Trump

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The next city bracing for the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown is Charlotte, North Carolina, which could see an influx of federal agents as early as this weekend, a county sheriff said Thursday.

Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden said in a statement that two federal officials confirmed a plan for U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents to start an enforcement operation on Saturday or early next week in North Carolina’s largest city. His office declined to identify those officials. McFadden said details about the operation haven’t been disclosed, and his office hasn’t been asked to assist.

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin declined to comment, saying, “Every day, DHS enforces the laws of the nation across the country. We do not discuss future or potential operations.”

President Trump has defended sending the military and immigration agents into Democratic-run cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and even the nation’s capital, saying the unprecedented operations are needed to fight crime and carry out his mass deportation agenda. Charlotte is another such Democratic stronghold, and the state will have one of the most hotly contested U.S. Senate races in the country next year.

Activists, faith leaders, and local and state officials in the city had already begun preparing the immigrant community, sharing information about resources and attempting to calm fears. A call organized by the group CharlotteEAST had nearly 500 people on it Wednesday.

“The purpose of this call was to create a mutual aid network. It was an information resource sharing session,” said City Councilmember-Elect JD Mazuera Arias.

“Let’s get as many people as possible aware of the helpers and who the people are that are doing the work that individuals can plug into, either as volunteers to donate to or those who are in need of support can turn to,” said CharlotteEAST executive director Greg Asciutto.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department also sought to clarify its role, saying it “has no authority to enforce federal immigration laws,” and is not involved in planning or carrying out these enforcement operations.

Mazuera Arias and others said they had already begun receiving reports of what appeared to be plainclothes officers in neighborhoods and on local transit.

“This is some of the chaos that we also saw in Chicago,” state Sen. Caleb Theodros, who represents Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, said Thursday.

Theodros was one of several local and state officials who issued a statement of solidarity this week.

“More than 150,000 foreign-born residents live in our city, contributing billions to our economy and enriching every neighborhood with culture, hard work, and hope,” it read, adding: “We will stand together, look out for one another, and ensure that fear never divides the city we all call home.”

Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol chief who led Customs and Border Protection’s recent Chicago operation and was also central to the immigration crackdown in Los Angeles, had been coy about where agents would target next.

The Trump administration’s so-called “ Operation Midway Blitz ” in the Chicago area was announced in early September, over the objections of local leaders and after weeks of threats on the Democratic stronghold.

It started as a handful of arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the suburbs but eventually included hundreds of Customs and Border Protection agents whose tactics grew increasingly aggressive. More than 3,200 people suspected of violating immigration laws have been arrested across Chicago and its many suburbs dipping into Indiana.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees both immigration agencies, has offered few details on the arrests, aside from publicizing a handful of people who were living in the U.S. without legal permission and had criminal records.

The group Indivisible Charlotte and the Carolina Migrant Network will be conducting a training for volunteers on Friday.

“Training people how to recognize legitimate ICE agents, versus obviously those who don’t look legitimate,” said Tony Siracusa, spokesman for Indvisible Charlotte. “They’re not always wearing vests that say ‘ICE.’ And what your rights are.”

The groups will also discuss areas where they can conduct “pop up protests.”

“Obviously, we’re not doing anything that is going to encourage people to go get arrested by federal agents,” he said.

Siracusa said locals are “not freaking out, but very definitely concerned. Nobody asked for this help. Nobody asked for this, at least no one of any official capacity.”

Breed and Verduzco write for the Associated Press. Breed reported from Wake Forest, N.C. AP writer Sophia Tareen in Chicago contributed to this report.

LONDON — The BBC apologized Thursday to President Trump over a misleading edit of his speech on Jan. 6, 2021 but said it had not defamed him, rejecting the basis for his $1 billion lawsuit threat.

The BBC said Chair Samir Shah sent a personal letter to the White House saying that he and the corporation were sorry for the edit of the speech Trump gave before some of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as Congress was poised to certify the results of President-elect Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

The BBC said there are no plans to rebroadcast the documentary, which had spliced together parts of his speech that came almost an hour apart.

“We accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action,” the BBC wrote in a retraction.

Trump’s lawyer had sent the BBC a letter demanding an apology and threatened to file a $1 billion lawsuit for the harm the documentary caused him. It had set a Friday deadline for the BBC to respond.

The dispute was sparked by an edition of the BBC’s flagship current affairs series “Panorama,” titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” broadcast days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The third-party production company that made the film spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.”

Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

Director-General Tim Davie, along with news chief Deborah Turness, quit Sunday, saying the scandal was damaging the BBC and “as the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs, the buck stops with me.”

The apology and retraction came as BBC acknowledged that its Newsnight program in 2022 had also misleadingly spliced together parts of Trump’s speech.

Melley writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 13 (UPI) — America’s Catholic bishops sent sharp criticism of rising fear in the United States and ongoing mass deportations in a rebuke of Trump administration immigration policy.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said its some 273 active bishops were “disturbed” to see that “among our people a climate of fear and anxiety around questions of profiling and immigration enforcement.”

“We are saddened by the state of contemporary debate and the vilification of immigrants,” the group wrote in its statement.

It arrived after U.S.-born Pope Leo XIV directed bishops in the United States to be vocal and speak out against President Donald Trump‘s hardline crackdown on migration.

The U.S. religious leaders approved the rare “special message” with 5 votes against and 3 abstentions of 216 ballots cast at its meeting Wednesday in Baltimore, Md.

“We recognize that nations have a responsibility to regulate their borders and establish a just and orderly immigration system for the sake of the common good,” the plethora of all-male bishops added. “Without such processes, immigrants face the risk of trafficking and other forms of exploitation. Safe and legal pathways serve as an antidote to such risks.”

It marked the first time in 12 years the USCCB invoked its urgent way of collectively speaking as a body.

“We are concerned about the conditions in detention centers and the lack of access to pastoral care,” the bishops added. “We lament that some immigrants in the United States have arbitrarily lost their legal status.”

Trump has targeted immigration enforcement in Democratic-run cities such as the nation’s capital, Los Angeles and in Chicago with the presence of masked ICE agents leading to violent activity, arrests and sprayed tear gas.

The bishops wrote that Catholic teaching “exhorts nations to recognize the fundamental dignity of all persons, including immigrants.”

“We bishops advocate for a meaningful reform of our nation’s immigration laws and procedures,” they continued. “Human dignity and national security are not in conflict.”

The new pope has called for an end to Israel’s war in Gaza with the militant wing Hamas, expanded access to much-needed aid for hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees and children and a cease to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

On Wednesday, the Catholic leaders said national security and human dignity both “are possible if people of good will work together.

The Trump administration is pushing an Israeli-crafted resolution at the UN Security Council (UNSC) this week aimed at eliminating the possibility of a State of Palestine. The resolution does three things. It establishes US political control over the Gaza Strip. It separates Gaza from the rest of Palestine. And it allows the US, and therefore Israel, to determine the timeline for Israel’s supposed withdrawal from Gaza, which would mean never.

