Trumps

Venezuela has accused Washington of a “colonial threat” against its sovereignty after US President Donald Trump said he was shutting down the country’s airspace.

The Latin American nation is on high alert after United States attacks on boats nearby and a major military deployment in the Caribbean that includes the world’s largest aircraft carrier.

Trump says he is fighting drug trafficking.

But is that the real reason?

Presenter: Bernard Smith

Guests:

Mark Pfeifle – US Republican strategist and a former White House deputy national security adviser

Paul Dobson – Independent journalist and political analyst in Venezuela

Christopher Sabatini – Senior research fellow for Latin America at Chatham House

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers from both parties said Sunday that they support congressional reviews of U.S. military strikes against vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, citing a published report that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a verbal order for all crew members to be killed as part of a Sept. 2 attack.

The lawmakers said they did not know whether last week’s Washington Post report was true, and some Republicans were skeptical, but they said attacking survivors of an initial missile strike poses serious legal concerns.

“This rises to the level of a war crime if it’s true,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.).

Rep. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio), when asked about a follow-up strike aimed at people no longer able to fight, said Congress does not have information that that happened. He noted that leaders of the Armed Services Committee in both the House and Senate have opened investigations.

“Obviously, if that occurred, that would be very serious and I agree that that would be an illegal act,” Turner said.

Turner said there are concerns in Congress about the attacks on vessels that the Trump administration says are transporting drugs, but the allegation regarding the Sept. 2 attack “is completely outside anything that has been discussed with Congress, and there is an ongoing investigation.”

The comments from lawmakers during news show appearances come as the administration escalates a lethal maritime campaign that it says is needed to combat drug trafficking into the United States.

On Saturday, President Trump said the airspace “above and surrounding” Venezuela should be considered “closed in its entirety,” an assertion that raised more questions about the U.S. pressure on Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. Maduro’s government accused Trump of making a ”colonial threat” and seeking to undermine the South American country’s sovereignty.

After the Post’s report, Hegseth said Friday on X that “fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland.”

“Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict — and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command,” Hegseth wrote.

Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and its top Democrat, Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, said in a joint statement late Friday that the committee “will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.”

That was followed Saturday by the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, and ranking Democratic member, Washington Rep. Adam Smith, issuing a joint statement saying the panel was committed to “providing rigorous oversight of the Department of Defense’s military operations in the Caribbean.”

“We take seriously the reports of follow-on strikes on boats alleged to be ferrying narcotics in the SOUTHCOM region and are taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question,” Rogers and Smith said, referring to U.S. Southern Command.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), asked about the Sept. 2 attack, said Hegseth deserves a chance to present his side.

“We should get to the truth. I don’t think he would be foolish enough to make this decision to say, ‘Kill everybody, kill the survivors,’ because that’s a clear violation of the law of war,” Bacon said. “So, I’m very suspicious that he would’ve done something like that because it would go against common sense.”

Kaine and Turner appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” and Bacon was on ABC’s “This Week.”

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

On Tuesday night, President Trump once again emboldened the violent far-right when he deflected a debate moderator’s request to tell those groups to stand down, instead responding that one such organization, the Proud Boys, should “stand back and stand by,” adding, “Somebody has got to do something about antifa and the left.”

Here’s what you need to know about the far-right movement in the U.S. and why the president’s remarks were significant.

What does ‘far right’ mean?

There is no single definition of what it means to be “far right,” which is a broad term applied to a fragmented series of groups and ideologies that have operated along the fringes of U.S. politics, some for well over a century. Such groups embrace ideals of white racial purity, ultranationalism, “Western civilization” or male dominance. They have often expressed hostility to Black people, immigrants, members of certain religious groups (typically Jews, Muslims and Catholics), left-wing organizations, feminists, the federal government and even liberal democracy itself.

Far-right groups are also often labeled as racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, fascists, “alt-right,” neo-Nazis, neo-Confederates, chauvinists and militias, with the distinction frequently depending on their history or ideology. Historically, America’s best-known right-wing extremist organization is the Ku Klux Klan, which was violently dedicated to preserving white power after the Confederacy’s defeat in the Civil War brought new rights to formerly enslaved Black Americans.

The Klan’s power has waned, but such groups continue to appear in the public sphere. Many Americans will be most familiar with their gathering at the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., where far-right groups clashed with anti-racist protesters, killing one woman.

Who are the Proud Boys?

The Anti-Defamation League, which monitors extremists, describes the Proud Boys as “violent, nationalistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and misogynistic,” but says “its members represent a range of ethnic backgrounds, and its leaders vehemently protest any allegations of racism.”

Its membership is estimated to be in the hundreds, organized into local chapters that have attended public rallies and protests and sometimes violently confronted left-wing protesters. Its founder, Gavin McInnes, describes the group as a “pro-Western fraternity,” but the Anti-Defamation League says it has “many of the hallmarks of a gang, and its members have taken part in multiple acts of brutal violence and intimidation.”

On Wednesday, media outlets in Portland, Ore., reported that one Proud Boy member had been arrested on suspicion of assault and pointing a gun at anti-fascist protesters at an Aug. 22 confrontation in the city.

What is Trump’s relationship to the far right?

Trump’s groundbreaking 2016 presidential campaign energized far-right groups as he made harsh attacks on immigrants, Muslims, liberals and the idea of America as a collaborative participant in international diplomacy and trade. He embraced what are sometimes called “white grievance” politics, attracting large numbers of white voters, most frequently men, who believed that they themselves had been the victims of racial discrimination.

After winning, Trump populated his White House with hard-line conservatives such as Stephen K. Bannon, whose website Breitbart had been a key platform for elevating the so-called “alt-right,” which turned out to just be another name for fascism.

This drew praise from the far right, which felt that in Trump it now had a vessel to inject its own extremist politics into the mainstream after decades of marginalization, humiliation and defeat.

As The Times reported in 2016, David Duke, a former Klan grand wizard, declared that “the fact that Donald Trump’s doing so well, it proves that I’m winning.” Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute, who called for a separate white nation, said, “Before Trump, our identity ideas, national ideas, they had no place to go.” Andrew Anglin, operator of the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer, said, “Virtually every alt-right Nazi I know is volunteering for the Trump campaign.”

How has Trump talked about the far right in the past?

It’s typical for politicians to publicly distance themselves from their most extreme supporters, usually to avoid alienating moderates or energizing opponents. But Trump, who has sometimes retweeted Twitter accounts associated with white nationalists, has often stumbled, prevaricated, pleaded ignorance or shifted blame to the left when confronted about his support from the far right.

In 2016, after retweeting a quote by Benito Mussolini, the Italian fascist leader who was allied with Adolf Hitler, Trump said, “Look, Mussolini was Mussolini … and I know who said it,” calling it “a very good quote, an interesting quote.”

Asked to disavow Duke and the KKK, Trump evaded, saying, “I don’t know anything about David Duke. I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know.”

After the deadly 2017 Charlottesville rally, Trump told reporters: “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis; I’ve condemned many different groups,” but said he believed that not all of the right-wing participants were neo-Nazis, and that “you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.”

That comment caused an uproar among Trump’s critics, who took the remark as Trump calling neo-Nazis “very fine people” and who denounced his unwillingness to take a hard stand against racists while the nation was rattled by its largest fascist gathering in years.

What Trump said at the debate

At Tuesday night’s debate, moderator Chris Wallace gave Trump yet another chance to denounce far-right radicals, and the president once again created an uproar with his unwillingness to denounce extremist supporters.

“Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities … ?” Wallace asked.

