrowly defeated Republican Jim Marchant. Undeterred, Marchant continues to spout gibberish about sabotaged voting machines and other far-fetched claims of election chicanery. Among the remedies he’s floated, according to the Nevada Independent, is using technology to measure voters’ heartbeat as a way to verify their identity.

Um…

Meanwhile, in Arizona, incumbent Democrat Adrian Fontes faces Republican state Rep. Alexander Kolodin, an attorney who was sanctioned by the State Bar for pursuing baseless claims of 2020 election fraud. One of his Trump-inspired lawsuits was swiftly rejected by a federal judge who noted its conspicuous lack of “relevant or reliable evidence” — thus raising doubts not just about Kolodin’s discernment but also his capacity to cover even the basics.

In Wisconsin, where elections are overseen by a six-member, bipartisan commission, Republican Jay Schroeder is running on a pledge to dismantle that fair-minded system, calling it a “failed experiment.” Had he been secretary of state in 2020, Schroeder told NBC News, he would not have certified Joe Biden’s victory in the state.

That’s all you need to know, Wisconsin.

Great amounts of time, energy and resources are being devoted this election to races for Congress and for statehouses across the country, which makes sense.

Control of both the House and Senate are in play on Nov. 3. There are more than a dozen gubernatorial contests with at least some degree of competition, including close races in Ohio, Georgia and Wisconsin.

But with so much riding on the outcome, it’s also worth paying heed to those down-ballot races for secretary of state.

You can’t keep elections on the straight and narrow if the people running them are crooked.

Aug. 28 (UPI) — The Justice Department is suing four more states over offering in-state tuition benefits to qualifying undocumented students, for a total of 21 lawsuits filed against so-called Dream Acts amid the Trump administration’s anti-immigration push.

The lawsuits against Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington — all Democratic-led — were individually filed Thursday, alleging their laws providing undocumented students with in-state tuition and financial assistance unconstitutionally discriminate against out-of-state U.S. citizens to whom such benefits are not offered.

“By granting illegal aliens in-state tuition, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico and Arizona are pushing citizens to the side and ignoring federal law. No more,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. said in a statement.

“Our efforts will not cease until President Trump’s promise is fulfilled: illegal aliens will not receive benefits denied to American citizens.”

The Trump administration is asking the courts to enjoin the states from enforcing their so-called Dream Acts that require colleges and universities to offer the in-state benefits to certain noncitizen students. The lawsuits argue the laws conflict with a 1996 federal statute that bars states from offering in-state tuition to people not lawfully present in the United States unless a citizen of the United States is eligible for the same benefit without regard to whether they are a resident of the school’s state.

Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson said he plans to fight the lawsuit.

“Washington State won’t be bullied into changing how we provide opportunities for young people in our state,” he said in a statement.

“We’ll see them in court, and we expect to win.”

The Justice Department has been targeting these laws following an April 2025 Trump-signed executive order that directed the attorney general to identify and stop enforcement of policies that favor “aliens over any groups of American citizens,” specifically highlighting Dream Act laws.

Proponents of these laws argue that they put postsecondary education within reach of those who otherwise would never have the opportunity to attend university, while reducing high school dropout rates as well as raising student incomes and tax contributions.

Of the 21 lawsuits, five states have been enjoined from enforcing their laws, while the other lawsuits continue to be litigated.

The Iran war is settling into attrition, with no regime collapse and Gulf economies facing growing uncertainty

Analysts broadly agree the United States and Israel’s war on Iran will not see regime collapse in Tehran or a definite victory for Washington, but rather a dragged-out affair of stagnation and attrition.

The hope among the US leadership at the start of the war, which began after surprise Israeli and US attacks on February 28, was that mounting economic and military pressure on Iran would force a structural shift in Tehran. Six months on, it is clear this vision will not come about, and instead many are preparing for a protracted war and managed fallout.