This is imperialism masquerading as a peace process. In and of itself, it is no surprise. Israel runs US foreign policy in the Middle East. What is a surprise is that the US and Israel might just get away with this travesty unless the world speaks up with urgency and indignation.

The draft UNSC resolution would establish a US-UK-dominated Board of Peace, chaired by none other than President Donald Trump himself, and endowed with sweeping powers over Gaza’s governance, borders, reconstruction, and security. This resolution would sideline the State of Palestine and condition any transfer of authority to the Palestinians on the indulgence of the Board of Peace.

This would be an overt return to the British mandate of 100 years ago, with the only change being that the US would hold the mandate rather than the United Kingdom. If it were not so utterly tragic, it would be laughable. As Marx said, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Yes, the proposal is a farce, yet Israel’s genocide is not. It is a tragedy of the first order.

Incredibly, according to the draft resolution, the Board of Peace would be granted sovereign powers in Gaza. Palestinian sovereignty is left to the discretion of the board, which alone would decide when Palestinians are “ready” to govern themselves – perhaps in another 100 years? Even military security is subordinated to the board, and the envisioned forces would answer not to the UNSC or to the Palestinian people, but to the board’s “strategic guidance”.

The US-Israel resolution is being put forward precisely because the rest of the world – other than Israel and the US – has woken up to two facts. First, Israel is committing genocide, a reality witnessed every day in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, where innocent Palestinians are murdered to the satisfaction of the Israeli military and illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Second, Palestine is a state, albeit one whose sovereignty remains obstructed by the US, which uses its veto in the UNSC to block Palestine’s permanent UN membership. At the UN this past July and then again in September, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly for Palestine’s statehood, a fact that put the Israel-US Zionist lobby into overdrive, resulting in the current draft resolution.

For Israel to accomplish its goal of Greater Israel, the US is pursuing a classic divide-and-conquer strategy, squeezing Arab and Islamic states with threats and inducements. When other countries resist the US-Israel demands, they are cut off from critical technologies, lose access to World Bank and IMF financing, and suffer Israeli bombing, even in countries with US military bases present. The US offers no real protection; rather, it orchestrates a protection racket, extracting concessions from countries wherever US leverage exists. This extortion will continue until the global community stands up to such tactics and insists upon genuine Palestinian sovereignty and US and Israeli adherence to international law.

Palestine remains the endless victim of US and Israeli manoeuvres. The results are not just devastating for Palestine, which has suffered an outright genocide, but for the Arab world and beyond. Israel and the US are currently at war, overtly or covertly, across the Horn of Africa (Libya, Sudan, Somalia), the eastern Mediterranean (Lebanon, Syria), the Gulf region (Yemen), and Western Asia (Iraq, Iran).

If the UNSC is to provide true security according to the UN Charter, it must not yield to US pressures and instead act decisively in line with international law. A resolution truly for peace should include four vital points. First, it should welcome the State of Palestine as a sovereign UN member state, with the US lifting its veto. Second, it should safeguard the territorial integrity of the State of Palestine and Israel, according to the 1967 borders. Third, it should establish a UNSC-mandated protection force drawn up from Muslim-majority states. Fourth, it should include the defunding and disarmament of all belligerent non-state entities, and it should ensure the mutual security of Israel and Palestine.

The two-state solution is about true peace, not about the politicide and genocide of Palestine, or the continued attacks by militants on Israel. It is time for both Palestinians and Israelis to be safe, and for the US and Israel to give up the cruel delusion of permanently ruling over the Palestinian people.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

We are being ruled by the “Epstein class,” and voters deserve to know the details of that particular scandal, and to be able to expect better of their leaders in the larger sense.

That’s the message we’ll be hearing a lot in the coming weeks and months now that Democrats have successfully moved forward their effort to release the full investigation into former President Trump buddy Jeffrey Epstein.

“When you take a step back, you have a country where an elite governing class has gotten away with impunity, and shafted the working class in this country, shafted factory towns, shafted rural communities,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) told me Wednesday.

He represents parts of Silicon Valley and is one of the authors of the House push to release the full government investigation into Epstein. But in the Epstein case, he also sees an opportunity to reach voters with a larger promise of change.

“What Epstein is about is saying, ‘we reject the Epstein class governing America today,’” Khanna said.

How appropriately strange for these days would it be if Epstein, who faced sex trafficking charges at the time of his death, provided the uniting message Democrats have been searching for?

“Epstein and economics” sounds like a stretch on the surface, but it is increasingly clear that Americans of all political stripes are tired of the rich getting richer, and bolder. The Epstein files are the bipartisan embodiment of that discontent.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), left, and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) have led Democrats’ push for release of the Epstein files.

(Sue Ogrocki and J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

Our collective frustration with what can appear only as a cover-up to benefit the wealthy and powerful is an unexpected bit of glue that binds regular Americans, because the corruption and hubris of our oligarchy is increasingly undeniable and galling.

Whether it’s our president’s obviously wrong contention that grocery prices are down; our vice president being willing to take on the pope about true Catholic doctrine; or our FBI chief flying his girlfriend around on the taxpayer dime, the arrogance is stunning.

But where each of those examples becomes buried and dismissed in partisan politics, sex trafficking girls turns out to be frowned upon by people from all walks of life.

“It’s universal,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, and another Californian. “This is clearly a White House and a president that is the most corrupt person we’ve ever had in office serving as a chief executive, and this is just another piece of that corruption.”

Khanna, along with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, built the unlikely but unstoppable effort that brought together once-loyal Trumpers including Reps. Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace and Marjorie Taylor Greene with Democrats.

Those staunch right-wingers are tied in to their voters, and probably understood just how unpopular sex trafficking is with a base that grew into maturity on QAnon-inspired fear mongering about kidnapped children.

“It’s the only thing since Trump walked down the escalator that’s been a truly bipartisan effort to expose corruption and where there’s been a break in his coalition,” Khanna said.

And by “exposing rich and powerful people who abuse the system and calling them out clearly, we start to rebuild trust with the American people,” Khanna argues, the trust required to make folks believe Democrats aren’t so terrible.

Long before he was a linchpin in the Epstein saga, Khanna built a name as a force on the progressive left for a positive and inclusive economic platform that resembles the New Deal, which Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to rebuild democracy in another era of hardship and discontent.

It’s all about real payoffs for average Americans — trade schools and affordable child care and jobs that actually pay the bills. That’s the message that he hopes will be the top line as Democrats push forward.

On Wednesday, the buildup of resentment that might make that possible came into full focus in Washington, as Congress opened up to anything but business as usual. Democrats, led by Garcia, released emails raising questions about Trump’s knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

Trump “spent hours at my house” and “knew about the girls,” Epstein wrote, even as Trump’s press secretary argued this was all a “fake narrative to smear” her boss.

Republicans countered the emails with a massive information dump probably meant to obscure and confuse. But House Speaker Mike Johnson, out of excuses, finally swore in Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who promptly provided the final signature on the discharge petition to call a House vote on releasing the entire Epstein files.

That happened just hours after Boebert, one of the key Republican backers of that effort, was called to the White House in a last-minute, heavy-handed bid to pressure her into dropping her name from the demand. She did not.