“Sure, I’m willing to do that. I would say, I would say, almost everything I see is from the left wing, not from the right wing,” Trump said. “I’m willing to do anything. I want to see peace.”

“Then do it, sir,” Wallace said.

“Say it. Do it. Say it,” Democratic nominee Joe Biden said.

“You want to call ’em — what do you want to call ’em? Give me a name, give me a name,” Trump said. “Who would you like me to condemn?”

Wallace and Biden, talking over each other, suggested “white supremacists” and the right-wing group the Proud Boys.

“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by — but I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left,” Trump said.

Many listeners, including members of the Proud Boys, saw Trump’s response as a sign of support, the opposite of a denunciation.

Facing widespread criticism afterward, Trump attempted Wednesday to walk back his remark, saying, “I don’t know who Proud Boys are, but whoever they are, they have to stand down, let enforcement do their work.” But he reiterated, “now, antifa is a real problem, because the problem is on the left.”

Pressed again by a reporter to denounce white supremacists, Trump responded, “I’ve always denounced any form of any of that.”

Amid heightened Japan-China tensions, US President Donald Trump spoke by telephone with Chinese President Xi Jinping. While Trump termed it a positive development, stating he would visit China in April 2026, China claimed that it categorically made it clear that “Taiwan’s return to China was an ‘integral part of the postwar international order.” While it has been reported that Trump requested a phone call with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, the details of the conversation between the two haven’t been made public yet.

Trump’s claim of “extremely strong” US-China relations has once again seized global attention. Earlier, last month, just ahead of his highly anticipated meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Busan, South Korea, Trump boldly announced on Truth Social, “THE G2 WILL BE CONVENING SHORTLY!”

Unsurprisingly, the statement sparked widespread discussion, directly invoking China and seemingly reviving the long-dormant G2 concept, an idea previously floated by former President Barack Obama.

This apparent attempt to resurrect the “G2” notion, which envisions shared global leadership between the US and China, marks a notable rhetorical shift and is surprising given that Trump has been hawkish on China even during his first term as the president. By invoking it, Washington has brought back a concept dismissed as a faulty trade-off, given the persistent and often adversarial nature of US-China relations. Media analyses suggest that this move reflects a growing recognition within the US of China’s rising power and an uneasy acknowledgement of its near-equal status on the world stage. The renewed attention signals an implicit acceptance within American policy circles of China’s expanding international influence and the shifting balance of global power.

For China, however, the idea holds little appeal. First, China continues to present itself as a developing country, aspiring to lead the Global South and, eventually, to achieve broader global influence. Unlike the West, China sees strategic value in retaining the support of developing nations to bolster its legitimacy. While it aims to surpass the US militarily, economically, and technologically, it is unlikely to embrace a bilateral framework implying formalized co-governance of the world. Second, the ideological, strategic, and global ambitions gap between China and the US remains vast, limiting the feasibility of any institutionalized G2 arrangement. Third, if such a framework were ever to exist, it would likely involve broader coalitions of nations with differing ideologies, capacities, and priorities, rather than a US-China duopoly. In this light, the G2 concept appears even less plausible for China in 2025 than it did in the 2000s.

While much commentary has focused on how this discourse may be interpreted in China, the implications extend far beyond the bilateral relationship. Washington’s allies and partners across the Indo-Pacific are closely observing these developments. For many in the region, stability in US-China relations is desirable, as it would help mitigate the risks of confrontation, economic disruption, regional instability, and global upheavals. Yet Trump’s rhetoric has also generated unease among America’s regional partners regarding Washington’s long-term strategic intentions.

Concerns are growing that a return to the G2 framework could signal a weakening of US commitment to the Indo-Pacific, particularly in terms of security and regional order. While sustained engagement with China is widely accepted as necessary, framing the relationship as one of shared global governance may alarm America’s allies and partners, especially the Quad countries, the Philippines, and Taiwan. For these countries, any suggestion of a US-China condominium raises doubts about the credibility of the US’s status as a security guarantor and its assurances of collective defense and regional stability.

From the US perspective, reviving the G2 discourse may appear advantageous to smooth the way for a rare earth materials deal with China or to ease bilateral tensions. But fundamental differences and rivalry cannot be erased: China’s ultimate goal is to overtake the US. In all likelihood, China will view G2 rhetoric skeptically, interpreting it as a sign of US weakness and declining influence in the Indo-Pacific.

The Xi-Trump phone call and China’s reiteration of the Taiwan claim put pressure on Trump’s G2 plan. How Trump would manage ties with Japan and Taiwan while building relations with China is an issue worthy of international attention.

Trump’s episodic and erratic approach to China and the region risks eroding the trust the US has painstakingly built with its partners. There is little chance that countries such as India, Japan, or the Philippines would accept a bipolar world dominated solely by the US and China. Rather than serving as a stabilizer, the G2 concept is more likely to be seen as an attempt to divide the world into two poles once again, or worse, as a signal that the US is content with a bipolar world rather than a genuinely multipolar order.

Even if the G2 never materializes, the rhetoric has already strengthened China’s position while placing the US in a strategic bind. In effect, it is a win-win for China but a lose-lose for America. There are limitations to America First not only for the region but also for America itself and its foreign policy. The Trump administration’s path would do well to seriously consider the perspectives of its allies and partners, rather than advancing a strategy that ultimately benefits China.

For over an hour Tuesday night, Presidential Trump vied with pugnacious Trump.

The White House had promised a conciliatory and uplifting State of the Union address, which stood to reason. It’s one thing to inveigh against the mess Trump said he inherited a year ago and another to laud the job he claims to have done cleaning it up.

FULL COVERAGE: State of the Union »

Gone, then, was the wreckage, the ruin and the dystopian “American carnage” he deplored in the glowering speech at his inauguration. Instead, Trump offered a vision of hopefulness and light — for a time, anyway.

“This is our new American moment,” he said loftily in the early moments of his address. “There has never been a better time to start living the American dream.”

But those grace notes were soon overshadowed by an increasingly harsh tone, as though the president couldn’t or didn’t care to contain his more ad-libbed and aggressive self.

He needled Democrats over the partial dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, one of his predecessor’s proudest achievements. He resurrected the controversy over the national anthem and the dissent of kneeling black athletes.

When he spoke of immigration, perhaps the touchiest issue facing a gridlocked Congress, he placed it in a dark frame, with talk of gang violence, of alien intruders stealing jobs and a suggestion of unending “chain” migrants — aunts, uncles, cousins and other family members — leaching taxpayer dollars.

In his closest approximation to an olive branch, Trump said he would support a proposal offering a path to citizenship for 1.8 million children — so-called Dreamers — who were brought to America illegally by their parents. But only, he said, if Democrats would agree to a border wall and other changes in legal immigration they consider anathema.

The result was groans and hisses and boos from that side of the House chamber.

The annual speech to Congress is one of Washington’s most carefully choreographed set pieces, and for portions of it Trump hewed closely to a familiar script

He assayed the state of the union, pronouncing it “strong.” He outlined an ambitious agenda — which lawmakers will mostly ignore — crowed about his achievements, made a feint in the direction of bipartisanship and saluted a large number of invited guests who served as props representing different bullet points (immigration, a strong military, the opioid addiction crisis) of his speech.

It was all terribly conventional, but only to a point.

There were many long sections that could just have easily been delivered at one of Trump’s roisterous “Make America Great Again” campaign rallies, down to the moment when the ranks of Republican lawmakers broke into a lusty chant of “USA! USA!” as the president, chin out, approvingly took in the scene.

The contrast to the last time Trump stood in the well of the House was striking.

