united states

Price of petrol in US jumps by nearly 30 cents in one week amid Strait of Hormuz blockade and Iran diplomatic deadlock.

The average price of one gallon (3.8 litres) of gasoline in the United States has reached $4.30, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), up from less than $3 before the February 28 start of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Thursday’s prices come as US President Donald Trump insists that time is on his side in the standoff with Iran, even as he refuses Tehran’s offers of a preliminary deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

According to AAA, prices for gas or petrol went up by 27 cents over the past week amid the deepening impasse, with Iran blocking the strait and the US imposing a naval siege on Iranian ports.

“The national average is $1.12 higher than it was this time last year, as oil prices surge above $100/barrel with no indication of when the Strait of Hormuz will reopen,” AAA said in a brief report on Thursday.

“Gas prices are the highest they’ve been in four years, since late July 2022.”

California, home to nearly 40 million people, saw petrol prices hit more than $6 per gallon on Thursday.

The spike in energy prices has been fuelling inflation and economic uncertainty, adding to Trump’s political woes.

The US president’s approval rating is hitting record lows amid growing discontent with the conflict with Iran, recent public opinion polls show.

Since the start of the war, Trump and his allies have been trying to frame the hike in petrol prices as a temporary price worth paying to achieve the aims of the military campaign.

The US president reiterated that argument on Thursday when asked about the latest price increase.

“And you know what? And we’re not going to have a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran,” the US president told reporters.

“The gas will go down. As soon as the war is over, it’ll drop like a rock.”

However, oil prices do not drop automatically after hostilities stop. Despite the ceasefire reached on April 8, the cost of gas in the US has continued to climb.

Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon.

Although the US is one of the largest oil producers and is not heavily reliant on energy products from the Middle East, global prices affect what Americans pay at the pump.

On Thursday, Trump stressed that Iran is all but vanquished militarily and economically – a claim he has been repeating since the early days of the conflict.

“Iran is dying to make a deal,” he said, calling the naval blockade against the country “incredible”.

Tehran has projected defiance, refusing to hold direct talks with the US until the siege is lifted, even after Trump announced last week that he was dispatching his top envoys to Pakistan to negotiate with Iranian officials.

Earlier on Thursday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian suggested that Iran is running out of patience with the current situation of no war and no peace amid the US siege.

“The world has witnessed Iran’s tolerance and conciliation. What is being done under the guise of a naval blockade is an extension of military operations against a nation paying the price for its resistance and independence,” Pezeshkian said in a social media post.

“Continuation of this oppressive approach is intolerable.”

The United States has fallen to a “historic low” in the Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF), or Reporters Without Borders, annual press freedom tracker, continuing a decade-long decline, the organisation has said.

The report on Thursday recorded a global drop in press freedom indicators in 2025, with, for the first time, more than half of the world’s countries labelled as “difficult” or “very serious”.

While the US, during the first year of US President Donald Trump’s second term, remained in the “problematic” category, it dropped seven spaces from 57th in the world to 64th. Norway led the list, with Eritrea ranked lowest among 180 countries.

In a statement, Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF’s North America office, said the US was experiencing a “press freedom crisis”.

“Trump and his administration have carried out a coordinated war on press freedom since the day he took office, and we will live with the consequences for years to come,” he said in a statement.

“Our message is clear: Protect legal rights, ensure accountability for attacks on media professionals, and support independent media to restore American press freedom.”

The report pointed to both Trump administration policies and the wider consolidation of media companies in the US, which critics say opens the door to stifling certain points of view.

That has included Skydance Media’s acquisition of Paramount Global, which includes CBS News. Skydance is owned by David Ellison, whose father, Larry Ellison, is a confidant of Trump’s.

Paramount Skydance is also currently acquiring Warner Bros, which owns CNN.

All told, just six companies control most US media: Comcast, Walt Disney, Warner Bros Discovery, Paramount Skydance, Sony, and Amazon.

While Trump has long had an adversarial relationship with journalists, press freedom observers say the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has accelerated pressure on media figures and journalists during the president’s second term.

In March, FCC chair Brendan Carr said he would revoke the licences of broadcasters that are “running hoaxes and news distortions”, and that do not “operate in the public interest” in their reporting on the US-Israel war with Iran. Trump said he was “thrilled” by Carr’s statements.

Carr has also threatened to revoke the licenses of broadcasters for their coverage of Trump’s immigration policies, which critics say can have a chilling effect on local news organisations.

The effort has extended to television talk show hosts, who have been threatened by the FCC over jokes.

Most recently, Carr announced an investigation into several ABC channels.

That came days after the network’s flagship late-night host, Jimmy Kimmel, made a joke about the White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD).

Kimmel had quipped that First Lady Melania Trump had the “glow of an expectant widow” before the event.

Days later, a gunman attempted to storm the WHCD in Washington, DC, which Trump was attending for the first time. The Trumps later connected Kimmel’s joke to the attack, calling for Kimmel’s firing.

Kimmel has said the joke was about the 79-year-old president and the 56-year-old first lady’s “age difference” and not a call for violence.

Critics of the FCC’s move included Republican Senator Ted Cruz, who said he does “not believe the FCC should operate as the speech police”.

The White House has repeatedly called Trump the most “transparent” president in US history, pointing to his regular news conferences.

European leaders are seeking to clarify a little-used mutual defence clause in the European Union treaty as questions grow over Washington’s long-term commitment to NATO during a deepening rift with the United States.

NATO, founded in 1949, is a military alliance of North American and European countries built on the principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all. But years of tension between Washington under President Donald Trump and its European allies have pushed European governments to place greater emphasis on their own defence capabilities.