Oil-dependent economies are still absorbing supply shocks after traffic in the Strait of Hormuz slowed to a trickle of pre-war levels following Iran’s attacks on shipping and a US blockade on Iranian ports.

The US military is still entrenched in a region that remains its most militarised in years. Although the war’s intensity has lessened since a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed by Washington and Tehran in June, there is no sign it will conclude, leading to continued uncertainty about the future.

Existing tensions, such as those between the Houthi rebels and Saudi Arabia in Yemen, look only set to increase as the war drags on. The influence of rival powers, such as those of India and China, remains stalled rather than stopped, with Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative having already established itself within the Middle East and North Africa. All in all, the region remains in flux where formal alliances with outside powers no longer guarantee safety.

The defence agreement between Turkiye, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recently signed in Mecca will likely be the first of many such military pacts agreed in the region.

“The war has just accelerated trends, but hasn’t really started anything that wasn’t already under way. The Gulf countries were already diversifying their economies,” Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera. “Many were already looking at broadening their defence partnerships beyond existing US security guarantees, as well as increasing their own defence capability.”

Israel, for its part, is still pursuing its regional project of “paramountcy”, HA Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute said, despite its failure to bring Iran to its knees this year.

“There is no chance of the government in Tehran falling in the next six months,” Hellyer told Al Jazeera. “If everything were to theoretically stay the same … with just increased economic pressure, that could eventually cause a ripple effect that could lead to state collapse in Iran. But we’re talking years, not months, and everything is not likely to stay the same.”

The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz and strikes on regional cities have hindered Gulf states’ plans to use oil revenues as an engine to diversify their economies and build on their reputations as a safe haven to encourage investors.

Shipments of oil, derivative products and liquefied natural gas (LNG) have been repeatedly and severely disrupted since the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran in February.

Transit through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, which saw attacks on shipping by the Houthis during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, became even more hazardous in July, when the Iran-allied Houthis declared a naval blockade of Saudi Arabia.

“The price of oil has increased broadly in line with the Gulf states’ difficulties in exporting it,” John Sfakianakis, chief economist at the Gulf Research Center, told Al Jazeera. “Is this going to go for six months? Is it going to go on for longer?”

Exacerbating the Gulf states’ difficulties is that, although the price of oil has risen, so has inflation. In addition to the economic difficulties the war has created, there is also growing pressure for Gulf states to invest more in defence.

For now, the majority of the states caught in the middle will look at ways of living with the turmoil and managing the consequences.

WASHINGTON — Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton swept the Southern states in Super Tuesday’s Democratic presidential voting, including delegate-rich Texas and Florida, re-establishing himself as the front-runner for his party’s nomination.

Former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas, Clinton’s principal rival, had his chief success in his home state, which he won easily as expected. He also won the Rhode Island primary and the caucuses in Delaware.

But Tsongas did no better than second in the Southern states, including Florida, where he had made his biggest commitment of time and resources and which was generally viewed as the most significant test of the day for him and Clinton. In addition to Florida and Texas, Clinton came in first in the primaries in Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Louisiana, and he won the caucuses in Missouri.

The victories Tuesday brought Clinton 418 delegates, contrasted with 208 for Tsongas and 23 for former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr. Clinton started the race with 275 delegates, twice what Tsongas had. The eventual nominee will need a minimum of 2,145 delegates.

“I must say, it is only tonight that I fully understand why they call this Super Tuesday,” Clinton told cheering supporters in Chicago, where he arrived to launch his drive for primaries next Tuesday in Illinois and Michigan. “From Florida to Texas and all states in between, people opened their hearts to Hillary (his wife) and to me.”

For his part, Tsongas put a brave face on the results. “We’re on our way to the White House,” he said at a victory rally in his hometown of Lowell, Mass. He cited a Washington Post-ABC poll published Tuesday that showed him beating President Bush by 5 percentage points in a trial heat, 3 points more than Clinton’s margin over Bush.