Eleven months ago, he delivered a more subdued performance, earning plaudits and generating widespread talk of a presidential turning point or, in that most overused expression, a pivot toward a more staid and conformist style of governance.

Then, days later, Trump was back to tweeting about a “bad (or sick)” President Obama bugging Trump Tower, a figment that roused his political base but instantly banished any Democratic goodwill or notions of presidential normalcy.

Trump has shattered political convention in so many ways that it is difficult to enumerate them all. One of the most significant is this: Although the economy is perking smartly along and Americans tell pollsters they feel better about their financial well-being than they have in years, the president has gotten very little credit.

Indeed, his approval rating stands at a historical low for a chief executive this early in his term, severing the long-standing correlation between economic good times and voter satisfaction.

His speech Tuesday night, with its prime-time prominence and audience reaching in the tens of millions, offered a chance to address that problem. “Over the last year, we have made incredible progress and achieved extraordinary success,” Trump said, reeling off a number of favorable economic statistics.

But much of the address seemed aimed at a far narrower audience.

To a greater degree than any recent president, Trump has used his time in office to appease the relatively narrow slice of the electorate — older, whiter, alienated, aggrieved — that placed him in power, opting not to reach out, bend and seek to broaden that coalition.

His uncompromising performance Tuesday night perfectly encapsulated that approach. Supporters found much to like and detractors plenty to reinforce their contempt.

It is too much to expect any single speech, much less one as politically freighted as the State of the Union, to instantly bridge such a yawning gap. If anything, though, Trump’s provocative remarks seemed likely to push warring Democrats and Republicans even further apart.

[email protected]

@markzbarabak

President Trump’s budget landed with a thud this week on Capitol Hill, where even conservative Republicans pronounced it “dead on arrival” and quailed at its proposed sharp cuts to social welfare programs such as food stamps, Meals on Wheels and Medicaid.

Yet some conservatives found plenty to like in the document. Consider the reaction of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington think tank heavily funded by hedge fund billionaire Pete Peterson.

“The President deserves credit for setting a fiscal goal and working to meet it,” the CRFB said in its gloss on the budget. Trump “should be commended for putting forward a number of specific and significant spending cuts to help address the debt.”

But one aspect of the budget plan really stuck in CRFB’s craw: It leaves Social Security and Medicare alone. “The President should focus on controlling the rising costs of Social Security and Medicare, two of the nation’s largest and fastest growing programs, which the budget almost completely ignores.”

Followers of CRFB’s history will recognize that caveat as classic Pete Peterson. As we reported in 2012, the 90-year-old billionaire has been on a long crusade to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. In a 1994 essay in the New York Review of Books, for example, he laid out his view that the only way to eliminate the federal deficit was by “reforming the entire system of entitlements — the fastest-growing part of the federal budget.” Where have we heard that line before?

In the piece, Peterson called Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid a “vast and largely unearned windfall we now give to the more affluent half of all American households.” By “more affluent half,” he meant all households then earning $32,000 or more. That figure would be about $53,520 in today’s dollars, close to the median income in the U.S. (In other words, after accounting for inflation, the standard of living of the median household hasn’t noticeably progressed in 23 years.)

The CRFB describes itself as “an independent source of objective policy analysis,” but in reality it’s joined to Peterson by the pocketbook. From 2012 through March 2016, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the billionaire’s chief pipeline of grants to nonprofits, contributed $8 million to the organization. Peterson sits on its board.

That board is replete with members of what the late muckraking journalist Jack Newfield called “the permanent government” — former members of Congress, agency heads, lobbyists, well-heeled academics, etc., etc. Their board service is unpaid. CRFB President Maya MacGuineas, a frequent speaker and editorialist on the deficit, collected about $394,000 in compensation in 2015, the latest year reported.

The CRFB’s viewpoint on Social Security typically echoes Peterson’s. Its emphasis on bringing the program into fiscal balance leans heavily on benefit cuts. Last December it praised a Social Security “permanent save” offered by conservative Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, that achieved its goal entirely through benefit cuts, without a dime of new revenues such as higher payroll taxes on the wealthy.

The CRFB tends to fret about proposals to raise the payroll tax, even though removing the cap on earned income subject to the tax (currently $127,200) would deliver the single biggest improvement to Social Security’s fiscal condition of any proposal on the table. “Solvency can’t be achieved simply by making the rich pay the same as everyone else or means-testing their benefits,” the committee lectured reformers last month.

In general, the committee approaches budget matters almost entirely through the blinkers of deficit reduction, giving very little attention to the street-level consequences of budget and spending policies. That mind set bubbles through its commentary on the Trump budget, many elements of which it labels “sensible and thoughtful reforms… worthy of consideration.”

The committee doesn’t specify which policies it’s referring to. It observes that the program cuts in the budget “fall disproportionately on programs that benefit children, low-income individuals, and promote investment,” but places that caveat in the context of the “almost inevitable consequence of virtually ignoring the rapid growth of Social Security and Medicare.” The committee does acknowledge, implicitly, that the budget’s $72-billion cut in disability benefits is a Social Security cut — it specifies that it’s Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors’ Insurance program that remains “largely untouched.”

The CRFB, to its credit, doesn’t give the Trump budget a free pass on its well-documented mathematical mendacity. Like other commentators, it labels the budget’s projection of annual growth exceeding 3% in the economy “rosy,” “extremely optimistic,” even “phony.” Responsible economic analysts place the likely annual growth rate closer to 1.8% to 1.9%.

The committee concludes, “tough choices, not wishful thinking, are needed to fix the debt.” As is typical of the analyses of this billionaire’s pet think tanks, the question it leaves unanswered is “tough for whom?” The inescapable implication is: tough on the beneficiaries of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. If those choices are made, the board members and officers of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget will do just fine.

Keep up to date with Michael Hiltzik. Follow @hiltzikm on Twitter, see his Facebook page, or email [email protected].

Return to Michael Hiltzik’s blog.

Finland’s Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen speaks to Talk to Al Jazeera about the prospects for a Russia-Ukraine peace deal, whether Trump can bring Putin and Zelenskyy to the negotiating table, and why Europe insists on clear red lines. From frozen Russian assets to NATO deterrence and Finland’s unique position as a NATO member sharing a long border with Russia, Valtonen explains what a realistic settlement would require, and why she believes Moscow is still not interested in genuine peace.

NEW YORK — After President Trump’s reported intervention, Paramount Pictures is set to distribute Brett Ratner’s “Rush Hour 4,” a project that Hollywood had eschewed after earlier sexual misconduct allegations against the director.

Paramount Pictures on Tuesday was in closing talks to distribute the film, according to a person close to the negotiations who requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to announce a deal. Paramount would be stepping in to take a distribution fee on the film, not finance it.

In 2017, during the #MeToo movement, six women said Ratner sexually harassed them in a Los Angeles Times report. Warner Bros., which had a $450-million co-financing deal with his production company, severed ties with Ratner. Ratner, who denied the allegations, hasn’t produced a film this decade.

But on Sunday, Semafor reported that Trump personally requested Paramount take on “Rush Hour 4.” Paramount recently merged with Skydance in an $8-billion deal that required regulatory approval from the Trump administration. Trump has praised the studio’s new chair and chief executive, David Ellison, the son of Oracle executive chair and prominent Trump supporter Larry Ellison.

The White House didn’t immediately comment Wednesday.

Ratner had been shopping “Rush Hour 4” after Warner Bros., which released the three previous films in the franchise, passed on the project. The movie would reteam Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker in the action-comedy series launched in 1998, with sequels in 2001 and 2007.