Enough to make your head spin, honestly. About 10 more dastardly, intriguing and unexpected things happened, but you get the gist: President Trump really, really does not want us to read the Epstein files. House Democrats are ready to fight the long fight.

Garcia said House Democrats aren’t caving, because the cover-up keeps growing.

“There’s a lot of folks now that are obsessed with hiding the truth from the public, and the American public needs to know,” he said. “The Oversight Committee is committed to fighting our way to the truth.”

But it will be a long fight, and one with only a slim chance of winning the release of the files. Any effort would have to clear the Republican-held Senate (and after the shutdown collapse, who knows if Senate Democrats have the stomach for resistance), then be signed by Trump.

Judging from his near-desperate social media posting about the whole thing being a “hoax,” it’s hard to imagine him putting his scrawl on that law.

But unlike the shutdown, the longer this goes, the more Democrats have to gain. People aren’t going to suddenly start liking pedophiles. And the more Trump pushes to hide whatever the truth is, the more Democrats have the high ground, to message on corruption, oligarchs and even a vision for a better way.

“Epstein and economics” — linking the concrete with the esoteric, the problem with the solution.

The bipartisan message Democrats didn’t know they needed, from the strangest of sources.

US President Donald Trump signed a funding bill in Washington DC to end a 43-day government shutdown, the longest on record. The deal followed a partisan standoff over healthcare that left nearly a million workers unpaid.

Democrats’ caterwauling this week after a few of their senators caved to end the government shutdown couldn’t completely drown out another noise: the sound of President Trump pinballing dumb “policy” ideas as he flails to respond to voters’ unhappiness that his promised Golden Age is proving golden only for him, his family and his donors.

On social media (of course) and in interviews, the president has been blurting out proposals that are news even to the advisors who should be vetting them first. Rebates of $2,000 for most Americans and pay-downs of federal debt, all from supposed tariff windfalls. (Don’t count on either payoff; more below.) New 50-year mortgages to make home-buying more affordable (not). Docked pay for air traffic controllers who didn’t show up to work during the shutdown, without pay, and $10,000 bonuses for those who did. (He doesn’t have that power; the government isn’t his family business.) Most mind-boggling of all, Trump has resurrected his and Republicans’ long-buried promise to “repeal and replace” Obamacare.

It’s been five years since he promised a healthcare plan “in two weeks.” It’s been a year since he said he had “concepts of a plan” during the 2024 campaign. What he now calls “Trumpcare” (natch) apparently amounts to paying people to buy insurance. Details to come, he says, again.

With all this seat-of-the-pants policymaking, Trump only underscores the policy ignorance that’s been a defining trait since he first ran for office. No other president in memory put out such knee-jerk junk that’s easily discounted and mocked.

In his first term, Trump didn’t learn how to navigate the legislative process, and thus steer well-debated ideas into law. He didn’t want to. Even more in his second term, Trump avoids that deliberative democratic process, preferring rule by fiat and executive order (even if the results don’t outlast your presidency, or they fizzle in court). For Trump, ideas don’t percolate, infused with expertise and data. They pop into his head.

But diktats are not always possible, as the shutdown dramatized when Republicans couldn’t agree with Democrats on the must-pass legislation to keep the government funded.

With Republicans controlling the White House and Congress (and arguably the Supreme Court: see recent decisions siding with the Trump administration to block SNAP benefits), the Democrats were never going to actually win the shutdown showdown — not if winning meant forcing Republicans to agree to extend health insurance tax credits for millions of Americans. Expanding healthcare coverage has never been Republicans’ priority. Tax cuts are, mainly for the wealthy and corporations, and Republicans pocketed that win months ago with Trump’s big, ugly bill, paid for mainly by cuts to Medicaid.

Yet Democrats won something: They shoved the issue of spiraling healthcare costs back onto politics’ center stage, where it joins the broader question of affordability in an economy that doesn’t work for the working class. Drawing attention to the cruel priorities of Trump 2.0 is a big reason that I and many others supported Democrats forcing a shutdown, despite the unlikelihood of a policy “W.” (I did not support the Senate Democrats’ caving just yet, not so soon after Democrats won bigger-than-expected victories in last week’s off-year elections on the strength of their fight for affordability, including health insurance.)

The fight isn’t over. The Senate will debate and vote next month on extending tax credits for Obamacare that otherwise expire at year’s end, making coverage unaffordable for millions of people. Even if the Democrats win that vote — unlikely — the subsidies would be DOA in the House, a MAGA stronghold. What’s not dead, however, is the issue of rising insurance premiums for all Americans. It’s teed up for the midterm election campaigns.

Such pocketbook issues have thrown Trump on the defensive. The result is his string of politically tone-deaf remarks and unvetted, out-of-right-field initiatives.

On Monday night, having invited Fox News host Laura Ingraham into the White House for an interview and a tour of his gilt-and-marble renovations, he pooh-poohed her question about Americans’ anxiety about the costs of living with this unpolitic rejoinder: “More than anything else, it’s a con job by the Democrats.” When Ingraham, to her credit, reminded Trump that he’d slammed President Biden for “saying things were great, and things weren’t great,” Trump stood his shaky ground, sniping: “Polls are fake. We have the greatest economy we’ve ever had.” (False.)

On Saturday, Trump had posted that Republicans should take money “from the BIG, BAD Insurance Companies, give it to the people, and terminate” Obamacare. He told Ingraham, “Call it Trumpcare … anything but Obamacare.” Healthcare industry experts pounced: Such direct payments could allow younger, healthy people to get cheaper, no-frills coverage, but would leave the insurance pools with disproportionately more ailing people and, in turn, higher costs.

As for Trump’s promised $2,000 rebates and reductions in the $37 trillion federal debt, he posted early Sunday and again on Monday that “trillions of dollars” from tariffs would make both things possible soon. On Tuesday night, he sent a fundraising email: “Would you take a TARIFF rebate check signed by yours truly?”

Maybe if he’d talked to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who professed ignorance about the idea on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday, Trump would have learned that tariffs in the past year raised not trillions but $195 billion, significantly less than $2,000 rebates would cost. Not only would there be nothing to put toward the debt, but rebates would add $6 trillion in red ink over 10 years. That would put Trump just $2 trillion short of the amount of debt he added in his first term.

When Ingraham asked where he’d get the money to pay bonuses to air traffic controllers, Trump was quick with a nonanswer: “I don’t know. I’ll get it from someplace.” And when she told him the 50-year mortgage idea “has enraged your MAGA friends,” given the potential windfall of interest payment for banks, Trump was equally dismissive: “It’s not even a big deal.”

Not a big deal: That’s policymaking, Trump-style.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

WASHINGTON — President Trump outlined an ambitious effort Friday to develop, produce and distribute a fully-approved COVID-19 vaccine by the end of the year, a timeline that even those in charge of the project acknowledge is highly unlikely.

Trump said the $10-billion program would have a goal of producing 300 million doses to administer to Americans by January.