Brown had his best showings Tuesday in Massachusetts, Mississippi and Oklahoma, running second in those states.

“This crusade rolls forward,” Brown declared Tuesday night at a United Auto Workers union hall in Romulus, Mich., a suburb of Detroit. “Hey, governing elite, watch out.

“I think I’m a lot closer to the heart and soul of this party” than the other candidates, he claimed. “I’ve got as good a chance as anybody. But this is a campaign that builds week by week. We’ve already moved from the margin to the center.

“We’re getting Tom Harkin’s vote now.” Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin’s role in the campaign as the spokesman for traditional Democratic liberalism ended this week when he dropped out of the race.

All told, 783 delegates–more than one-third the total required for nomination–were at stake in contests waged in 11 states, from Hawaii to Rhode Island. But seven of them were in Dixie or on its borders, which gave the day its special cast and gave Clinton an advantage he fully exploited.

A television network exit poll showed Clinton taking 68% of the vote among native-born Southerners, contrasted with 19% for Tsongas and 8% for Brown.

Once again, as in the Georgia and South Carolina primaries last week, blacks made a big contribution to Clinton’s victory. He got about 80% of the black vote across the South, according to network exit polls, contrasted with 59% of the white vote.

A Times exit poll in Florida showed that voters picked change, compassion and agreement on the issues as the main reasons that influenced their choice for President. Clinton won the support of the first two of these groups soundly and split the third evenly with Tsongas.

Tsongas appeared to have been hurt by Clinton’s charges that he was prepared to tamper with cost-of-living increases for Social Security beneficiaries. About one-fourth of those interviewed in The Times poll said that issue had influenced them, and three-fifths of that group backed Clinton.

Even on this day of triumph, concern over Clinton’s controversial draft status during the Vietnam War cast a shadow. Of Southern Democratic voters polled by the networks, 20% said this issue made them think less favorably of Clinton, although one-third of these voted for him anyway.

By contrast, in Florida, the Times poll showed that Tsongas took the votes of those interested in a candidate whose ethics they do not doubt, whom they believe they can trust, who has convictions and who has values like their own.

These answers appeared to reflect not only their confidence in Tsongas, but also their misgivings about Clinton because of the draft controversy and earlier allegations that he had been unfaithful to his wife. Those charges had damaged his campaign in New Hampshire, when polls had him far in front of the field.

Clinton attempted to address this problem Tuesday night in his victory speech in Chicago.

“The people of the South heard the worst about me but they saw the best,” he said. “They know that the true measure of character in politics can never be perfection, because, if it were, no one could pass. The true measure is genuine commitment that lasts day in and day out, through failures and disappointment and defeat and setback.”

Tsongas, who was outspent and who many thought was outmaneuvered in the day’s battle, sounded a defiant note.

“There are those who believe the American people are not intelligent, that you can be Santa Claus, that you can pander and give middle-class tax cuts,” he said, sounding one of his favorite themes at his Lowell rally. “I’m going to tell you something, Bill Clinton, you’re not going to pander your way into the White House as long as I’m around.”

Brown also sounded as if he had just begun to fight.

“I will tell you that I have a better chance than my two opponents” of getting the nomination, he told ABC News interviewer Peter Jennings. “Both of them are fatally flawed. They don’t represent the majority of who the Democratic Party is. I do. That’s my background.

“It’s hard to get the message out. But as we do, the crowds are going now from the hundreds to the thousands.”

In the frantic days of campaigning that preceded Tuesday’s day of decision, the contrasting objectives of the three Democratic contenders reflected the differences in their prospects and resources.

For Clinton, the balloting presented the opportunity to take a giant step forward in the delegate race and to gain momentum for next week’s critical contests in Illinois and Michigan.

“It’s always been the case that we had more money and more organization than anybody else,” Craig Smith, Clinton’s deputy campaign manager, said on the eve of the balloting. “Our strategy has been to go in and win as many states as we can and roll up a big delegate margin.”