Ratner has managed to get one other film made: a documentary on First Lady Melania Trump. Earlier this year, Amazon MGM Studios acquired the film for a reported $40 million. It’s set to open in theaters Jan. 30.

Coyle writes for the Associated Press.

It has been a whiplash-inducing month for the American rancher, one of United States President Donald Trump’s most steadfast voting blocs.

Starting with an October 19 quip from Trump that the US would increase beef imports from Argentina to the ensuing rancher backlash against the announcement of an investigation into the hyperconsolidated US meatpacking industry and the dropping of tariffs on Brazilian beef, ranchers have found themselves caught between the president’s desires to appease both them and the American consumer in the face of high beef prices.

US ranchers have enjoyed rising cattle prices, largely the result of the lowest herd numbers for beef cattle since the 1950s. Other factors constricting supply include the closure of the Mexican border to live cattle due to concerns over screwworm and steep tariffs on foreign beef.

Cattle prices paid to ranchers are separate from consumer beef prices, which, as of September, were $6.32 for a pound (453 grams) of ground beef, an 11 percent rise from September 2024 when they were $5.67 a pound. The Bureau of Labor Statistics did not release economic data, including the consumer price index for last month, because of the government shutdown.

Trump had no patience for the typically loyal ranchers objecting to his plan to import more Argentinian beef, which they saw as a threat to their recent economic gains.

“If it weren’t for me, they would be doing just as they’ve done for the past 20 years – Terrible! It would be nice if they would understand that,” Trump wrote in an October post on his Truth Social platform.

While Corbitt Wall, a commercial cattle manager and market analyst, is clear that he “totally supports Trump and everything he does”, he also saw hubris and a misunderstanding of the cattle industry by the president.

“There was not a person in the cattle business on any level that was not insulted by that post,” he told Al Jazeera.

Wall religiously follows prices across the cattle trade from ranch to slaughterhouse and has watched the futures market for cattle slide down by more than 15 percent since Trump’s October 21 announcement.

Futures prices dictate what ranchers can expect to sell cattle for down the line and sway current sale prices as well. For ranchers’ sake, Wall said he hopes Trump leaves the cattle market alone.

“He doesn’t live in this world, in this cattle world, and doesn’t realise the impact that a statement can make in our business,” Wall said.

Years of rough seasons

Oregon rancher David Packham said that while cattle prices have jumped in ranchers’ favour, many are still struggling in the face of years of rough seasons.

Years of drought across the country raised feed costs for all and pushed some ranchers to sell off cattle. Sticker prices on farm equipment from tractors to pick-up trucks have ballooned as well, especially on the back of supply chain challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, and are expected to rise further on account of Trump’s tariffs.

Packham said he has regularly sold cattle at a loss and doesn’t want consumers to think ranchers are living high off the hog.

“I’m looking at a 40-year-old tractor that I use on a daily basis just to keep putting off replacing it, making repairs, although it’s difficult to find parts for now, just to keep it limping along because I couldn’t afford $100,000 for a new tractor,” Packham said. “When I say we’re not really making a whole lot of money, it’s because we have all this loss carryover.”

Packham was a registered Republican until Trump’s first term. The president’s Argentina comments and the subsequent chaos for the cattle industry have propped open a door for ranchers critical of Trump, but they represent a minority within the community, he said.

“I’m noticing more and more of them [ranchers] that had been cautiously neutral, that are now kind of like me and just saying, ‘You know what? No. This is bulls***. He’s a train wreck,’” Packham said.

‘Perennial issue’

One action ranchers can support, however, is Trump’s November 7 announcement of a Department of Justice investigation into the big four US meatpackers – Tyson, JBS, Cargill and National Beef – “for potential collusion, price fixing and price manipulation”.

Historically, ranchers looking to sell cattle have held little negotiating power as the four companies control more than 80 percent of the market.

However, a prior Department of Justice investigation into meatpacker price-fixing was started under the first Trump administration in 2020 due to a gulf created by falling cattle prices and rising consumer beef prices. The investigation continued under President Joe Biden’s administration but was never publicly concluded. According to Bloomberg News, the investigation was quietly closed with no findings just weeks before Trump announced the November antitrust probe.

James MacDonald, a research professor in agricultural and resource economics at the University of Maryland, views the administration’s antitrust investigation announcement as “entirely for political consumption”.

“It is a perennial issue that p***es off ranchers, and you can gain some political ground by attacking the packers,” MacDonald said.

Packham would prefer the new investigation to come at a different time and said that given the squeeze from the tight cattle market, packers are operating under slimmer margins and not from a position of absolute power.

On Friday, Tyson announced the closure of a Nebraska beef-processing plant that employed more than 3,000 people. MacDonald called the decision a “shock” indicative of the depths of the US beef shortage. The current low cattle inventory in the US came from years of drought, which wiped out grazing lands and slowed herd rebuilding. Replenishing the cattle supply chain is a years-long process.

“That’s sort of a fact and a fundamental, and it’s not going to change for a while,” MacDonald said.

MacDonald also doesn’t believe the increased Argentina imports will ease this shortage or lower prices as the country largely sends lower-grade, lean beef to the US, accounting for only 2 percent of imports. He expected that while the reintroduction of largely lean Brazilian beef will impact the import market, it holds less weight on overall beef supply.

McDonald also cited heifer retention numbers, which indicate how many female cattle that ranchers hold back to produce future herds years down the line, which are still low.

Tyson likely factored in these numbers when making the decision to shutter its Nebraska plant, and it doesn’t seem like the industry is expecting herd numbers to rebound either, McDonald told Al Jazeera.

“It’s Tyson saying we don’t think cattle supplies are going to recover anytime soon,” MacDonald said.

While the actual mechanisms of Trump’s recent policies might not budge consumers’ bottom lines or change the cattle market for the time being, Wall is more concerned about the ripple effects from the news cycle, saying ranchers “live and die” by the cattle markets. While his faith is shaken, Wall regardless believes that ranchers, conservative as ever, will show up for Trump when election time comes around.

“You look at what the other side has to offer, and there’s no way people are going to go for that,” Wall said. “So in the long run, they’ll stick with him.”

McALLEN, Texas — Yaakub Vijandre was preparing to go to work as a mechanic when six vehicles appeared outside his Dallas-area home. Federal agents jumped out, one pointed a weapon at him, and they took him into custody.

Vijandre is a recipient of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama-era program that has shielded hundreds of thousands of people from deportation since 2012 if they were brought to the United States as children and generally stayed out of trouble. The Trump administration said it targeted Vijandre over social media posts. The freelance videographer and pro-Palestinian activist described his early October arrest to his attorneys, who relayed the information to reporters.

His arrest and several others this year signal a change in how the U.S. is handling DACA recipients as President Trump’s administration reshapes immigration policy more broadly. The change comes as immigrants have face increased vetting, including of their social media, when they apply for visas, green cards, citizenship, or to request the release of their children from federal custody. The administration also has sought to deport foreign students for participating in pro-Palestinian activism.

DACA was created to shield recipients, commonly referred to as “Dreamers,” from immigration arrests and deportation. It also allows them to legally work in the U.S. Recipients reapply every two years. Previously if their status was in jeopardy, they would receive a warning and would still have a chance to fight it before immigration officers detained them and began efforts to deport them.

In response to questions about any changes, Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin issued a statement saying that people “who claim to be recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are not automatically protected from deportations. DACA does not confer any form of legal status in this country.” DACA recipients can lose status “for a number of reasons, including if they’ve committed a crime,” she said.