Officials said the initiative would seek to streamline and coordinate the work of government agencies, private industry and the military. A former pharmaceutical executive and an Army four-star general will head the effort, which the White House called Operation Warp Speed.

“We’re looking to get it by the end of the year if we can,” Trump said in the Rose Garden. “Tremendous strides are being made.”

But Trump also hedged on the importance of the effort, declaring that America is already on the rebound from the coronavirus outbreak, which has killed about 87,000 Americans and cratered the economy.

“I want to make one thing clear — vaccine or no vaccine, we’re back,” he said. He repeated a claim he’s made since the first U.S. coronavirus cases were reported three months ago, that the virus will eventually “go away” on its own.

“I don’t want people to think this is all dependent on a vaccine,” he said.

Public health officials worry about bringing a potential vaccine to market without several rounds of clinical trials to ensure that it is safe and effective.

The National Institutes of Health says one or two possible vaccine candidates could be ready for large-scale testing by July, with several others likely to follow. Elsewhere around the world, about a dozen vaccine candidates are teed up for small-scale testing or safety studies.

The tests are necessary to determine proper dosages and to avoid negative side effects. The process usually takes several years, but some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies are working with governments around the globe in an effort to speed up the search.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious diseases physician at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said setting a deadline for a vaccine is “dangerous because you’re going to give people a false sense of hope and security.”

But he said it’s possible scientists can accelerate the usual timeline given changes in laboratory practices, including the use of “vaccine platform technologies” that allow researchers to test various candidates without developing each one from scratch, and the decision to prepare factories for mass production before officials know for certain that a particular vaccine will work.

“All of that’s going to shave time off, but everything has to go perfectly,” he said.

Dr. Jere W. McBride, an infectious diseases specialist at the Sealy Institute for Vaccine Sciences at the University of Texas, noted that no vaccine has been “developed that fast before.”

“Everything has to work and in science that’s often not the case,” he added. “Is it possible? Certainly.”

Officials involved in the new initiative echoed the president’s optimism.

Moncef Slaoui, who was chairman of vaccines at British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline until 2017, will lead the effort. He said early clinical trials have been encouraging.

“These data make me feel even more confident that we will be able to deliver a few hundred million doses of vaccine by the end of 2020,” Slaoui said. “And we will do the best we can.”

Gen. Gustave Perna, the commanding general of the Army’s Materiel Command, will serve as chief operational officer. He called the project “a herculean task,” but expressed confidence in its success.

“Winning matters and we will deliver by the end of this year a vaccine at scale,” said Defense Secretary Mark Esper.

Part of the effort involves using the military to boost production capacity before the vaccine is ready in order to expedite distribution when one is determined safe and reliable.

Dr. Stephen Hahn, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, said Tuesday at a Senate hearing that his agency would evaluate about 10 vaccine candidates in early studies, and then select three to five to progress into larger studies in humans.

Dr. Rick Bright, the ousted former head of the government agency charged with developing vaccines, has cast doubt on the administration’s rush to find a vaccine.

“My concern is if we rush too quickly, and consider cutting out critical steps, we may not have a full assessment of the safety of that vaccine,” Bright told a House committee on Thursday. “So it’s still going to take some time.”

Trump’s comments in the Rose Garden were at times drowned out by loud horns from truckers parked near the White House who were protesting reduced shipping rates. Trump dismissed the din as a “sign of love” for him.

Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the government’s top immunologist, stood behind Trump but did not speak. Both wore face masks, although Trump did not.

Nov. 12 (UPI) — President Donald Trump late Wednesday signed legislation to reopen the federal government, resuming programs and again paying millions of workers, blaming Democrats for the longest shutdown in history at 43 days.

The new stopgap bill will fund the government through Jan. 30, and provide a full year of funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and veterans programs. Furloughed employees are expected to return to report on Thursday.

The U.S. House, convening for the first time in two months, approved legislation sent two days earlier by the Senate. Most Democrats and Republicans have been on opposite sides on enhanced health insurance subsidies through the Affordable Care Act.

At 8:21 p.m., the House voted 222-209 to send the stopgap funding bill to the president. The outcome wasn’t strictly along party lines with six Democrats voting yes and two Republicans voting no. There were two not voting and two vacancies.

Two hours later, Trump appeared in the Oval Office with U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader John Thune — both Republicans — as well as other House members. Also, financial industry leaders, whom he dined with earlier at the White House, watched the signing.

“I just want to tell the American people, you should not forget this when we come up to midterms and other things,” Trump said about elections in 2026 for the House and Senate. “Don’t forget what they’ve done to our country.”

In the public ceremony, Trump blasted the Affordable Care Act as “Obama madness,” bragged about the record-high stock market and spoke about gas prices around $2.50 a gallon. He didn’t take any questions from reporters.

Trump wants Obamacare to be scrapped.

“We’ll work on something having to do with healthcare,” said Trump, who hasn’t been able to find a replacement since first being president in 2017. “We can do a lot better.”

He has proposed bypassing providers with direct payment to users, who then could purchase their own plans.

“I’m calling today for insurance companies not to be paid,” Trump said, “but for this massive amount of money to be given directly to the people.” Basic Medicare is administered by the government rather than companies.

The House had been out of session since Sept. 19, when it passed the first version of a continuing resolution to temporarily fund the government. The Senate held 14 votes on the same legislation, but failed to reach the 60-vote supermajority needed to pass it.

The House originally approved the spending bill on a majority vote, but the Senate needed 60 votes and approval was held up in finding enough Democrats to agree to legislation that doesn’t guarantee enhanced health insurance subsidies starting Jan. 1.

The GOP holds a 53-47 edge.

Trump again on Wednesday night called for an end to the filibuster, saying “if we had the filibuster terminated, this would never happen again.”

Most Republicans have opposed this “nuclear option,” because Democrats could use it when they are in power.

After the House Rules Committee advanced the Senate bill Tuesday night, the full chamber convened at 4:08 p.m., and began debate for one hour at 4:36 p.m. The bill advanced 213-209.

The GOP has a 219-214 advantage, with Democrat Adelita Grijalvi having been sworn in when the House convened. She was elected Sept. 23. There are two vacancies.

Government reopens

At least 670,000 federal employees furloughed will return to work and roughly 730,000 essential workers, including air traffic control workers, will be paid, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget furloughed workers will return on Thursday.

“Agencies should take all necessary steps to ensure that offices open in a prompt and orderly manner on November 13, 2025,” the memorandum released Wednesday night reads.

Essential workers had to work without pay, including air traffic control personnel. This resulted in several thousand flights being canceled.

Government programs also will resume, including 42 million people receiving monthly payments from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. For the first time in history, November money wasn’t sent electronically.

“For 40 days, hardworking Americans have endured flight cancellations, missed paychecks and empty dinner tables – all because Democrats closed the government,” Johnson posted on X with a video before the vote.

“It was foolish, pointless, cruel and entirely avoidable. Republicans have been working every day to get the government reopened for the American people, and today we should finally be able to overcome the Democrats and accomplish our mission.”

Divided on insurance subsidies

The program, which became known as Obamacare, was approved in 2010 during Barack Obama’s presidency. A record 25 million were enrolled this year.