That is exactly what Clinton did Tuesday throughout the South.

Perhaps just as important as these tangible assets in helping Clinton was the region’s demography. It created an environment more receptive to Clinton’s economic message–centered on his call for a small tax cut for middle-class families–than Tsongas’ doctrine of relying mainly on tax incentives for business to generate growth.

“The clarity of choice between Clinton and Tsongas on economic policy works to our advantage in the South more than in states like Maryland and New Hampshire,” where Tsongas won, said David Wilhelm, Clinton’s campaign manager. “There are more middle-income voters and more working families.”

Under these circumstances, the Super Tuesday confrontation represented mainly an exercise in damage control for Tsongas. Seeking to minimize the impact of defeat, the candidate and his managers conceded the outcome well in advance.

They set their goal as finishing a “strong second” everywhere, particularly in Florida, Super Tuesday’s most competitive battleground. And they pointed to what they asserted would be more positive results elsewhere in the country next week.

“Once Super Tuesday is over, he (Clinton) has to go into the rest of the country, and we’ve done better there,” said Tsongas campaign manager Dennis Kanin, citing his candidate’s victories in New Hampshire and Maryland.

As for Brown, the self-styled candidate of protest, the balloting offered a chance to enhance the credibility his candidacy gained with victories in Colorado and Nevada. Waging his guerrilla style of political warfare from Dixie to New England, Brown sometimes seemed mainly a threat to Tsongas’ support, particularly when he appealed for the vote of environmentalists by demanding a ban on ozone-threatening products.

But Brown also sought to make inroads in Clinton’s backing among minorities, telling a rally of Latinos in El Paso, “You know you’re being ripped off, lied to, shined on.”

Here is a brief look at how the contest took shape in the biggest battlegrounds:

FLORIDA: 148 delegates.

Tsongas was drawn into making his biggest Super Tuesday commitment of time and resources here mainly because of demographics–the presence of more expatriate Northerners, more suburbanites and more upper-income voters than anywhere else in the South. Those characteristics have defined Tsongas voters in past primaries.

Recent political history also seemed encouraging. In the last two Democratic presidential campaigns, Florida has been won by non-Southern candidates who, like Tsongas, won the New Hampshire primary–former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart in 1984 and former Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis in 1988.

But as Tsongas strategists soon realized, circumstances were more favorable for Hart–who was running against another non-Southerner, former Vice President Walter F. Mondale–and for Dukakis–who had financial and organizational assets that in the 1992 contest are possessed by Clinton.

Clinton’s operation had daily polling to guide it. By contrast, conceded Rob Schroth, Tsongas’ state coordinator, “The only way I can find out what is going on is by talking to voters, to reporters and to the Clinton people.”

More important, Clinton strategists contend, Tsongas hurt his own cause. Instead of concentrating solely on his theme of economic revival, they point out, he spent much of the past few days attacking Clinton, calling the Arkansas governor “cynical and unprincipled.” He also was forced to deal with Clinton’s attacks on him for favoring a gasoline tax, for allegedly being insufficiently supportive of Israel and for supposedly being willing to tamper with Social Security cost-of-living allowances.

“He got off his message for three days and it hurt him,” said Jeff Eller, Clinton’s state coordinator. Kanin concedes that Tsongas’ shift in emphasis may have undercut his message but asserts that his candidate had no choice but to hit back at Clinton. “What Clinton was doing was attacking him all over Florida on whatever issue appealed most in that area,” Kanin said.

TEXAS: 196 delegates.

Clinton helped himself by coming to Texas early and often, as well as by capitalizing on friendships in the state that go back more than 20 years. “He’s paid a lot of attention to this state,” said George Christian, an Austin political consultant and onetime aide to former President Lyndon B. Johnson. “He’s here every time you turn around.”

Because of that, Clinton has lined up an impressive list of endorsements from elected and party officials and from leaders of key interest groups.