McLaughlin also claimed in a statement that Vijandre made social media posts “glorifying terrorism,” including one she said celebrated Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq who was killed in a U.S. strike in 2006.

An attorney for Vijandre, Chris Godshall-Bennett, said Vijandre’s social media activity is “clearly” protected speech. He also said the government has not provided details about the specific posts in court documents.

Vijandre is among about 20 DACA recipients who have been arrested or detained by immigration authorities since Trump took office in January, according to Home is Here, a campaign created by pro-DACA advocacy groups. The administration is seeking to end his DACA status, which could result in his being deported to the Philippines, a home he has not visited since his family came to the U.S. in 2001, when he was 14.

DACA has faced legal challenges

DACA survived the first Trump administration’s attempt to rescind the program when the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the administration did not take the proper steps to end it.

There have been other attempts to end the program or place restrictions on recipients.

This year, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that would deny work permits for DACA recipients who live in Texas. The Trump administration recently presented its plans to a federal judge who is determining how it will work.

The administration also has issued new restrictions on commercial driver’s licenses that would prevent DACA recipients and some other immigrants from getting them. Last year, 19 Republican states stripped DACA recipients’ access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. And the number of states where immigrant students can qualify for in-state tuition has dwindled since the Justice Department began suing states this year.

“This administration might not be trying to end DACA altogether the way that they did the first time around, but they are chipping away at it,” said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, spokesperson for United We Dream, which is part of Home is Here, the coalition keeping track of public cases of DACA recipients who have been detained.

Detained DACA recipients question their arrests

Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago Santiago, a 28-year-old activist from El Paso, was arrested in August despite showing immigration officers a valid work permit obtained through DACA.

Days later, federal officers arrested Paulo Cesar Gamez Lira as the 28-year-old father was arriving at his El Paso home with his children following a doctor’s appointment. Agents dislocated his shoulder, according to his attorneys.

Both Santiago and Gamez Lira were held for over a month while their attorneys petitioned for their release.

Marisa Ong, an attorney for Santiago and Gamez Lira, said the government failed to notify either of her clients of any intention to terminate their DACA status.

“DACA recipients have a constitutionally protected interest in their continued liberty,” Ong said, adding that “the government cannot take away that liberty without providing some valid reason.”

DACA recipients can lose their status if they are convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanors like those involving harming others, driving under the influence or drug distribution, or three or more misdemeanors. They can also lose their status if they pose a threat to national security or public safety.

DHS claimed in a statement that Santiago was previously charged with trespassing, possession of narcotics and drug paraphernalia and that Gamez Lira was previously arrested for marijuana possession.

Ong said that when attorneys sought their release “the government presented no evidence of any past misconduct by either individual.”

Vijandre, the Dallas-area man who was arrested in October, remains in a Georgia detention facility. His attorneys say he received notice two weeks before his arrest that the government planned to terminate his DACA status but that he wasn’t given a chance to fight it.

“I think that the administration has drawn a very clear line and at least for right now, between citizen and noncitizens, and their goal is to remove as many noncitizens from the country as possible and to make it as difficult as possible for noncitizens to enter the country,” Godshall-Bennett, Vijandre’s attorney, said.

Gonzalez writes for the Associated Press.

Officials from the US, Ukraine, and national security advisers from France, UK and Germany to hold talks in Geneva today to discuss plan to end the war.

HALIFAX, Canada — Several U.S. senators said Saturday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told them that the Trump administration’s plan for ending the Russia-Ukraine war that it is pressing Kyiv to accept is a Russian “wish list” and not the actual plan.

A State Department spokesperson denied their account, calling it “blatantly false.”

The 28-point peace plan was crafted by the Trump administration and the Kremlin without Ukraine’s involvement. It acquiesces to many Russian demands that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected on dozens of occasions, including giving up large pieces of territory. Trump says he wants Ukraine to accept the plan by late next week.

At a security conference in Canada, independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Republican Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said they spoke to Rubio after he reached out to some of them while on his way to Geneva for talks on the plan.

King said Rubio told them the plan “was not the administration’s plan” but a “wish list of the Russians.”

“This administration was not responsible for this release in its current form,” Rounds said. “They want to utilize it as a starting point.”

Rounds said that “it looked more like it was written in Russian to begin with.”

Rubio, who serves as both national security advisor and secretary of State, was expected to attend a meeting in Geneva on Sunday to discuss Washington’s proposal as part of a U.S. delegation, according to an American official who was not authorized to publicly discuss the U.S. participants before the meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesperson, denied the senators’ claim.

“As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians,” Pigott wrote on X.

The senators earlier Saturday said the plan would only reward Moscow for its aggression and send a message to other leaders who have threatened their neighbors.

The senators’ opposition to the plan follows criticism from other U.S. lawmakers, including some Republicans, none of whom have the power to block it.

“It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine,” King said during a panel discussion at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada.

Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed the proposal late Friday, saying that it “could form the basis of a final peace settlement” if the U.S. can get Ukraine and its European allies to agree.

Zelensky, in an address, did not reject the plan outright, but insisted on fair treatment while pledging to “work calmly” with Washington and other partners in what he called “truly one of the most difficult moments in our history.”

In its 17th year, about 300 people gather annually at the Halifax International Security Forum held at Halifax’s Westin hotel. The forum attracts military officials, U.S. senators, diplomats and scholars, but this year the Trump administration suspended participation of U.S. defense officials in events by think tanks, including the Halifax event.

A large number of U.S. senators made the trip this year in part because of strained relations between Canada and the United States. Trump has alienated America’s neighbor with his trade war and claims that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state. Many Canadians now refuse to travel to the U.S., and border states like Shaheen’s are seeing a dramatic drop in tourism.

“There’s real concern about that strain. That’s one reason why there’s such a big delegation is here,” the New Hampshire Democrat said. “I will continue to object to what the president is doing in terms about tariffs and his comments because they are not only detrimental to Canada and our relationship, but I think they are detrimental globally. They show a lack of respect of sovereign nations.”

Gillies writes for the Associated Press.

The United States has revealed all 28 points of its proposal to end the Russia-Ukraine war to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The plan, which has been heavily criticised as far too favourable to Russia by many observers, is in its draft stage and has yet to be made public. However, a Ukrainian official is understood to have provided the details to international media.

Here is a closer look at the points and the significance of this plan.

What are the 28 points of Trump’s proposal for Ukraine?

1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.

2. A comprehensive, non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled.

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and NATO will not expand further.

4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the US, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.

6. The size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be limited to 600,000 personnel.

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.

8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.

9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.

10. The US security guarantee will have the following caveats:

• The US will receive compensation for the guarantee;
• If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee;
• If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked;
• If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or Saint Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.

11. Ukraine is eligible for European Union (EU) membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the EU market while this issue is being considered.

12. A powerful global package of measures will be provided to rebuild Ukraine, including but not limited to:

• The creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centres and artificial intelligence.
• The US will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernise and operate Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.
• Joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction and modernisation of cities and residential areas.
• Infrastructure development.
• Extraction of minerals and natural resources.
• The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:

• The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages and on a case-by-case basis.
• The US will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centres, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.
• Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.

14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:

• $100bn in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine;
• The US will receive 50 percent of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100bn to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.

15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to promote and ensure compliance with all provisions of this agreement.

16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine.

17. The US and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.

18. Ukraine agrees to be a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

19. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be launched under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the electricity produced will be distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine, 50:50.

20. Both countries undertake to implement educational programmes in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice:

• Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.
• Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.
• All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited.