The shift has come as Trump has repeatedly criticised NATO members over their defence spending. He has also questioned the value of the alliance and clashed with European leaders over Ukraine and Iran while threatening to seize Greenland from NATO ally Denmark. The latest tensions escalated after the US and Israel began their war on Iran when Trump accused allies of failing to support Washington and dismissed NATO as a “paper tiger”.

Media reports have said that the Pentagon has also prepared a memo examining options to punish allies viewed as insufficiently supportive during the Iran war. Those options reportedly include exploring the suspension of Spain, which has been particularly critical of the war, from NATO and reviewing the US position on Britain’s claim to the Falkland Islands. NATO has no formal mechanism to expel a member, but the episode has cast doubt over the alliance’s unity and revived questions about Europe defending itself without Washington.

At the heart of Europe’s bid to look for alternative security arrangements beyond NATO is Article 42.7 of the European Union’s founding treaty.

What is Article 42.7?

Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union is the bloc’s mutual defence clause. It says that if an EU member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states are obliged to provide aid and assistance by all means in their power in line with the United Nations Charter.

By comparison, Article 5 in NATO’s North Atlantic Treaty states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. It is supported by common planning and joint exercises and is underpinned by the military weight of the US.

Unlike NATO’s Article 5, however, the EU clause is not backed by an integrated military command structure, standing defence plans or a permanent force able to respond automatically and the US has no obligation to intervene.

That means it is often seen as less credible as a military guarantee in practice although it remains an important political commitment.

Who is calling for Europe to turn to Article 42.7?

Cyprus, which is an EU member but not a NATO member, has been especially eager to strengthen the clause after a drone struck a British airbase on the island during the Iran war last month. While such an incident may not have been enough to invoke NATO’s Article 5, it could raise questions about Article 42.7, particularly at a time of growing strain between the US and Europe.

Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides said leaders had agreed it was time to define how the provision would work in practice if it were triggered.

“We agreed last night that the [European] Commission will prepare a blueprint on how we respond in case a member state triggers Article 42.7,” he said on Friday at an EU summit.

French President Emmanuel Macron has also stressed that the clause should be treated as a binding commitment rather than a symbolic gesture. “On Article 42, paragraph 7, it’s not just words,” he said during a weekend visit to Greece. “For us, it is clear, and there is no room for interpretation or ambiguity.”

Antonio Costa, president of the European Council, said the bloc was drawing up a “handbook” for the use of the clause.

And EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Europe must step up its defence efforts after Trump has “shaken the transatlantic relationship to its foundation”.

“Let me be clear: We want strong transatlantic ties. The US will remain Europe’s partner and ally. But Europe needs to adapt to the new realities. Europe is no longer Washington’s primary centre of gravity,” she said at a defence conference in Brussels.

“This shift has been ongoing for a while. It is structural, not temporary. It means that Europe must step up. No great power in history has outsourced its survival and survived.”

Has the article ever been invoked?

The clause has been used only once before when France invoked it after the 2015 Paris attacks claimed by ISIL (ISIS), in which 130 people were killed and hundreds wounded.

The attacks were the deadliest in France since World War II. After Article 47.2 was invoked, other EU states shared intelligence aimed at helping French authorities unravel the conspiracy that led to the attacks.

NATO’s Article 5 has also been invoked just once – after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.

But NATO’s help to the US wasn’t limited to intelligence sharing. Allies contributed tens of thousands of soldiers to the US-led war in Afghanistan. The operations lasted two decades, and more than 46,000 Afghan civilians were killed alongside 2,461 US personnel and about 1,160 non-US coalition soldiers, according to Brown University’s Cost of War project.

Can countries be kicked out or leave NATO?

Europe’s debate over its defence comes amid a string of disputes inside NATO. The reports that US officials have considered punitive measures against allies have revived questions over the alliance’s future cohesion.

Pablo Calderon Martinez, head of politics and international relations at Northeastern University London and a specialist in European affairs, told Al Jazeera that Spain cannot legally be removed from NATO.

“There is no legal mechanism to remove a member. There is, however, a mechanism through which a member can withdraw itself from the organisation,” he said.

He added that some countries have long fallen short of NATO commitments but that does not provide grounds for expulsion. A more likely scenario, he said, would be the US choosing to leave.

Carne Ross, a former British diplomat and founder of Independent Diplomat, a nonprofit diplomatic advisory group, said the deeper issue is whether Europe and Washington still share common values.

“It is abundantly clear that we do not. Trump is anti-democratic. He tried to subvert democracy, challenged the 2020 election result and whipped up a violent crowd to storm the Capitol,” Ross said.

“What more evidence do we need that the values of Europe are not shared in Washington?”

Is Europe preparing for a future without the US?

European countries have pledged to sharply increase their defence budgets with many aiming to spend 5 percent of their gross domestic products each year on their militaries.

Trump cannot withdraw the US from NATO without congressional approval, but doubts over Washington’s commitment have already unsettled many European capitals.

That has created new urgency around strengthening Europe’s own defence capabilities and building a more credible European pillar inside, or alongside, NATO.

Ross said Europe’s major powers should begin planning seriously for greater self-reliance.

“The Europeans themselves, particularly the most powerful countries – Britain, France, Germany and Italy – need to be talking about how to defend themselves without the US,” he said.

Hundreds of Iranians have rallied in Tehran to demand an end to US threats and the ongoing blockade of Iranian ports. The blockade is causing Iran’s already devalued currency to sink further.

Standoff in the Strait of Hormuz is pushing global oil prices above $120 per barrel, with average gas prices in the US hitting a four-year high.