“He’s got the who’s who of the Mexican community and the who’s who of the black community on his side,” said George Shipley, a Democratic consultant who guided Texas Gov. Ann Richard’s campaign to victory in 1990.

One influential group, the Texas Mexican-American Democrats, not only endorsed Clinton, but also mailed out 200,000 letters to Mexican-American voters urging them to cast their ballots for the Arkansas governor.

Tsongas campaigned here for only two days, and his late-starting organization seemed to have relied at least as much on misgivings about Clinton as on Tsongas’ own virtues to get support.

Clinton “has impressive financial assets, but he has heavy personal liabilities,” said Texas Railroad Commissioner Robert Kreuger, Tsongas’ state chairman.

The personal contrast with Clinton did appear to help Tsongas win some votes. After hearing Tsongas speak at a rally at the Alamo last week, Sylvia Jiminez, a San Antonio accountant, praised his economic message but said pointedly, “Bill Clinton is too much glitz.”

SOUTHERN PRIMARIES: Clinton was helped by a big edge in endorsements from prominent Democrats in the rest of the South. Tennessee, with 68 delegates, was the only state in which Tsongas campaigned, aside from Texas and Florida. Only Brown made a significant attempt to compete in Mississippi, with 39 delegates. In Oklahoma, with 45 delegates, Tsongas failed to get on the ballot because of a technical slip-up by his staff, leaving second place to Brown.

Staff writers Cathleen Decker, David Lauter, J. Michael Kennedy and Marilyn Yaquinto contributed to this story.

RELATED STORIES, PICTURES: A12-14

Super Tuesday Vote

Here are the top finishers in Super Tuesday’s key states:

DEMOCRATS Clinton Tsongas Brown % of vote in 1. Massachusetts (primary) 11 67 14 83 2. Rhode Island (primary) 21 53 19 100 3. Delaware (caucus) 21 30 19 100 4. Florida (primary) 51 34 12 92 5. Tennessee (primary) 67 19 8 99 6. Mississippi (primary) 73 8 10 94 7. Louisiana (primary) 69 11 7 99 8. Missouri (caucus) 61 6 4 90 9. Oklahoma (primary) 70 — 17 99 10. Texas (primary) 66 19 8 78 11. Hawaii (caucus) — — — —

GOP Bush Buchanan Duke % of vote in 1. Massachusetts (primary) 66 28 2 90 2. Rhode Island (primary) 63 32 2 100 3. Delaware (caucus) — — — — 4. Florida (primary) 69 31 — 92 5. Tennessee (primary) 73 22 3 99 6. Mississippi (primary) 72 17 11 93 7. Louisiana (primary) 62 27 9 95 8. Missouri (caucus) — — — — 9. Oklahoma (primary) 70 27 3 99 10. Texas (primary) 70 24 3 76 11. Hawaii (caucus) — — — —

All numbers are percentages. Complete results, A12

Super Tuesday Roundup

Here are the latest results from Tuesday’s presidential contests. PRIMARIES Texas DEMOCRATS 78% of precincts reporting

Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 819,554 66 97 Paul E. Tsongas 230,607 19 28 Jerry Brown 93,657 8 2 REPUBLICANS 76% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 425,588 70 121 Patrick Buchanan 143,829 24 0 David Duke 15,723 3 0 Uncommitted 18,259 3 0 Florida DEMOCRATS 92% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 536,088 51 87 Paul E. Tsongas 360,339 34 58 Jerry Brown 131,267 12 3 REPUBLICANS 92% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 554,173 69 97 Patrick Buchanan 254,150 31 0 Massachusetts DEMOCRATS 83% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Paul E. Tsongas 443,150 67 88 Jerry Brown 94,483 14 6 Bill Clinton 70,480 11 0 Uncommitted 10,114 2 0 REPUBLICANS 87% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 149,247 66 26 Patrick Buchanan 63,124 28 11 David Duke 4,785 2 0 Uncommitted 8,618 4 1 Tennessee DEMOCRATS 99% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 211,488 67 56 Paul E. Tsongas 60,662 19 12 Jerry Brown 25,415 8 0 Uncommitted 12,217 4 0 REPUBLICANS 99% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 177,173 73 23 Patrick Buchanan 54,328 22 10 David Duke 7,662 3 0 Uncommitted 5,043 2 0 Louisiana DEMOCRATS 99% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 259,731 69 59 Paul E. Tsongas 41,790 11 1 Jerry Brown 24,925 7 0 REPUBLICANS 94% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 75,346 62 26 Patrick Buchanan 32,484 27 5 David Duke 10,438 9 1 Oklahoma DEMOCRATS 99% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 288,031 70 38 Jerry Brown 68,432 17 7 REPUBLICANS 98% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 147,426 70 34 Patrick Buchanan 56,234 27 0 David Duke 5,474 3 0 Mississippi DEMOCRATS 94% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 138,777 73 39 Jerry Brown 18,222 10 0 Paul E. Tsongas 15,093 8 0 Uncommitted 11,642 6 0 REPUBLICANS 92% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 104,065 72 33 Patrick Buchanan 24,320 17 0 David Duke 15,516 11 0 Rhode Island DEMOCRATS 100% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Paul E. Tsongas 26,875 53 13 Bill Clinton 10,729 21 6 Jerry Brown 9,519 19 3 Uncommitted 689 1 0 REPUBLICANS 100% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates George Bush 9,911 63 10 Patrick Buchanan 5,012 32 5 David Duke 327 2 0 Uncommitted 440 3 0 CAUCUSES Missouri DEMOCRATS 90% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton 306 61 34 Paul E. Tsongas 30 6 2 Jerry Brown 20 4 0 Uncommitted 143 29 30 Delaware DEMOCRATS 100% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Paul E. Tsongas 48 30 5 Bill Clinton 33 21 3 Jerry Brown 31 19 2 Uncommitted 47 30 4 Hawaii DEMOCRATS 0% of precincts reporting Dele- Vote % gates Bill Clinton xxx xx x Paul E. Tsongas xxx xx x Jerry Brown xxx xx x Uncommitted xxx xx x

* Republican caucuses in Missouri, Delaware and Hawaii will be held in the coming months.

A federal judge on Wednesday lifted a major obstacle to President Trump’s executive order limiting mail voting, even as Democratic state officials filed a new court challenge with the midterm elections fast approaching.

The fresh round of legal wrangling comes just two days after the Supreme Court handed down a procedural ruling in Trump’s favor, and could mean the issue lands before the high court again before the pivotal contests for control of Congress. The first mailed ballots are set to be sent out next week.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston agreed to lift an order prohibiting the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out Trump’s order for November’s elections. She wrote that she was “compelled” to do so after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled that a similar injunction she granted in a separate case was premature.

Talwani nevertheless said the executive order could unleash “chaos” and referred to it as “likely unconstitutional.”

The administration can now move forward and implement a Postal Service rule published late Friday. It would require states to follow a uniform envelope style for mail ballots and to give the Postal Service a list of voters eligible to receive them. Talwani found on Tuesday that the rule’s issuance technically violated her injunction, but she declined to penalize the administration.

The new lawsuit, filed by about two dozen Democratically controlled states against the U.S. Postal Service, marked a new phase in the high-stakes litigation creating confusion around the midterm elections.

It came after the Supreme Court ruled against them in a separate case, but did not say Trump’s order was legal.

The high court majority found the initial Democratic lawsuit was premature, but that was before the Republican administration issued a rule governing Postal Service delivery of mail ballots. Election officials warn it will be impossible to implement before the first wave of mail ballots are sent out next week.

“Across the country, states are already deep into preparations for the 2026 elections. Now, at the last moment, the federal government is attempting to meddle in those preparations and potentially threaten countless Americans’ right to vote,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of 25 Democratic attorneys general filing the lawsuit, said in a statement. “USPS has no authority to decide who can and cannot vote by mail.”