21. Territories:

• Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognised as de facto Russian, including by the US.
• Kherson and Zaporizhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.
• Russia will relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions.
• Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarised buffer zone, internationally recognised as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarised zone.

22. After agreeing on future territorial arrangements, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this commitment.

23. Russia will not prevent Ukraine from using the Dnipro River for commercial activities, and agreements will be reached on the free transport of grain across the Black Sea.

24. A humanitarian committee will be established to resolve outstanding issues:

• All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on an “all for all” basis.
• All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.
• A family reunification programme will be implemented.
• Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict.

25. Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days.

26. All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future.

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J Trump. Sanctions will be imposed for violations.

28. Once all parties agree to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to the agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.

How has Ukraine reacted to these proposals?

Zelenskyy met with US Army officials in Kyiv on Thursday to discuss the proposals, which have been drawn up by US and Russian officials without any input from Ukraine or its European allies.

After the meeting, Zelenskyy said in an address: “The American side presented points of a plan to end the war – their vision. I outlined our key principles. We agreed that our teams will work on the points to ensure it’s all genuine.”

Zelenskyy added, “From the first days of the war, we have upheld one very simple position: Ukraine needs peace. A real peace – one that will not be broken by a third invasion. A dignified peace – with terms that respect our independence, our sovereignty and the dignity of the Ukrainian people.”

The Ukrainian president said that he will now discuss the proposals with Ukraine’s European allies.

Does this mean Ukraine and its allies will accept the proposal?

No.

“Zelenskyy had a nuanced response – he said ‘We will work on it’,” Keir Giles, a Eurasia expert at the London political think tank Chatham House, told Al Jazeera.

However, he added that agreeing to the terms of the plan in its current form would be “catastrophic” for Ukraine because of the heavy concessions Kyiv is being asked to make.

While European leaders have not reacted to the 28-point plan, they have indicated that they would not accept a plan that requires Ukraine to make such concessions.

“Ukrainians want peace – a just peace that respects everyone’s sovereignty, a durable peace that can’t be called into question by future aggression,” said French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot. “But peace cannot be a capitulation.”

For now, Ukraine’s allies are not commenting. European Council President Antonio Costa said that the EU has not yet been officially informed about the US plan, so “it makes no sense to comment” on it.

More reactions from Europe might come starting from Saturday, when Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will speak at the G20 summit.

“A 28-point plan was made public. We will discuss the situation both with European leaders and with leaders here on the sidelines of the G20,” von der Leyen said, according to UK media.

What are Russia and the US saying about this plan now?

The US has not made details of the plan public, and officials from Washington have not commented on it.

Russia has denied that there have been formal consultations between the US and Russia on a peace plan.

“Consultations are not currently under way. There are contacts, of course, but there is no process that could be called consultations,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.

Meanwhile, Hungarian PM and close Trump ally Viktor Orban seemed to back the plan on Friday.

In an X post, Orban wrote that Trump’s plan had “gained new momentum”.

“The American President is a persistent maverick. If he had been President at the time, the war would never have broken out. It is clear that once he sets his mind on something, he does not let it go, and he has certainly set his mind on ending the Russian-Ukrainian war,” Orban wrote.

President @realDonaldTrump‘s peace initiative has gained new momentum. A 28-point peace plan is on the table, an American negotiating delegation is in Kyiv, and expectations are high worldwide. The American President is a persistent maverick. If he had been President at the time,… pic.twitter.com/J2cagATvc5

— Orbán Viktor (@PM_ViktorOrban) November 21, 2025

What do analysts say about these proposals?

Experts said the terms of the 28-point plan and how they would be implemented are far from clear.

“The terms are unenforceable, nonsensical and vague that they cannot be enforced without months of wrangling,” Giles said.

For instance, he said, point 9 states that European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland. However, it is unclear what “European” or “fighter jets” mean.

Giles said “European” could mean the European Union or European countries. “‘Fighter jets’ is a militarily meaningless term, which provides plenty of room for argument,” he added.

How would the US be ‘compensated’ for security guarantees?

It is unclear what security guarantees the US is offering Ukraine. Further details of these have not been released.

Point 10 states that the “US will receive compensation for the guarantee”. While it is unclear what the specific compensation would be, experts suggest that point 14 may shed some light on this.

Point 14 of the plan states that $100bn in frozen Russian assets plus $100bn from Europe would be used for Ukraine’s reconstruction.

The plan further states that the US will receive 50 percent of the profits from the reconstruction of Ukraine. It is not specified how these profits would be generated.

The plan also states that remaining Russian funds would go into a joint US-Russia investment vehicle for projects to build ties and deter future conflict, again with little detail.

Giles said this likely refers to about $300bn in Russian Central Bank assets, which have been frozen by the US and European countries since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

In October this year, EU leaders suggested a “reparations plan” under which it would use frozen Russian assets to lend Ukraine $164bn to buy European weapons, and for reconstruction.

Giles said that the point about Russian frozen assets was likely deliberately added by negotiators from Moscow because “Russia has already written off frozen assets abroad, and now is dangling that as a carrot in front of the US”.

Giles added that, according to earlier plans, however, “those funds were supposed to rebuild Ukraine”.

However, now we don’t know whether the reconstruction will be of a “free Ukraine or Russian efforts of Russification in occupied Ukraine”, he said.

Would the proposal give Russia amnesty for war crimes?

Point 26 of the plan states that all parties involved in the conflict will receive “full amnesty for their actions during the war”.

In March 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over the illegal deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia.

The US cannot unilaterally grant amnesty to an individual convicted of war crimes by an international organisation.

“Writing off the war, pretending it never happened, rolling back sanctions and ignoring war crimes is just one of the elements of this draft list where the US is assuming the cooperation of the rest of the world,” Giles said.

He added that a large number of countries across the world strongly believe in international law, and are likely to push back on this point.

“If a negotiation like this were to be enforced, then it is the US endorsing the seizure of territory through open arms aggression, and it will be encouragement to other aggressors around the world that they have the US blessing,” Giles warned.

What territory would Ukraine have to concede?

The plan says that Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk would be considered Russian territory.

Donetsk and Luhansk are collectively called the Donbas region.

Crimea was seized by Russia from Ukraine in 2014 and remains a matter of dispute.

According to the Institute for the Study of War, overall, Ukraine still controls 14.5 percent of the territory in the Donbas, including parts of Donetsk around the cities of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk.

Russia also controls 75 percent of Zaporizhia and Kherson in southern Ukraine, bordering the Black Sea. The plan says that the current battle lines will be frozen in these regions.

How would Russia be brought back into the international fold?

Parts of the proposal aim to bring Russia out of the isolation imposed on it by the Western world since it started the Ukraine war.

Point 12 states that Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.

The G8 – currently the G7 – was an unofficial forum for the leaders of eight major industrialised nations: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the US.

Russia was part of the G8 but was ejected following the annexation of Crimea in 2014.

The plan also mentions the establishment of a US-Russian investment vehicle that would implement joint projects in specific areas. However, further details about this have not been revealed.

The plan also mentions the formation of a joint US-Russian working group on security issues to ensure compliance with the plan.

Will the proposal end the war in Ukraine?

Analysts are doubtful. “This agreement is not going anywhere – similar to the previous ones,” Giles said.

He called it “another iteration of the merry-go-round that we’ve been on many times before”.

He said he believes the plan will receive pushback from Ukraine and Europe, which will want to negotiate changes.

US President Donald Trump’s decision to snub the G20 summit in South Africa this year has handed an opportunity to China, as it seeks to expand its growing influence in the African continent and position itself as an alternative to the dangers of a unilateralist United States.