The credits were enhanced in 2021 by the American Rescue Plan Act during the pandemic and extended one year later through 2015. They increased the amount of financial assistance, expanded eligibility and capped the percentage of household income for the benchmark silver plan.

Eight senators who caucus with the Democrats voted Monday in favor of the new bill on Tuesday night, allowing the chamber to pass it with a vote of 60-40.

The Senate broke the impasse over the weekend after Republicans agreed to hold a separate vote on ACA tax credits in December.

On Wednesday night, Johnson told reporters that Republicans are “pulling together the best ideas that we think can, in the quickest fashion, bring premiums down.”

And that includes working with Democrats.

“I sent a note to Hakeem Jeffries and I said, ‘Look, we would love to do this in a bipartisan fashion,’ you know, and he and I exchanged texts yesterday about that.”

Democrats focus on healthcare

Jeffries unsuccessfully attempted a three-year extension of Obamacare by a discharge petition. There would be a vote if the minority party can secure support for a majority of the chamber — a total of 218 signatures. But there are only 214 Democrats and there wasn’t sufficient GOP backing.

“Affordable Care Act tax credits were extended by three years in the Inflation Reduction Act,” Jeffries said outside the Capitol before the House convened. “The legislation that we will introduce in the context of the discharge petition will provide that level of certainty to working-class Americans who are on the verge of seeing their premiums, copays and deductibles skyrocket in some cases, experiencing increases of $1,000 or $2,000 per year.”

Jeffries said Democrats will continue to fight on healthcae.

“We’ll continue to fight for the principle that in this great country, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, healthcare can’t simply be a privilege available only to the well-off, the wealthy and the well-connected.

“Healthcare must be a right available to every single American. And that’s the fight that House Democrats will continue to wage for the American people.”

Colorado Rep. Jeff Hurd said he wanted to extend the enhanced premium tax credits for time to work on “the underlying drivers that are pushing up those health care costs to begin with.”

Workers union wants healthcare addresses

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, with 1.4 million members, called on Congress to help Americans afford health insurance.

“AFSCME members have been clear from the start of this shutdown: we need to lower health care costs and fund public services,” AFSCME President Lee Saunders said in a statement to UPI.

“Unfortunately, this administration and the Project 2025 ideologues in Congress refused to come to the table to address the healthcare crisis gripping families across the country. We applaud all of the leaders in Congress who stood up and sounded the alarm about the massive insurance premium hikes affecting millions of Americans.

“The fight to protect families from these increases is far from over. Now that the government is reopening, we’re calling on members of Congress to keep their promise and hold a vote to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. Working families cannot afford to wait any longer to lower health care costs.”

Provision on suing DOJ

The legislation includes funds for eight senators to sue the Department of Justice for obtaining their phone records during an investigation when Joe Biden was president.

Rather than removing the provision and returning it to the Senate, Johnson said he plans to have separate legislation next week.

“I was very angry about it,” Johnson said. “I was, and a lot of my members called me and said, ‘Did you know about it?’ We had no idea. That was dropped in at the last minute. And I did not appreciate that, nor did most of the House members. Many of them were very – are very angry about that.”

Democrats also opposed the provision.

“What makes this corruption so staggering is that the payout is specifically designed to go to eight senators whose phone records were lawfully subpoenaed under due process by the Department of Justice,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations panel, wrote in a statement.

She accused the senators of voting “to shove taxpayer dollars into their own pockets — $500,000 for each time their records were inspected.”

Daniel Haynes contributed to this report.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

The successful vote means the long-delayed bill will now be passed on to President Trump to sign into law.

The House of Representatives has passed a federal government spending package, clearing the final hurdle and bringing an end to the longest government shutdown in United States history – at least for now.

In a vote held late on Wednesday evening in the Republican-held House, the bill was backed by 222 lawmakers – including six Democrats – while 209 voted against it, including two Republicans.

The long-delayed bill will now be passed on to President Donald Trump to sign into law.

On Monday night, the upper chamber of Congress had approved the spending package by a vote of 60 to 40 to fund the US government through January 30, reinstating pay to hundreds of thousands of federal workers after six gruelling weeks.

All but essential government services had ground to a halt amid the shutdown.

The breakthrough came following negotiations last weekend that saw seven Democrats and one independent agree to back the updated spending package and end the shutdown, which entered its 42nd day on Tuesday.

Crucially, however, the deal has not resolved one of the shutdown’s most central issues – healthcare subsidies for 24 million Americans under the Affordable Care Act, which the Trump administration planned to cut.

For weeks, Democrats repeatedly blocked the bill’s passage in Congress, saying the measure was necessary to force the government to address escalating healthcare costs for low-income Americans.

Shortly before Wednesday’s vote, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson accused his Democratic colleagues of using American citizens as “leverage” in their “political game”, as he denounced them for preventing the resolution’s passage in September.

“Since that time, Senate Democrats have voted 14 times to close the government. Republicans have voted a collective 15 times to open the government for the people, and the Democrats voted that many times to close it,” he said.

As part of the deal breaking the impasse, Senate Republicans agreed to hold a vote on the issue by December, raising fears there could be another shutdown in January.

The agreement had also provoked anger among Democrats, who preferred to keep holding out, including Illinois Governor JB Pritzker – considered a contender for the 2028 presidential election – who called it an “empty promise” earlier this week.

David Smith, an associate professor at the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre, also described the agreement as “just a stopgap arrangement”.

“The deal that they’ve reached means most of the government will shut down again in January if they can’t come to another agreement,” he told Al Jazeera earlier this week.

Democrats who supported the deal were Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin from Illinois, John Fetterman from Pennsylvania, Catherine Cortez Masto and Jackie Rosen from Nevada, Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire, and Tim Kaine from Virginia.

Angus King, an independent from Maine, also backed the deal.

This is a breaking news story. More to follow shortly.

US President Donald Trump called the corruption trial against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a ‘political, unjustified prosecution’ as he requested the country’s president pardon him. However, under Israeli law, such a request can only be made by the person accused of wrongdoing, a legal representative, or a family member.

LONDON — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer refused to say Wednesday whether he would urge President Trump to drop his threat to sue the BBC for a billion dollars over the broadcaster’s edit of a speech he made after losing the 2020 presidential election.

During his weekly questioning in the House of Commons, Starmer was asked by Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, whether he would intervene in the row between Trump and the British public broadcaster, and to rule out the idea that the British people would hand over money to the U.S. president.

Instead of responding directly, Starmer reiterated the government’s line since the BBC’s director-general, Tim Davie, announced his resignation on Sunday because of the scandal.

“I believe in a strong and independent BBC,” he said. “Some would rather BBC didn’t exist, I’m not one of them.”

However, he added that “where mistakes are made, they do need to get their house in order.”

In an interview that aired Tuesday on Fox News, Trump said he intended to go through with his threat to sue the BBC, a century-old institution under growing pressure in an era of polarized politics and changing media viewing habits.

“I guess I have to,” he said. “Because I think they defrauded the public and they’ve admitted it.”