The Trump administration plan faces a third lawsuit originally filed in May in the nation’s capital, though judges there have so far declined to block it.

All previous challenges were filed before the administration published its mail ballot rule Friday night.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis on Wednesday said the Postal Service’s proposals were “commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots” and that the administration would continue to work to implement them to boost “the safety and security of our elections.”

The Postal Service said it would not comment because of the pending lawsuit.

National Democrats on Tuesday cited the rule in asking the federal judge in the Washington case to block Trump’s order after he declined to do so last spring, saying the administration at the time had not taken concrete action. In Boston, Talwani also found that the administration had violated a separate injunction she had placed on the Postal Service in drafting the new rule, although she did not take any action against the government.

Talwani had issued the injunction against Trump’s executive order in the prior Democratic state case, which is the one the Supreme Court overturned on Monday. She also issued a second injunction Aug. 11 in a case filed by the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups, while the Supreme Court was considering the administration’s appeal of the judge’s first order.

Trump has long targeted mail voting, which he falsely blames for his 2020 election loss and is disproportionately used by Democrats as a result of Trump’s condemnations. Since returning to power, Trump has tried to claim authority over election rules, saying he thinks Republicans should “take over” vote counting in Democratic areas.

He issued his first election executive order just months after retaking office, attempting to require documentary proof of citizenship to vote, among other changes. He has also been pushing a sweeping election bill that has stalled in the Senate amid opposition from Democrats and even some within his own party.

Riccardi and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

California and a coalition of other Democratic-led states sued again Wednesday to block the U.S. Postal Service from implementing new nationwide rules for mail ballots, arguing they usurp state authority over elections at President Trump’s behest, expose voter information unnecessarily and threaten chaos in the rapidly approaching November election.

The Postal Service formally issued a 95-page “final rule” on Friday asserting that it was amending its mailing standards for mail ballots in federal elections to comply with Trump’s March executive order.

Trump demanded the rule changes as part of a broader plan to combat what he alleges — without evidence — is widespread voter fraud in the U.S., including by noncitizens voting through the mail. Election experts say there is zero evidence of such problems existing at scale.

“This mail-in voting rule is an unlawful overreach that shows just how far President Trump will go to control elections, but as I’ve said before, this fight is far from over and we are confident that the facts and the law are on our side,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement.

“Donald Trump does not run elections. States do. And his latest attack on democracy is proof of how weak he has become,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “California will continue to lead the way in defending democracy — using every tool at our disposal and every minute in our day. This perilous moment in history demands no less from us.”

The new postal rules require states to submit lists of eligible voters — including their names and addresses — to the Postal Service, and to use new ballot envelopes with digital barcodes that would allow the Postal Service to identify and reject ballots that don’t match those lists.

The rules do not give the Postal Service authority to dictate which voters may appear on state lists. However, the rules do acknowledge that the lists would provide state voter data to federal law enforcement for the first time, and would put those authorities in “a better position to identify any potential issues regarding compliance with federal law that may merit further investigation.”

Trump’s March executive order also required the Department of Homeland Security to use available federal data to compile its own state lists of eligible citizen voters, ostensibly to compare them with the mail voter lists provided by the states to the Postal Service, and identify and pursue any ineligible voters.

Wednesday’s lawsuit follows a Monday decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that found an earlier challenge from the states was premature, in part because it sought court relief to a rule-making process that required nothing of the states and before the Postal Service had moved to implement any changes.

“On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to fully close the door on the President’s attempt to interfere in our election administration. Today, we’re taking legal action to stop this unlawful rule in its tracks and ensure that voters can exercise their constitutional right to vote,” Bonta said.

The White House did not immediately respond Wednesday to a request for comment on the latest lawsuit.