The decades-old football book craze will comprise 980 unique stickers, including 68 ‘special’ ones in a 112-page ​album.

For generations of ‌football fans, no World Cup would be complete without the thrill of opening ⁠a packet of ⁠Panini stickers and discovering Zico, Franz Beckenbauer, Diego Maradona or Lionel Messi staring back.

Since Italian company Panini’s first sticker collection at the 1970 World Cup ⁠in Mexico, trying, and usually failing, to complete the set has been an obsession for young fans around the globe, with playground swapping mandatory.

This year’s World Cup in ⁠the United States, Canada and Mexico will present the biggest challenge yet, though, and will require a considerable amount of pocket money.

With 48 nations heading for the tournament in June and July – the largest edition ever – 980 unique stickers, including 68 “special” ones, will be required to ‌fill the 112-page album that will be available from Thursday.

Individual packets of seven stickers retail at 1.25 pounds ($1.69) in the United Kingdom, meaning that even with impossibly perfect luck and no duplicates, 140 packets would be required, costing 175 pounds.

Statistically, however, more than 1,000 packets may be required to acquire every player in the album, meaning an outlay in the region of 1,000 pounds ($1,351).

Panini’s biggest-ever collection was launched at a ⁠special event at Wembley Stadium on Tuesday, with former England players ⁠David James, John Barnes and Gary Cahill reliving their sticker-hunting days.

“As someone who grew up collecting Panini stickers, swapping with friends in the playground and trying to complete the album every tournament, the album has always ⁠marked the real start of a World Cup for me!” former Chelsea defender Cahill said.

“Seeing myself in the collection during my ⁠playing days was a surreal and proud moment, and ⁠a reminder of how these stickers become part of the story of every World Cup.”

Panini say they will be hosting a live “swap shop” in May around the UK, giving collectors the chance to find their must-have players while a “Sticker ‌Box” will travel up and down the country, giving away sticker packets and albums.

When the dust has settled on the World Cup, it might also be prudent to store ‌duplicates ‌in the loft as there is a burgeoning market in vintage stickers.

In 2021, a 1979 Panini sticker of Maradona, then aged 19, sold for 470,000 pounds (about $556,000 at the time) at auction.

King Charles III has hailed US-UK ties at a state dinner in the White House after speaking at a joint session of Congress in a rare appearance by a British monarch. The visit marks 250 years since American independence, and comes amid strains over the war on Iran.

China has detained nearly 70 Panamanian-flagged ships after a Supreme Court ruling on the Panama Canal, US officials say.

Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United States have released a joint statement in support of Panama, while criticising Chinese economic retaliation, after a Hong Kong-based conglomerate lost a legal dispute over the management of ports on the Panama Canal.

Panama’s Supreme Court in late January annulled contracts that had allowed a subsidiary of Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison to administer the Balboa and Cristobal port terminals on the Panama Canal after deeming the decades-old agreements unconstitutional.

In their joint statement on Tuesday, the six countries claimed that following the court ruling, China has retaliated against Panama with “targeted economic pressure” on Panamanian-flagged ships.

China detained nearly 70 Panamanian-flagged ships in March, according to the US Federal Maritime Commission, a number “far exceeding historical norms”.

“These actions – following the decision of Panama’s independent Supreme Court regarding the Balboa and Cristobal terminals – are a blatant attempt to politicise maritime trade and infringe on the sovereignty of the nations of our hemisphere,” the signatories said.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said separately on X that Washington was “deeply concerned” by China’s economic pressure on Panama.

“We stand in solidarity with Panama. Any attempts to undermine Panama’s sovereignty are a threat to us all,” he said.

China has previously accused the US of “bullying” and trying to smear its reputation in Latin America, while it described the Panamanian Supreme Court ruling as “absurd” and “shameful”.

US Federal Maritime Commission head Laura DiBella said last month that Beijing’s detention of Panamanian ships had repercussions for both Panama and the US.

“These intensified inspections were carried out under informal directives and appear intended to punish Panama after the transfer of Hutchison’s port assets,” DiBella said.

“Given that Panama‑flagged ships carry a meaningful share of US containerised trade, these actions could result in significant commercial and strategic consequences to US shipping,” she said.

‘States know how vulnerable shipping is’

Panama’s decision to invalidate the contracts held by CK Hutchison’s subsidiary Panama Ports Company was made at a time of heightened media attention around the Panama Canal amid threats by US President Donald Trump to seize the strategic waterway.

Trump had made the approximately 80km (49-mile) waterway a focus of his second administration, alleging in his inaugural address in January 2025 that China was “operating” the canal and pledging that the US would “take back” control.

US officials allege that, in addition to targeting Panama and its interests, China has also retaliated against shipping giants Maersk and the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), whose subsidiaries were granted 18-month contracts to administer the Balboa and Cristobal terminals after CK Hutchison was removed.

Representatives of Maersk and MSC were both summoned by China’s Ministry of Transport for “high-level discussions”, the Federal Maritime Commission said in March, while Chinese shipping giant COSCO has suspended operations at the Balboa terminal.

CK Hutchison, through its Panama Ports Company subsidiary, is separately pursuing international arbitration against the government of Panama and seeking more than $2bn in damages.

David Smith, an associate professor at the University of Sydney’s US Studies Centre, said that the Panama Canal dispute and China’s retaliation were the latest example of how shipping has become a political target, from Latin America to the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea in the Middle East.

“We have taken for granted that the world runs on container ships just freely sailing around the world,” he told Al Jazeera.