Washington said it would not attend the two-day summit set to kick off on Saturday over widely discredited claims that the host country, previously ruled by its white minority under an apartheid system until 1994, now mistreats white people.

South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa hit back at Trump’s claim that hosting the summit in Johannesburg was a “total disgrace”. “Boycott politics doesn’t work,” Ramaphosa said, adding that the US was “giving up the very important role that they should be playing as the biggest economy in the world”.

By Friday morning, Trump appeared to have backtracked on his stance somewhat, when speculation that Washington might send a US official to Johannesburg after all circulated.

Regardless, the spat comes as Chinese President Xi Jinping sends Premier Li Qiang to represent him on the world stage. China’s 72-year-old president has dialled back foreign visits, increasingly delegating his top emissary.

“The US is giving China an opportunity to expand its global influence,” Zhiqun Zhu, professor of political science and international relations at Bucknell University, told Al Jazeera. “With the absence of the US, China and EU countries will be the focus of the summit and other countries will look for leadership [from them].”

But observers say that while Trump’s absence will direct heightened attention to Beijing’s statements and behaviour, it does not spell the end of the US-led order altogether.

Jing Gu, a political economist at the United Kingdom-based Institute of Development Studies, said the US’s failure to attend “does not automatically make China the new leader, but it creates visible space for China to present itself as a more stable, reliable partner in governance”.

“It reinforces the perception that the US is stepping back from multilateralism and the shared management of global problems,” she said. “In that context, China can present itself as a more predictable, stable actor and emphasise continuity, support for open trade and engagement with the Global South.”

Expanding influence in the African continent

This year’s G20 will, for the first time, have an African chair and take place on the African continent. The African Union (AU) will also participate fully as a member.

South Africa, which holds the G20 presidency, is expected to push for consensus and action on priority issues for African countries, including debt relief, economic growth, climate change and transition to clean energy.

Zhu, who also serves as editor-in-chief of the academic journal, China and the World, said South Africa’s themes were a “natural fit” for China, Africa’s largest trading partner.

“China aims to become a leader in green energy, and there’s a lot of room for China and African countries to work on that,” he said.

The African continent, with its mineral wealth, booming population and fast-growing economies, offers huge potential for Chinese firms. Li, China’s premier, travelled to Zambia this week, marking the first visit to the country by a Chinese premier in 28 years. The copper-rich nation has Beijing as its largest official creditor for $5.7bn.

Eager to secure access to Zambia’s commodities and expand its exports from resource-rich East Africa, China signed a $1.4bn deal in September to rehabilitate the Tazara Railway, built in the 1970s and connecting Tanzania and Zambia, to improve rail-sea transportation in the region.

“The Chinese economy and African economy are complementary; they both benefit from trade,” Zhu said. The G20 “is a great platform for China to project its global influence and seek opportunities to work with other countries”, he added.

Africa’s growing demand for energy and China’s dominance in manufacturing make the two a good fit, observers say. This is playing out. A report by energy think tank Ember, for instance, found Africa’s imports of solar panels from China rose a whopping 60 percent in the 12 months to June 2025.

According to Gu at the Institute of Development Studies, China will be looking to tap into this growing synergy with Africa and will deliver a three-fold message at this year’s G20.

“First, it will stress stability and the importance of global rules and regulations,” she said. Second, “it will link the G20 to the Global South and highlight issues like development and green transformation”.

Third, “by offering issue-based leadership on topics such as digital economy, artificial intelligence and governance, it will position itself as a problem-solver rather than a disruptor”, the economist added.

China as a bastion of multilateralism

An absence of American officials at this year’s G20 – after skipping the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Korea as well as the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Brazil – would be “another opportunity for China”, Rosemary Foot, professor of politics and international relations at the University of Oxford, told Al Jazeera.

“It can contrast, yet again, its declared commitment to multilateralism and responsible behaviour as a major state versus the dangers of a unilateralist America focusing not on public goods but on benefits to itself only.”

China has been looking to expand its influence in Africa as a counterweight to the US-led world order. In stark contrast to Trump’s decision to end Africa’s duty-free era and slap 15-30 percent tariffs on 22 nations, Xi announced at the APEC summit last month a zero-tariff policy for all African nations with diplomatic ties to Beijing.

On that occasion, Xi emphasised China’s commitment “to joint development and shared prosperity with all countries”, stressing the country’s goal to “support more developing countries in achieving modernisation and opening up new avenues for global development”.

Similarly, Li, China’s premier, marked the United Nations’ 80th anniversary at the General Assembly in September by expressing the need for stronger collective action on climate change and emerging technologies, calling for greater solidarity to “[lift] everyone up, while division drags all down”.

His remarks were in stark contrast to Trump’s, who, in his speech, described climate change as the “greatest con job ever perpetrated” and called renewable sources of energy a “joke” and “pathetic”.

Foot said the spotlight will now be on Beijing as it seeks to strike a similar conciliatory pose – and in doing so, set itself apart from the US – at the G20. “Whether Beijing will have a major impact on the G20 agenda is more difficult to determine,” she said.

US president’s controversial deployment of soldiers to US cities has raised alarm and a series of legal challenges.

A United States federal judge has said the Trump administration must pause its deployment of National Guard troops to Washington, DC, a setback for the president’s push to send the military into cities across the country.

US District Judge Jia Cobb temporarily suspended the deployment in a ruling on Thursday, responding to a lawsuit filed by city officials who said Trump had usurped policing powers and was using the military for domestic law enforcement.

The federal government has unique powers in Washington, DC. But the Trump administration has taken the controversial step to deploy soldiers in a growing list of Democrat-led cities, despite frequent protests from state and local officials and a lack of any emergency conditions.

Cobb, who said in her decision that the president cannot deploy soldiers for “whatever reason” he wants, gave the Trump administration 21 days to appeal the order before it goes into effect.

Lawyers for the government slammed the lawsuit that challenged the military deployment as a “frivolous stunt”.

“There is no sensible reason for an injunction unwinding this arrangement now, particularly since the District’s claims have no merit,” Department of Justice lawyers wrote.

Trump has also deployed troops to cities such as Los Angeles, California; Portland, Oregon; and Chicago, Illinois, in what he depicts as an effort to tackle crime and round up undocumented immigrants.

Residents and civil liberties groups have documented aggressive raids and what they say are widespread rights violations and racial profiling by federal agents during those crackdowns, in which US citizens have sometimes been swept up.

Trump has threatened to imprison local and state officials who criticise his deployment of the military.

A legal challenge filed in September by Washington, DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb said that US democracy would “never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand”.

Trump ordered the first deployment in August, involving about 2,300 National Guard members from various states and hundreds of federal agents from various agencies.

An Indiana lawmaker who has yet to make a decision on whether to back President Trump’s push to have Republicans redraw the state’s congressional boundaries was the victim of a swatting call that brought sheriff’s deputies to his home.

The call, in which someone reported a fake emergency at the Terre Haute home of state Sen. Greg Goode on Sunday, came hours after Trump criticized Indiana lawmakers for not moving forward with the plan and singled out Goode and Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray. Trump has been trying to persuade Republican-led states across the country to aggressively redraw their congressional maps to help the GOP hold the U.S. House in next year’s midterm elections.

Deputies were sent to Goode’s home after receiving an email “advising harm had been done to persons inside a home,” according to a statement from the Vigo County Sheriff’s Office.

“All persons were secure, safe, and unharmed. Investigation showed that this was a prank or false email (also known as ‘swatting’),” the statement said. The incident is under investigation.