However, it has defended Trump’s executive order as overdue and badly needed to secure U.S. elections, and hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing the rule-making to proceed as “a major win for the security of American elections.”

“These are commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders,” White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis said.

The high court allowed the Postal Service to move forward with its work to comply with Trump’s order, but explicitly noted that it had reached no conclusions as to the legality of the pending rules.

Trump administration officials have said they are pursuing fraudulent voters, and have warned state election officials that they could face legal consequences personally if they don’t do everything in their power to prevent voter fraud, including by noncitizens.

Critics contend Trump’s executive order was devised as an end run around laws and a slew of recent court rulings blocking the Trump administration’s demands for state voter rolls — which states, including California, have refused to provide.

States have argued the administration’s demands are in bad faith, intended to bolster Trump’s baseless claims that U.S. elections are compromised rather than enhance election security.

In issuing its new rules, the Postal Service rejected a slate of concerns from critics who submitted comments on the proposed rules, including that the changes are being proposed far too close to the November election and will cost states and localities a huge amount of money to comply with.

It also rejected concerns that creating a single nationwide voter database — which has never existed before — will provide a massive new target for foreign adversaries and other bad actors interested in disrupting U.S. elections.

The Postal Service concluded that the cost to the states is outweighed by the benefits of the changes. It said it has sufficient staffing to implement the changes, and is ready to safeguard the database it builds using “multi-layered security controls.”

The lawsuit, brought by 24 state attorneys general and the governor of Pennsylvania, asks for immediate court intervention to halt the Postal Service changes from being implemented while the litigation continues.

“Let’s be clear: the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to regulate elections — not the President and not USPS,” Bonta said. “Ballots are an extension of our voices and we’re asking the court to ensure that every person has the right to make theirs heard.”

Independent voting rights groups have also sued to block the Postal Service rules from being implemented.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei slams Trump’s latest threat as a return to ‘full-scale classic colonialism’.

Iran has decried impending United States sanctions as a “complete erosion of sovereignty” following US President Donald Trump’s threat to punish any country doing business with Tehran.

In a post on X on Saturday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the US announcement was “an assertion of extraterritorial sovereignty” against the United Nations’ member states.

No state can compel foreign banks, enterprises or airports to renounce commerce with Iran, he said.

“The end result would be the complete erosion of sovereignty as the foundational basis of the UN-based inter-State system, and a recipe for an abysmal return to full-scale classic colonialism,” Baghaei said.

Trump announced on Wednesday the “most crushing economic operation” yet against Iran and said any country whose institutions interface with Tehran would face “tremendous economic consequences”.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent doubled down on the president’s words on Thursday, saying the new sanctions regime would “collapse” Iran and that other countries are “either with us or against us”.

Iranian state media was quick to point out that Tehran has faced US sanctions for decades. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the new measures were “bound to fail”.

“We have seen this movie before,” Araghchi wrote on X, alongside a screenshot of a tweet from former President Barack Obama referencing earlier sanctions in 2012. “Same bull. Different bullies.”

The latest rhetorical back-and-forth comes as peace talks with Tehran have sputtered out. The US Navy has maintained its blockade against Iran’s ports, while oil shipment traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has virtually ceased.

Trump told reporters Friday that his government is “seeing what happens” in the conflict.

“They would love to make a deal, but they’re not ready to make the right deal in my opinion,” the president said.

While the US has blockaded Iranian vessels in their ports, the Strait of Hormuz remained bottled up with thousands of seafarers stranded on hundreds of vessels.

Only four commodity ships sailed along the strait on Thursday, none of them large crude carriers or liquefied natural gas tankers, ship-tracking data showed.

However, Iran has granted permission for several Iraqi oil tankers to pass through the strait following repeated requests from Baghdad, Iran’s state news agency IRNA ⁠reported on Saturday.

IRNA said obtaining special permission for Iraqi tankers was one of Baghdad’s main requests during Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher ⁠Ghalibaf’s visit to Iraq.