“What we’re seeing now is that states know how vulnerable shipping is. They know they can cut shipping lanes off if necessary. It should not surprise us from now on if ships and shipping in general become pawns in international politics.”

The passports are part of broader plans to celebrate the milestone anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence.

United States President Donald Trump will feature on a new, limited-edition US passport being issued to mark the country’s 250th anniversary in July, officials said, the latest area of public life to receive Trump’s personal branding.

The commemorative passports are part of broader plans to celebrate the milestone anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence, with events planned across the country next July.

Images released by the White House and the Department of State on Tuesday show Trump’s portrait incorporated into the design, set against elements of the Declaration of Independence and the US flag. The rendering also includes the president’s signature in gold.

Another page will feature an illustration of the Founding Fathers signing the Declaration of Independence.

“As the United States marks its 250th anniversary in July, the State Department is preparing to release a limited number of specially designed US passports to commemorate this historic occasion,” said Tommy Piggott, a spokesperson for the US State Department.

The commemorative passports will be available to US citizens applying through the Washington Passport Agency, with distribution set to begin this summer and continue while supplies last.

Current US passports feature images tied to the country’s history and identity. The inside front cover shows a painting of Francis Scott Key after the Battle of Fort McHenry, when he saw the US flag still standing after an attack. This moment inspired him to write a poem that later became the US national anthem, with lines from it printed alongside the image.

Other pages include moments from American history, such as the Apollo 11 Moon landing, and symbols like the Statue of Liberty.

Trump links branding push to 250th anniversary plans

The passport redesign is the latest example of efforts by Trump and his administration to place his name, image or signature on institutions and initiatives across Washington and the country.

Some of those efforts have already been implemented. This year’s national park passes, for example, display Trump’s image alongside George Washington, a departure from the programme’s traditional focus on natural landscapes.

The United States Mint has also released draft designs for a $1 coin featuring Trump’s profile as part of the 250th anniversary commemorations.

Proposed imagery for the coin redesign includes his portrait alongside inscriptions such as “Liberty” and “In God We Trust”. The reverse depicts him raising a clenched fist in front of an American flag with the phrase “FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT”, referencing a chant he used after a 2024 assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Trump has pushed Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer to rename New York’s Penn Station after him, linking the idea to the release of federal infrastructure funding, but the effort has failed to gain traction.

Trump has also placed his face on government buildings around Washington, DC, in the form of long banners.

Even the architecture of the US capital city is changing to reflect his tastes: Last October, he tore down the White House’s East Wing to build a massive ballroom, and he has plans to build a triumphal arch in the capital, similar to the one in Paris, France.

In December, Trump’s name was added to the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, just one day after his hand-picked board members controversially voted to rename the art venue, the first time a national institution has been named after a sitting US president.

Within days, workers had added metal lettering to the building’s exterior, renamed as “The Donald J Trump and the John F Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts”.

In a 3-0 ruling, court says Trump administration misread a decades-old immigration law to justify mandatory detention.

A United States federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s practice of subjecting most people arrested in its immigration crackdown to mandatory detention without the opportunity to seek release on bond.

In a 3-0 ruling on Tuesday, a panel of the New York-based US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the administration relied on a novel but incorrect interpretation of a decades-old immigration law to justify the policy.

Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Joseph F Bianco, a Trump appointee, warned that the government’s reading “would send a seismic shock through our immigration detention system and society”, straining already overcrowded facilities, separating families and disrupting communities.

Lawyers for the Trump administration say the mandatory detention policy is legal under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed in 1996.

But Bianco said the government had made “an attempt to muddy” the law’s “textually clear waters”, arguing that the administration’s interpretation “defies the statute’s context, structure, history, and purpose” and contradicts “longstanding executive branch practice”.

Under the Trump administration policy, the Department of Homeland Security last year took the position that non-citizens already living in the US, not just those arriving at the border, qualify as “applicants for admission” and are subject to mandatory detention.

Under federal immigration law, “applicants for admission” to the US are detained while their cases proceed in immigration courts and are ineligible for bond hearings.

The Department of Homeland Security has been denying bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country, including those who have been living in the US for years without any criminal history, the Associated Press (AP) news agency reports.

That is a departure from the practice under previous US administrations, when most non-citizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border were given the opportunity to request a bond while their cases moved through immigration court, according to AP.

In such cases, bonds were often granted to people who were deemed not to be flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to those who had just entered the country.

Amy Belsher, director of immigrants rights’ litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said the appeals court ruling affirmed “that the Trump administration’s policy of detaining immigrants without any process is unlawful and cannot stand”.

“The government cannot mandatorily detain millions of noncitizens, many of whom have lived here for decades, without an opportunity to seek release. It defies the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and basic human decency,” Belsher said in a statement.

Conflicting rulings set stage for Supreme Court review

The New York court’s decision comes after two other appeals courts ruled in favour of the Trump administration’s policy.

Acknowledging the opposing rulings, Judge Bianco said the panel was parting ways with them and instead aligning with more than 370 lower-court judges nationwide who have rejected the administration’s position as a misreading of the law.

The split among the courts increases the likelihood that the US Supreme Court will weigh in.

The latest ruling also upheld an order by a New York judge that led to the release of Brazilian national Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, who was arrested by immigration officials last year while driving to work after living in the US for more than 20 years.

“The court was right to conclude the Trump administration can’t just ⁠reinterpret the law at its own whim,” Michael Tan, a lawyer for Barbosa at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

The Department of Justice, which is defending the mandatory detention policy in court, did not respond to a request for comment.

US president says Iran has reached out and asked Washington to lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports.