The president’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, sent the threat to the BBC over the way a documentary edited his Jan. 6, 2021, speech before a mob of his followers stormed the U.S. Capitol. The letter demanded an apology to the president and a “full and fair” retraction of the documentary along with other “false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading or inflammatory statements” about Trump.

If the BBC does not comply with the demands by 5 p.m. EST Friday, then Trump will enforce his legal rights, the letter said.

The row centers on an edition of the BBC’s flagship current affairs series “Panorama,” titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The third-party production company that made the film spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.”

Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

BBC Chairman Samir Shah apologized Monday for the misleading edit that he said gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action.”

In addition to Davie’s resignation, the news chief Deborah Turness quit Sunday over accusations of bias and misleading editing.

Pylas writes for the Associated Press.

Donald Trump “spent hours at my house” and “knew about the girls,” Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier accused of orchestrating sex trafficking of young girls, wrote in private emails House Democrats released Wednesday.

“Of course he knew about the girls,” Epstein said of Trump in an email to author and journalist Michael Wolff in early 2019, when Trump was nearing the end of his first term as President.

After months of political bickering over the well-connected sex offender’s documents, dubbed “the Epstein files,” Democrats on the House Oversight Committee publicly released some of Epstein’s emails to Wolff and Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of sex trafficking after Epstein’s death.

The emails are just a small part of a collection of 23,000 documents Epstein’s estate released to the committee and are sure to revive questions about what the president knew about Epstein’s sexual misconduct with girls and young women.

Trump has denied knowing anything about Epstein’s crimes and no investigation has tied Trump to them.

“The more Donald Trump tries to cover up the Epstein files, the more we uncover,” California Democrat Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) said in a statement as he released the documents.

“These latest emails and correspondence raise glaring questions about what else the White House is hiding and the nature of the relationship between Epstein and the President,” Garcia added. “The Department of Justice must fully release the Epstein files to the public immediately. The Oversight Committee will continue pushing for answers and will not stop until we get justice for the victims.”

Epstein, 66, died by suicide in a New York jail in August 2019, weeks after he was arrested and federally charged with sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. A watchdog report released last year found that negligence, misconduct and other failures at the jail contributed to his death.

More than a decade earlier, Epstein evaded federal criminal charges when he struck a plea deal in a south Florida case related to accusations that he molested dozens of girls.

As part of the agreement, Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges, including soliciting prostitution. He registered as a sex offender and served 13 months in jail but was allowed to leave six days a week to work at his office.

The House of Representatives will hold a session to vote on legislation to end the longest shutdown in US history.

BELÉM, Brazil — The expansive halls of the Amazon’s newly built climate summit hub echoed with the hum of air conditioners and the footsteps of delegates from around the world — scientists, diplomats, Indigenous leaders and energy executives, all converging for two frenetic weeks of negotiations.

Then Gov. Gavin Newsom rounded the corner, flanked by staff and security. They moved in tandem through the corridors on Tuesday as media swarmed and cellphone cameras rose into the air.

“Hero!” one woman shouted. “Stay safe — we need you,” another attendee said. Others didn’t hide their confusion at who the man with slicked-back graying hair causing such a commotion was.

“I’m here because I don’t want the United States of America to be a footnote at this conference,” Newsom said when he reached a packed news conference on his first day at the United Nations climate policy summit known as COP30.

In less than a year, the United States has shifted from rallying nations on combating climate change to rejecting the science altogether under President Trump, whose brash governing style spawned in part from his reality-show roots.

Newsom has engineered his own evolution when coping with Trump — moving from sharp but reasoned criticism to name-calling and theatrical attacks on the president and his Republican allies. Newsom’s approach adds fire to America’s political spectacle — part governance, part made-for-TV drama. But on climate, it’s not all performance.

California’s carbon market and zero-emission mandates have given the state outsize influence at summits such as COP30, where its policies are seen as both durable and exportable. The state has invested billions in renewables, battery storage and electrifying buildings and vehicles and has cut greenhouse gas emissions by 21% since 2000 — even as its economy grew 81%.

“Absolutely,” he said when asked whether the state is in effect standing in for the United States at climate talks. “And I think the world sees us in that light, as a stable partner, a historic partner … in the absence of American leadership. And not just absence of leadership, the doubling down of stupid in terms of global leadership on clean energy.”

Newsom has honed a combative presence online — trading barbs with Trump and leaning into satire, especially on social media, tactics that mirror the president’s. Critics have argued that it’s contributing to a lowering of the bar when it comes to political discourse, but Newsom said he doesn’t see it that way.

“I’m trying to call that out,” Newsom said, adding that in a normal political climate, leaders should model civility and respect. “But right now, we have an invasive species — in the vernacular of climate — by the name of Donald Trump, and we got to call that out.”

At home, Newsom recently scored a political win with Proposition 50, the ballot measure he championed to counter Trump’s effort to redraw congressional maps in Republican-led states. On his way to Brazil, he celebrated the victory with a swing through Houston, where a rally featuring Texas Democrats looked more like a presidential campaign stop than a policy event — one of several moments in recent months that have invited speculation about a White House run that he insists he hasn’t launched.

Those questions followed him to Brazil. It was the first topic posed from a cluster of Brazilian journalists in Sao Paulo, Brazil’s largest city and financial hub, where Newsom had flown to speak Monday with climate investors in what he conceded sounded more like a campaign speech.

“I think it has to,” said Newson, his talking points scribbled on yellow index cards still in his pocket from an earlier meeting. “I think people have to understand what’s going on, because otherwise you’re wasting everyone’s time.”

In a low-lit luxury hotel adorned with Brazilian artwork and deep-seated chairs, Newsom showcased the well-practiced pivot of a politician avoiding questions about his future. His most direct answer about his presidential prospects came in a recent interview with “CBS News Sunday Morning,” on which Newsom was asked whether he would give serious thought after the 2026 midterm elections to a White House bid. Newsom responded: “Yeah, I’d be lying otherwise.”

He laughed when asked by The Times how often he has fielded questions about his plans in 2028 in recent days, and quickly deflected.

“It’s not about me,” he said before fishing a malaria pill out of his suit pocket and chasing it with borrowed coffee from a nearby carafe. “It’s about this moment and people’s anxiety and concern about this moment.”

Ann Carlson, a UCLA environmental law professor, said Newsom’s appearance in Brazil is symbolically important as the federal government targets Californa’s decades-old authority to enforce its own environmental standards.

“California has continued to signal that it will play a leadership role,” she said.

The Trump administration confirmed to The Times that no high-level federal representative will attend COP30.

“President Trump will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said.

For his own part, Trump told world leaders at the United Nations in September that climate change is a “hoax” and “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.”

Since Trump returned to office for a second term, he’s canceled funding for major clean energy projects such as California’s hydrogen hub and moved to revoke the state’s long-held authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than those of the federal government. He’s also withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement, a seminal treaty signed a decade ago in which world leaders established the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels and preferably below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). That move is seen as pivotal in preventing the worst effects of climate change.