Goode, a Republican, wrote on social media that the responding deputies were “under the impression of a domestic violence emergency.” He thanked the deputies for acting professionally.

“While this entire incident is unfortunate and reflective of the volatile nature of our current political environment, I give thanks to God that my family and I are ok,” Goode wrote.

Trump singled out Goode and Indiana Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray while demanding that Republicans move forward with a redistricting plan for Indiana. Republicans already hold a 7-2 advantage in the state’s congressional delegation.

“Because of these two politically correct type ‘gentlemen,’ and a few others, they could be depriving Republicans of a Majority in the House, a VERY BIG DEAL!” Trump wrote on his social media platform.

Bray, the Republican leader of Indiana’s Senate, announced Friday that his chamber will no longer meet to vote on redistricting, citing a lack of support from his members even after pressure from the White House. Vice President JD Vance has visited multiple times to make the case.

Goode, a Republican member of the Senate, has not publicly stated his position on redistricting and says he will not make a decision without seeing a map and legislation introduced for lawmakers’ review.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The goal of swatting is to get authorities, particularly a SWAT team, to respond to an address by making bogus claims of violence happening inside.

Democrats need to gain just three seats to win control of the House next year, leading to Trump’s strong-arming of GOP-controlled states. Legislatures or commissions in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio have adopted new maps to boost Republicans’ odds, while California and Virginia are poised to counter Trump’s push and redraw their own maps to benefit Democrats.

Weber writes for the Associated Press.

Trump thanks Ronaldo as football superstar makes surprise appearance alongside Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Portuguese superstar Cristiano Ronaldo was one of the surprise guests at a lavish White House dinner hosted by US President Donald Trump for the visiting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The famous footballer was among the last guests to be seated before Prince Mohammed, known as MBS, took his place at the table on Tuesday.

Here’s what you need to know about his presence at the White House:

Why did Ronaldo attend the White House dinner?

Ronaldo plays for the Saudi Pro League club Al Nassr after signing with them following the FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar.

He spent two decades playing for European clubs and signed a two-year extension in June with Al Nassr. The 40-year-old has indicated he is ready to hang up his boots soon, making Saudi Arabia the last stop in his glittering career.

Over four seasons with Al Nassr, Ronaldo has scored 83 goals with 17 assists in 84 starts.

Since his 2023 signing for the Riyadh-based club – majority owned by the Saudi sovereign wealth fund that the crown prince chairs – Ronaldo has been the face of the Saudi league and has featured in promotional videos for the Saudi Tourism Authority.

In a recent interview, Ronaldo referred to MBS as “our boss [in Saudi Arabia]”.

Ronaldo was seated near the front of the East Room, not far from where the president and crown prince gave remarks to officials from both nations, along with major business leaders such as Apple CEO Tim Cook and Tesla founder Elon Musk.

He also snapped a selfie at the White House.

Great night! pic.twitter.com/XfdC9bJqP4

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) November 19, 2025

What did Trump say about Ronaldo at the dinner?

Trump, in his speech, made a point of recognising Ronaldo, who he said he introduced to his teenage son.

Trump thanked the athlete for attending. He said that his youngest son, Barron, is a “big fan” of Ronaldo and the 19-year-old was impressed that he got to meet the player.

“I think he respects his father a little bit more now, just the fact that I introduced you,” the president said.

What has Ronaldo said about Trump?

Ronaldo has recently said that Trump is “one of the guys who can help change the world”.

“[Trump is] one of the guys I want to meet. I think he can make things happen, and I like people like that,” the football icon said in an interview with media host Piers Morgan.

However, Ronaldo was quick to boast that he was more famous than Trump.

“People know me more than him. In the world, nobody’s more famous than me.”

No, but FIFA President Gianni Infantino, who has previously featured at events with Trump, was also among the guests.

Infantino was making another appearance at the White House ahead of the FIFA World Cup, which the US is co-hosting with Canada and Mexico, after meeting Trump at his residence two days earlier.

The FIFA chief will also be present when the US hosts the draw for the World Cup on December 5 at the Kennedy Center in Washington, where Trump is likely to oversee the event.

Will Ronaldo play in the FIFA World Cup 2026 in the US?

Ronaldo said earlier this month that the next World Cup will be his last.

He hasn’t played in the US since August of 2014, when he was a substitute for Real Madrid in their exhibition match against Manchester United in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Award-winning rapper Nicki Minaj has publicly backed President Donald Trump’s allegations that Christians face persecution in Nigeria.

“In Nigeria, Christians are being targeted,” Minaj said on Tuesday at an event organised by the US, adding: “Churches have been burned, families have been torn apart… simply because of how they pray.”

Analysts say that jihadists and other armed groups have waged campaigns of violence that affect all communities in the West African nation, regardless of background or belief.

This week alone, two people were killed in an attack on a church, while a group of 25 girls, who the BBC has been told are Muslim, were abducted from a school.

Two of the girls later managed to escape from their abductors. A teacher and a security guard – both Muslim – were also killed in the attack on the secondary school in the north-western Kebbi state.

Earlier this month, Trump said he would send troops into Nigeria “guns a-blazing” if its government “continues to allow the killing of Christians”.

Minaj, whose real name is Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, told an event organised by the US embassy to the UN in New York that calling for the protection of Christians in Nigeria was “not about taking sides or dividing people… but about uniting humanity”.

“This is about standing up in the face of injustice. It’s about what I’ve always stood for,” she added.

The 42-year-old rapper, who has previously spoken of her Christian faith, thanked Trump for “prioritising this issue and for his leadership”.

The Nigerian government has pushed back on these claims, describing them as “a gross misrepresentation of reality”.

An official said that “terrorists attack all who reject their murderous ideology – Muslims, Christians and those of no faith alike”.

Other groups monitoring political violence in Nigeria say most victims of the jihadist groups are Muslims.

The country’s 220 million people are roughly evenly split between followers of the two religions, with Muslims in the majority in the north, where most attacks take place.

On Wednesday, Nigeria police in the south-western Kwara state confirmed a deadly attack on a church in the town of Eruku, where gunmen opened fire on worshipers the previous day, killing two people and abducting several others.

Local media say armed men, identified by residents as bandits, stormed the Christ Apostolic Church during an evening programme on Tuesday evening, shooting the pastor and rounding up worshipers at gunpoint.

Images and short video clips – believed to be from the church’s CCTV cameras – have circulated widely online, showing terrified worshippers scrambling for safety, including an elderly woman seen desperately trying to escape the gunmen.

On Tuesday, President Bola Tinubu confirmed that jihadist forces had killed a senior army officer, after he had been captured in an ambush.

The Islamic State West Africa Province (Iswap) said on Monday its fighters had killed Brigadier General Musa Uba in the north-eastern state of Borno.

The Nigerian army had earlier denied that the officer had been abducted and killed.

The latest attacks have triggered frustration and anger across Nigeria, with many lamenting what they see as an unending wave of insecurity affecting rural communities, churches, schools and major transport routes.

Minaj described Nigeria as “a beautiful nation with deep faith traditions” and even acknowledged the “beautiful Barbz” – her fans – in the West African country.

The US ambassador to the UN, Mike Waltz, thanked the rapper for “leveraging her massive platform to spotlight the atrocities against Christians in Nigeria”.

For months, right-wing campaigners and politicians in Washington have been alleging that Islamist militants were systematically targeting Christians in Nigeria.

But the BBC has found that some of the data being relied on to come to this conclusion is difficult to verify.

Deadly disputes are also often over vital resources like land and water or fuelled by inter-ethnic tensions, rather than religion, say analysts.