Britain’s King Charles III has used a speech in front of the United States Congress to pledge NATO unity and call for support for Ukraine amid Russia’s ongoing invasion.

The address on Tuesday came during the royal’s four-day visit to the US, with the US-Israel war with Iran, US President Donald Trump’s criticism of NATO, and trade tensions between the longtime allies looming large.

But Charles avoided any reference to specific frictions during his speech at the US Capitol, instead striking a light tone in his joke-heavy opening.

He praised what he called the shared history and values of the two countries, quipping at one point that Washington, DC was “a tale of two Georges”, the first US President George Washington and his ancestor, the UK’s King George.

He assured lawmakers, to laughs, he was not in the US “as part of some cunning rearguard action” in a delayed continuation of the Revolutionary War.

“I am here on this great occasion in the life of our nations to express the highest regard and friendship of the British people to the people of the United States,” the sovereign said to repeated standing ovations.

But amid broad themes of unity, more pointed messages lurked.

Charles did not directly address the US-Israel war with Iran or Trump’s outspoken criticism of NATO allies who have rejected joining Washington’s war efforts.

Instead, he praised support for NATO and the alliance’s invocation of its Article 5 collective defence treaty in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

“We answered the call together, as our people have done so for more than a century, shoulder to shoulder through two world wars, the Cold War, Afghanistan and moments that have defined our shared security,” he said.

He then turned to funding for Ukraine, an increasingly pointed issue in the Republican-controlled US Congress.

“Today, Mr Speaker, that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defence of Ukraine and her most courageous people,” he said, referring to House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In one instance, Charles hailed the “$430 billion in annual trade that continues to grow, the $1.7 trillion in mutual investment that fuels that innovation”.

Last week, Trump threatened to impose a “big tariff” on the UK if it did not drop a digital services tax on US tech companies.

At another point, Charles pointed to global environmental concerns.

“We ignore, at our peril, the fact that these natural systems, in other words, nature’s own economy, provide the foundation for our prosperity and our national security,” he said.

Trump has called climate change a “con job” and withdrew from the landmark Paris Agreement climate accords during his first and second terms. His administration has since pursued deregulation of fossil fuels and pivoted away from green energy, an approach embraced by many members of the president’s Republican party.

Other messages appeared to gently reference political trends in the US, where critics have accused Trump of using the Department of Justice for political retribution and of overturning long-standing norms of presidential authority.

Charles described the “common ideals” of the US and UK: “The rule of law, the certainty of stable and accessible rules, an independent judiciary, resolving disputes and delivering impartial justice”.

He also drew a throughline between the Magna Carta, the 13th-century document that established that the British king was subject to law, and constitutional and legal precedent in the US, calling it “the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances”.

The address came shortly before Trump was set to host Charles and his wife, Queen Camilla, for an official state dinner.

The pair were then set to visit New York and Virginia, before an official farewell ceremony at the White House on Thursday.

US President Donald Trump hailed the “cherished bond” between the United States and the United Kingdom as he welcomed King Charles III and Queen Camilla to the White House, seeking to mend a rift over issues including the war on Iran.

Only 22 percent of US voters back the president’s performance on the cost of living, Reuters/Ipsos survey suggests.

United States President Donald Trump’s approval rating has dropped to its lowest point since he returned to the White House, sinking to 34 percent amid economic uncertainty and the US-Israel war on Iran, a Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests.

The poll, released on Tuesday, also showed that only 22 percent of respondents back Trump’s performance on the cost of living. Affordability has been a top issue for US voters.

The Iran war, which saw Tehran block most shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, has sent energy prices soaring across the world and fuelled inflation in the US.

The Reuters poll was conducted April 24-27, and it surveyed 1,014 US adults.

It comes months before the midterm elections in November when Trump’s Republican Party will have to contend with the US president’s abysmal job approval ratings as it tries to retain control of the Senate and House of Representatives.

Trump continues to enjoy near-unanimous support from Republicans in Congress despite growing criticism of the war on Iran by some right-wing commentators and podcasters.

The conflict has also been unpopular with US voters, including a sizeable Republican constituency.

A Marquette Law School survey released last week suggested that only 32 percent of voters approve of Trump’s handling of the war.

The number rose to 65 percent among Republican respondents, but it still showed significant dissent within the party on the issue.

A separate Associated Press-NORC poll last week reported similar findings – Trump’s overall approval rating at 33 percent, support for the war at 32 percent and his handling of the economy at 30 percent.

The US and Iran reached a two-week ceasefire on April 8 that Trump extended indefinitely, but tensions remain high in the region.

Duelling blockades in the Gulf – Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz and the US laying a naval siege on Iranian ports – have caused global energy supply issues to persist despite the truce.

In the US, the average price of 1 gallon (3.8 litres) of petrol is currently at $4.17, up from less than $3 before the war.

Still, Trump has suggested that he is comfortable with the status quo, claiming repeatedly that the Iranian economy is crumbling and that time is on his side.

“Iran has just informed us that they are in a ‘State of Collapse,’” the US president wrote in a social media post on Tuesday.

“They want us to ‘Open the Hormuz Strait,’ as soon as possible, as they try to figure out their leadership situation (Which I believe they will be able to do!)”

It’s not clear how or why Iran, which is currently refusing to hold direct negotiations with the US without it lifting the naval blockade, would inform Trump that its own economy is collapsing.

One day Delcy Rodríguez calls for a reform to the justice system after announcing the sudden revocation of the amnesty law her brother sponsored. The other, rumors suggest she’ll reshuffle the country’s higher court without providing any indication of who the new magistrates are going to be. The central bank president she recently named prepares to disclose figures to the IMF for the first time in decades.