Leaders from Chile and Colombia called Trump a liar for rejecting climate science, while Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva broadly warned that extremist forces are fabricating fake news and “condemning future generations to life on a planet altered forever by global warming.”

Terry Tamminen, former California Environmental Protection Agency secretary under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, contended that with the Trump administration’s absence, Newsom’s attendance at COP30 thrusts even more spotlight on the governor.

“If the governor of Delaware goes, it may not matter,” Tamminen said. “But if our governor goes, it does. It sends a message to the world that we’re still in this.”

The U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of state leaders, said three governors from the United States attended COP30-related events in Brazil: Newsom, Wisconsin’s Tony Evers and New Mexico’s Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Despite the warm reception Newsom has received in Belém, environmentalists in California have recently questioned his commitment.

In September, Newsom signed a package of bills that extended the state’s signature cap-and-trade program through 2045. That program, rebranded as cap-and-invest, limits greenhouse gas emissions and raises billions of dollars for the state’s climate priorities. But, at the same time, he also gave final approval to a bill that will allow oil and gas companies to drill as many as 2,000 new wells per year through 2036 in Kern County. Environmentalists called that backsliding; Newsom called it realism, given the impending refinery closures in the state that threaten to drive up gas prices.

“It’s not an ideological exercise,” he said. “It’s a very pragmatic one.”

Leah Stokes, a UC Santa Barbara political scientist, called his record “pretty complex.”

“In many ways, he is one of the leaders,” she said. “But some of the decisions that he’s made, especially recently, don’t move us in as good a direction on climate.”

Newsom is expected to return to the climate summit Wednesday before traveling deeper into the Amazon, where he plans to visit reforestation projects. The governor said he wanted to see firsthand the region often referred to as “the lungs of the world.”

“It’s not just to admire the absorption of carbon from the rainforest,” Newsom said. “But to absorb a deeper spiritual connection to this issue that connects all of us. … I think that really matters in a world that can use a little more of that.”

Nov. 12 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump signaled his intention to push ahead with a $1 billion lawsuit against the BBC, saying he had an obligation due to the “fraudulent” way it had edited a speech he made right before the Capitol Hill riots in 2021.

Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday night, Trump said he had to take legal action because the public service broadcaster “butchered up” the speech he gave to supporters outside the White House on Jan. 6 and had deceived viewers.

The speech formed part of a documentary, Trump: A Second Chance, that went out on the BBC network just before the Nov. 4 U.S. elections, although the BBC maintains that it was not available to view outside of the United Kingdom.

“They defrauded the public and they’ve admitted it. They actually changed my Jan. 6 speech which was a beautiful speech, which was a very calming speech, and made it sound radical. It was very dishonest,” Trump said.

Trump said he had a duty to go ahead and file a defamation lawsuit against the BBC because he “can’t allow people to do that,” in the same way he had been forced to pursue CBS over an interview with Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris that aired four weeks before the election on Nov. 4.

CBS settled Trump’s $20 billion claim out of court for $16 million in July.

The BBC has acknowledged receipt of a letter from Trump’s legal team demanding a “full and fair retraction” of the documentary, an immediate apology, and that the BBC “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.”

It said the BBC must comply by 5 p.m. EST on Friday, to which the corporation has said it would respond “directly in due course.”

The director-general and the head of news both resigned Sunday after it was revealed the corporation’s Panorama program spliced together two sections of Trump’s speech 53 minutes apart without telling viewers it had done so.

The edited version made it sound as if Trump was inciting his supporters to march on the Capitol and “fight” when what he actually said was that they should all walk down to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically” and “we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

No complaint was raised at the time the documentary aired but the incident has reignited a furious domestic debate about the BBC’s editorial impartiality and the internal culture of the institution which is funded by a $229 annual license that households with a TV must pay.

If the BBC chose to fight the case, which Trump’s lawyer intends to file in the state of Florida, significant obstacles mean long odds on Trump’s chances of prevailing.

For his lawsuit to succeed, his team would have to convince a court that Trump had “suffered overwhelming financial and reputational harm” as a result of the program, as stated in the letter to the BBC.

BBC Chairman Samir Shah has already apologized for what he said was an “error of judgment.”

“We accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgment,” Shah told a parliamentary committee Monday.

However, while that could go against the corporation, as an apparent admission of liability, the case would still have to overcome major challenges.

Legal expert Joshua Rozenberg KC called for the BBC to go further and “draft a retraction and apology in terms that the president’s lawyer finds acceptable” and for the retraction to feature as prominently as the original broadcast.

Writing on his blog post Tuesday, Rozenburg said the BBC would have to pay compensation but suggested that, based on previous legal claims brought by Trump, it would be an out-of-court settlement.

“It won’t be cheap. But it will be cheaper than a billion dollars,” he said.

Reporting from Washington — President Trump is expected to move quickly to nominate a replacement for retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s soon-to-be-vacant Supreme Court seat, and two leading candidates are veteran Washington, D.C., appellate Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a former Notre Dame law professor and recent Trump appointee to the 7th Circuit in Chicago.

They emerged from a list of more than two dozen potential nominees put together by the conservative Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation.

The list was Trump’s idea and it has proven effective, said Leonard Leo, a Federalist Society official who is advising the White House. It told Republican voters that he was serious about appointing only reliable conservatives to the high court, he said.

Unlike in decades past, when presidents and their top lawyers scrambled to find a qualified nominee when a vacancy suddenly arose, the Federalist Society list is the result of careful screening. A team of lawyers read and analyzed everything written or said by the candidates.

Their unofficial motto is “No more Souters,” a reference to now-retired Justice David H. Souter, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. Souter was a little-known judge from New Hampshire, but the White House team assured Republicans he was a conservative.

They were wrong. Souter was careful and cautious as a judge and devoted to precedent. But his leanings were moderate to liberal. In 1992, Souter along with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor joined to uphold the right to abortion announced two decades earlier in Roe vs. Wade.

Conservatives are determined never to make the same mistake again.

Kavanaugh, 53, grew up in Washington and is the favorite of many conservative lawyers here. He went to Yale Law School and clerked at the Supreme Court for Kennedy alongside Neil M. Gorsuch, who joined the court last year as Trump’s first appointment. Kavanaugh was a top deputy to independent counsel Kenneth Starr in the long investigation of President Clinton, and he drafted the Starr Report that led to Clinton’s impeachment. He also joined the legal team that represented George W. Bush in the fight over the recount in the 2000 presidential election.

Kavanaugh worked in the White House counsel’s office for Bush and later served as his staff secretary.

In 2003, Bush nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but Democrats initially blocked his confirmation. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called him a “very bright legal foot soldier” who has been in the middle of every partisan legal battle. But Kavanaugh finally won confirmation in 2006.

Since then, Kavanaugh has written hundreds of opinions, and he is known for always staking out a conservative position.

“He is much more conservative in his approach to law than Justice Kennedy,” said Justin Walker, a University of Louisville law professor who clerked for Kavanaugh at the appeals court and Kennedy at the Supreme Court. “There is no guesswork with Judge Kavanaugh. He is extremely predictable.”