The public does little else than follow the news, as if things were normal. Futile debate has emerged on social media over whether the new US chief of mission in Caracas is more hawkish than his predecessor. Or if the opposition has racist tendencies because a singer (once popular in the 2000s) called Delcy an ape in the opposition’s largest rally in years.

The picture of the country in recent weeks is one of Delcy Rodríguez calling the shots with near-total freedom. She has been enjoying a clear head start over a potential presidential election, as she crisscrosses Venezuela on what amounts to an unofficial campaign tour. In Caracas, she keeps changing everything so that nothing really changes. She is intent on controlling government offices in the next four years through newly promoted loyalists and a clean inflow of petrodollars. The chavista elite has looked more confident in the meantime, touring with Delcy in sky-blue outfits, leading cartoonish chants for peace and national union as if the internal contradictions that surfaced two months ago were now less important, because the possibility of survival looks clearer.

Back in February, optimists would discuss the scope of Washington’s coercion capacity over the “caretaker” regime, the boundaries that (if crossed) would trigger a “second wave” of attacks, the disappearance of Alex Saab as a prelude of a broader purge against other “untouchables” that overtly normalized the commission of terror. Now, lunatics like Diosdado Cabello’s nephew, Alejandro Rondón, claim on social media that “the recess is about to end” the same day Delcy says the amnesty scheme ran its course and Cabello recounts an unlikely justice system crackdown.

What followed January 3^rdwas a paradigm change with positive practical consequences for society that chavismo quickly learned to manage if not reverse.

Alejandro doesn’t look like the brightest dude. He’s another chavista nepo-kid working for the other Cabello uncle that controls Venezuela’s taxing authority, Jose David, though Alejandro made a name for himself with rage-baiting tweets that celebrated Maduro’s “victory” in 2024 and claimed the opposition were terrorists who falsified the official voting records (i.e. Diosdado’s talking points during the tun-tun operation).]

But an emboldened member of the Cabello Rondón clan is a troubling sign for those who fled the country after being placed on “treason” blacklists. It also undercuts the very notions of pluralism and national reconciliation that Marco Rubio invoked three months ago when outlining his vision for Venezuela’s democratic transition before US senators. Shortly thereafter, Rondón drove the point home by publicly wishing Donald Trump well after the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. The message seems clear: the arrangement with Team Trump is comfortable enough that, however fraught the geopolitical backdrop, they can afford to be flippant—even in public. They remain, unmistakably, the bullies in town. 

The long wait for elections (or just a calendar?)

What followed January 3^rd was a paradigm change with positive practical consequences for society that chavismo quickly learned to manage if not reverse. Allies of Maria Corina  Machado who spent the past two years jailed or hiding are back in the street, even providing testimonies about their imprisonment. The student movement has undergone a revival, liaising with human rights groups to set up carefully-controlled protests. Censorship isn’t what it used to be, so journalists have tried to take advantage of that opening. Pensioners and public workers have perhaps become the loudest actor in confronting Rodríguez, despite having to face colectivos and National Guards whenever they hit the streets.

Repression has become less intense, but the lack of a clear electoral calendar keeps the opposition on the sidelines, waiting for the arrival of Machado, which is no less paralyzing. The amnesty law passed on February 19 effectively funneled the release of political prisoners, shattering expectations of a “landmark outcome” that would speed up the process. 

Indeed, the statute’s contents make more than 180 supposed military rebels ineligible, although the release of a handful of FANB officers in recent days reinforces the idea that a law wasn’t necessary to get people out of jail. Nearly 300 civilians are still imprisoned, and we haven’t seen significant breakthroughs in the past few weeks.

According to figures from NGO Foro Penal (based on documented cases), the political prisoner population fell by 40% in the two months following the US military intervention—dropping from 863 detainees in late December to 526 by March 2. The pace has clearly slowed since then. Chavismo released 36 people between March and April, and 17 over the past 18 days (about 6% of the pre–January 3 total). The regime still resorts to sporadic arbitrary arrests and intimidation. Alexis Paparoni, an opposition figure in Mérida (and brother of Carlos Paparoni), was briefly detained while traveling and later released under precautionary measures. A similar incident occurred last weekend with a government employee in Guárico, who was detained for having a note on his desk bearing the now-infamous slur directed at Delcy.

“These prisoners are currently incarcerated because POTUShas chosen to appease and praise the perpetrators instead of supporting their victims,” Burelli recently told Senator Scott.

The White House appears satisfied with results so far. Venezuela is now subject to sweeping sanctions relief across oil, gas, minerals, and fertilizers, while OFAC has issued waivers allowing operations with public banks. Most notably, Delcy Rodríguez has been removed from the Specially Designated Nationals list—effectively unfreezing her US-based assets and clearing the way for financial dealings under American jurisdiction. 

The opposition leadership has largely stuck to its 2025 strategy of projecting trust and patience toward Donald Trump. María Corina Machado continues to argue that Trump is the head of state who has done the most to advance Venezuela’s liberation and maintains that the Rodríguez government is dismantling the Maduro-era “structures of corruption and repression.” However, she acknowledged last week that a bout of political instability cannot be ruled out. 

“The risk is that if people feel the path [toward freedom and democracy] is beginning to close, they may start to push back in a disorganized and potentially anarchic way,” she told esRadio hosts in Madrid. “That’s why a clearly defined electoral calendar is a guarantee of peace and stability. That would help people accept that this process will last a bit longer, as institutions must be strengthened and we need to take time to prepare for a truly impeccable election.”

Running out of patience

Criticism of the Trump administration’s handling in Venezuela continues to grow among groups of scholars and foreign policy observers, while opposition parties remain largely quiet and prefer to let Machado formulate their stance.

But in general, there’s a tense awareness that the waters are getting muddy. Some in journalism, and other opposition allies are starting to lose their patience.

Venezuelan journalist Sebastiana Barraez, an outspoken critic of chavismo and popular source on repression, told her audience that Venezuelan people have no guarantees about their future. Two days ago, she admitted the overthrow of Nicolás Maduro had raised hopes of a new democracy and true institutional recovery.

“It turns out none of that is happening,” Barráez said. “In Venezuela, Trump is promoting the interests of the United States. The problem is that those interests are not compatible with what we Venezuelans are looking for.”

Pedro Mario Burelli, an independent advisor for the opposition, is among the few figures to be pressing Washington over its ties with Delcy Rodríguez, calling Trump’s decision to elevate her an “incoherent strategy.” He has warned that doing business with Minerven makes the US an effective enabler of environmental crimes in Venezuela’s south. In March, he told The Atlantic that the remaining political prisoners now belong to Trump and Rubio.

“These prisoners are currently incarcerated because POTUS has chosen to appease and praise the perpetrators instead of supporting their victims. Constantly praising Delcy is disgraceful and an insult to the vast majority of Venezuelans”, Burelli told GOP Senator Rick Scott on Sunday.“Faulting her, as you and some of your colleagues do, is disingenuous. Venezuelans rightfully expect, and deserve, much more from democratically elected US officials.”

‘The great puzzle’

While Massie has long dominated elections in Kentucky’s 4th district, polling this year shows a tighter race than expected.

A Quantus Insights survey conducted from April 6 to 7 showed Massie leading Gallrein 46.8 percent to 37.7 percent.

Another survey conducted by Big Data Poll in early April had Massie ahead with 52.4 percent to Gallrein’s 47.6 percent.

The relatively close primary could be a bellwether for Republican voting trends nationwide, according to Stephen Voss, a political science professor at the University of Kentucky.

“Massie is an early opportunity to see what Republican voters will do when their pro-Trump leanings clash with their conservative leanings,” Voss said. “That is the great puzzle of this race.”

This is not the first time Trump has turned against Massie, though. In 2020, another election year, Trump famously petitioned to “throw Massie out of the Republican Party”.

But by 2022, Trump had reversed course, endorsing Massie over a challenger who questioned the congressman’s commitment to the president.

Still, the past year has widened the rift between Trump and Massie, leading the president to make his most aggressive moves yet to unseat the congressman.

The two Republicans clashed on a range of issues in 2025. Massie, for example, opposed the president on his tax and spending measures, fearing increases to the national debt.

That meant voting against Trump’s signature piece of legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, last July.

The Kentucky Republican also denounced Trump’s campaign of foreign intervention. Last June, NBC News reported that it was after Massie criticised Trump’s strikes on Iran that the president’s allies began laying the groundwork for a primary challenge.

Massie also led the charge to compel the Department of Justice to release all the files related to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier and convicted child sex offender.

Shortly thereafter, Trump gave his stamp of approval to Gallrein, posting on his Truth Social site, “RUN, ED, RUN.”

By that point, Gallrein, a military veteran and fifth-generation farmer, had yet to enter the race. Four days later, on October 21, he launched his bid.

Critics argue Gallrein’s platform does not offer much of a distinction from Massie’s. His campaign website lists his priorities as cutting taxes, reducing government spending, protecting gun rights and opposing abortion — issues Massie also supports.

“I don’t think he’s offering any kind of alternative, except for being the selection of Donald Trump,” Kahne said. “I think that’s it. That’s the only thing he has to offer.”

But Gallrein has drawn heavily from Trump’s endorsement, using it as a badge of loyalty and authenticity.

“You deserve an authentic, true Republican conservative that stands shoulder to shoulder with our president and the Republican Party,” Gallrein declared at the Trump rally in March.

Trump, meanwhile, told the crowd he had grown so frustrated that he just wanted “somebody with a warm body to beat Massie”.

The United States is considering a new proposal from Iran to end the ongoing war amid a fragile ceasefire between the longtime adversaries.

The offer focuses on reopening the strategic Strait of Hormuz while postponing a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme, arguably the most contentious issue between Tehran and Washington.

According to US media outlets, the proposal has drawn scrutiny in Washington, and officials there have expressed scepticism.

Early indications from the Trump administration suggest the plan is unlikely to be accepted in its current form, potentially further delaying any prospect of permanently ending the currently paused US-Israel war on Iran, which has killed thousands and sent global energy prices soaring.

Here is what we know so far:

What’s in Iran’s latest proposal?

Iran’s latest proposal aims for de-escalation in the Gulf without immediately placing restraints on its nuclear programme, as the US has demanded. Tehran has offered to reopen the Strait of Hormuz on the condition that the US lifts its naval blockade on Iranian ports and agrees to end the war.

Iran has effectively closed the strait to shipping, creating global economic pressure by driving up energy prices and disrupting supply chains. In peacetime, one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped through the narrow passage, which links Gulf oil producers to the open ocean.

Days after the ceasefire began on April 8, Trump announced a blockade on Iranian ports and ships, restricting Tehran’s ability to export oil and cutting off a crucial source of its revenue.

However, a central feature of Iran’s offer to reopen the Strait to all traffic is that discussions over Iran’s nuclear activities would be postponed until after the war ends.

The proposal was conveyed to Washington through Pakistan, which has been acting as a mediator.