Walker cited, as an example, Kavanaugh’s support for the right to own a semiautomatic rifle under the 2nd Amendment. In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a District of Columbia ordinance that prohibited residents from having a handgun at home. The same plaintiff later claimed the right to possess a semiautomatic weapon, but lost by a 2-1 vote in the D.C. Circuit, Walker noted. Kavanaugh wrote a lengthy dissent arguing that the 2nd Amendment included the right to have such a weapon.

The Supreme Court, however, has rejected appeals raising that issue, which has the effect of upholding laws and ordinances that banned such assault weapons.

Last fall, Kavanaugh was involved in a quick-moving dispute over whether a migrant teenager in Texas could be released from immigration custody to obtain an abortion. A federal judge cleared the way, but Kavanaugh wrote a 2-1 decision siding with Trump administration lawyers and blocking the abortion for up to 10 more days. The full appeals court intervened and overturned his ruling. In dissent, he faulted his more liberal colleagues as wrongly creating a “new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain abortion on demand.”

Like many judges, he has avoided any direct comments in his legal opinions about Roe vs. Wade, the landmark abortion ruling that will loom large over upcoming confirmation hearings.

In contrast to Kavanaugh, Barrett, 46, is a newcomer with a sparse record as a judge. She is a product of the University of Notre Dame and South Bend, Ind. She went law school at Notre Dame and spent a few years in Washington as a law clerk for D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman and Justice Antonin Scalia. She returned in 2002 to teach law at Notre Dame.

Barrett was narrowly confirmed by the Senate in November, and now commutes a few days a week from South Bend to downtown Chicago.

She has, however, written and spoken frequently about the importance of her Catholic faith and in her belief that life begins at conception. In a 2003 scholarly article, she suggested Roe vs. Wade was an “erroneous decision.”

During her Senate hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she had read Barrett’s writings, adding that the “dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.”

That comment triggered a sharp backlash from Barrett’s defenders and others, who said the nominee was being criticized for her faith.

But if Barrett is the nominee, Democrats and liberal activists are certain to focus on her views about abortion and the role they might play if the court is asked to overturn Roe.

The latest from Washington »

More stories from David G. Savage »

[email protected]

Twitter: DavidGSavage

Decision follows Senate vote to reopen the government, but legal saga has brought uncertainty to millions who need food assistance.

The highest court in the United States has extended a previous order allowing President Donald Trump to withhold food assistance to tens of millions of people in the US amid the government shutdown.

In a ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court extended a previous pause that it had granted the Trump administration after a lower court ordered the government to pay out about $4bn in food benefits for November.

Advocates have said that withholding the funds could have calamitous effects on people who depend on food benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), although the issue could be made moot as the shutdown appears to be drawing to a close.

The Supreme Court decision comes one day after the Senate on Monday approved compromise legislation that would end the longest government shutdown in US history, breaking a weeks-long impasse that has disrupted food benefits for millions, left hundreds of thousands of federal workers unpaid and snarled air traffic as a lack of air traffic controllers forced cancellations.

The battle over SNAP benefits has underlined the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to slash government employment and roll back access to programmes that it had previously criticised under the auspices of the shutdown.

While it is common for some benefits and programmes to face delays or other issues during government shutdowns, food benefits ceased entirely at the start of November for the first time in the programme’s 60-year history.

The decision set off a series of legal challenges and several weeks of back-and-forth rulings that have kept those who rely on food assistance in a state of limbo.

A judge had ruled last week that the government must fully fund benefits for November, a decision the administration challenged. The Supreme Court had paused that order, but the stay was set to expire on Thursday.

TORONTO — Top diplomats from the Group of 7 industrialized democracies are converging on southern Ontario as tensions rise between the U.S. and traditional allies such as Canada over defense spending, trade and uncertainty over President Trump’s ceasefire plan in Gaza and efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war.

Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand said in an interview with the Associated Press that “the relationship has to continue across a range of issues” despite trade pressures as she prepared to host U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and their counterparts from Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Anand also invited the foreign ministers of Australia, Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, South Korea, South Africa and Ukraine.

She said “15 foreign ministers are coming from around the world to the Great White North and funnily enough on the week of our first large snowfall.”

“The work that Canada is doing is continuing to lead multilaterally in an era of a greater movement to protectionism and unilateralism,” Anand said. “And in an era of economic and geopolitical volatility.”

Canada’s G-7 hosting duties this year have been marked by strained relations with its North American neighbor, predominantly over Trump’s imposition of tariffs on Canadian imports. But the entire bloc of allies is confronting major turbulence over the Republican president’s demands on trade and various proposals to halt worldwide conflicts.

One main point of contention has been defense spending. All G-7 members except for Japan are members of NATO, and Trump has demanded that the alliance partners spend 5% of their annual gross domestic product on defense. While a number of countries have agreed, others have not. Among the G-7 NATO members, Canada and Italy are furthest from that goal.

There have also been G-7 disagreements over the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, with Britain, Canada and France announcing they would recognize a Palestinian state even without a resolution to the conflict. With the Russia-Ukraine war, most G-7 members have taken a tougher line on Russia than Trump has.

The two-day meeting in Niagara-on-the-Lake on Lake Ontario near the U.S. border comes after Trump ended trade talks with Canada because the Ontario provincial government ran an anti-tariff advertisement in the U.S. that upset him. That followed a spring of acrimony, since abated, over Trump’s insistence that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney apologized for the ad and said last week that he’s ready to resume trade talks when the Americans are ready.

“The work that we are doing in the G-7 is about finding areas where we can cooperate multilaterally,” Anand said. “This conversation will continue regardless of other efforts that we are making on the trade side.”

Anand said she will have a meeting with Rubio but noted that a different minister leads the U.S. trade file. The U.S. president has placed greater priority on addressing his grievances with other nations’ trade policies than on collaboration with G-7 allies.

“Every complex relationship has numerous touch points,” Anand said. “On the trade file, there is continued work to be done — just as there is work to be done on the numerous touch points outside the trade file, and that’s where Secretary Rubio and I come in because the relationship has to continue across a range of issues.”

Anand said Rubio asked her during a breakfast meeting in Washington last month to play a role in bringing countries to the table to ensure that Trump’s Gaza ceasefire plan has longevity.

U.S. officials said Rubio, who also may have meetings with other G-7 counterparts and at least one of the invited non-G-7 foreign ministers, would be focused on initiatives to halt fighting in Ukraine and Gaza, maritime security, Haiti, Sudan, supply chain resiliency and critical minerals.

Canada’s priorities include ending the war in Ukraine, Arctic security and security in Haiti. There will be a working lunch on energy and critical minerals that are needed for anything from smartphones to fighter jets. Canada has 34 critical minerals and metals that the Pentagon is eager for and investing in for national security.

Anand will probably try to use the meeting to improve the working relationship with Rubio, said Daniel Béland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal.

“Yet, a key factor shaping that relationship is beyond her control: President Trump’s mercurial behavior,” Béland said.

“The expectations are quite low, but avoiding drama and fostering basic common ground on issues like Ukraine and Russia would be helpful,” Béland said.

Gillies and Lee write for the Associated Press.