“These messages concern some of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s red lines, including nuclear issues and the Strait of Hormuz,” Iranian state media Fars News Agency reported.

“Informed sources emphasise Mr Araghchi is acting entirely within the framework of the specified red lines and the diplomatic duties of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”

The news agency said the messages relayed were “unrelated to negotiations” and are “considered an initiative by Iran to clarify the regional situation”.

Iranian analyst Abas Aslani said Iran’s latest proposal is based on an “altered” approach.

Aslani, a senior research fellow at the Centre for Middle East Strategic Studies, told Al Jazeera that Tehran believes its previous model – which was based on making compromises on its nuclear programme in exchange for economic sanctions relief – is no longer a “viable path towards a potential accord”.

“Iran believes this can also function as a trust-building measure to compensate for the trust-deficit issue,” he added.

On Monday, Tehran’s envoy to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, said “lasting stability and security” in the Gulf and the wider region can only be achieved through a durable and permanent cessation of aggression against Iran.

How has the US responded so far?

US President Donald Trump met with top security advisers on Monday to discuss the Iranian proposal, the White House confirmed.

However, according to media reports, the US response has been largely dismissive. According to Reuters, an unnamed US official said President Trump was unhappy with the proposal because it did not include provisions for Iran’s nuclear programme. The official noted that “he doesn’t love the proposal”.

Citing two people familiar with the matter, US media outlet CNN reported that Trump was unlikely to accept the proposal. It said Washington lifting its blockade of Iranian ports without resolving questions over Tehran’s nuclear programme “could remove a key piece of American leverage in the talks”.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News on Monday that the proposal was “better than what we thought they were going to submit”, but questioned Tehran’s intentions.

“They’re very good negotiators,” he said. “We have to ensure that any deal that is made, any agreement that is made, is one that definitively prevents them from sprinting towards a nuclear weapon at any point.”

Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, said, “There’s been a complete lid over what was discussed” during the meeting between Trump and his national security team.

“It was so tight that we do not know exactly who in his national security team was present at that meeting,” Hanna added.

“Normally, there is some form of readout or some form of more information giving, fleshing out the details of a meeting like this.”

What has been the response from other countries?

While the “US and Iran feel that time is on their side, the longer this goes on, the more difficult it’s going to be,” Mohamed Elmasry, an analyst for the Doha Institute of Graduate Studies, said.

“I really don’t think time is on anyone’s side. I really do think the Europeans are losing patience,” he told Al Jazeera.

On Monday, German Chancellor Merz stated that the “Iranians are negotiating very skilfully”, Elmasry noted. He said this shows that Trump is coming under increasing pressure from his allies, “who believe he [Trump] got them into this big mess and isn’t able to clean it up”.

“Trump isn’t going to be happy hearing that and the chancellor is hitting Trump where it hurts.”

Far-right mayor opposes plan for football team to lose stadium access due to 2030 Winter Games’ ice hockey.

French organisers of the 2030 Winter Olympics are looking at alternative locations for ice hockey outside of Nice, including Paris and Lyon, because of a political deadlock involving the coastal city’s new mayor.

Like the Milan Cortina Olympics, the French Alps project has split snow sports in storied mountain resorts and skating in a snow-free city, the Mediterranean resort of Nice.

Nice was to turn the city’s football stadium, Allianz Arena, into a temporary hockey rink.

But Nice’s newly elected far-right mayor, Eric Ciotti, opposes the plan, refusing to allow the resident football club to lose access to its stadium for months because of the games. Ciotti, a former conservative allied with the National Rally party of Marine Le Pen, was elected last month.

The 2030 Games organisers said on Tuesday they have worked with officials from Nice and its wider region, as well as the French government, to find solutions for placing ice hockey within the Olympic hub in Nice. A temporary ice rink, intended as a replacement for the originally planned Allianz Riviera stadium, was studied at other stadiums, mainly for men’s hockey matches.

“Technical, scheduling, and financial analyses highlighted the limitations of these options, particularly due to their very high cost and impact,” organisers added.

“With a focus on efficiency and budget optimisation, the (organising committee) has decided to broaden its investigations by examining the use of existing facilities in other major metropolitan areas such as Lyon or Paris, particularly those offering a minimum seating capacity of 10,000,” they added.

Results of their explorations will be presented to the organising committee’s executive board on May 11. The final venues are expected to be confirmed in June when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decides the list of sports and events.

“The analyses carried out are leading us to turn towards existing facilities that are better suited and more sustainable. Several options are being studied to ensure hosting conditions that fully meet our requirements,” said Edgar Grospiron, the former Olympic champion freestyle skier who leads the organising committee.

The Paris Entertainment Company, which operates Adidas Arena and Accor Arena in the French capital, said last week it submitted a bid to host ice hockey. Both venues were used during the 2024 Paris Summer Games.

French Alps Games organisers said a second competition ice rink for skating is still planned at Nice’s exhibition centre, and other ice events scheduled in Nice remain unchanged.

Democrats blast latest move by the administration to radically restructure the federal government.

United States President Donald Trump’s administration has fired all 22 members of the board that sets the policies of the government-funded national science agency, according to an ex-board member and lawmakers.

The dismissals at the National Science Board (NSB), the policy and advisory arm of the National Science Foundation (NSF), mark the Trump administration’s latest move to radically restructure the government following the downsizing or effective elimination of multiple agencies, including the Department of Education and the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Roger Beachy, who was reappointed to a second six-year term on the science board by Trump in 2020, said he and his colleagues were not given a reason for their dismissal.

“The termination email was brief and to the point, with a ‘thank you for your service,’” Beachy, an emeritus biology professor at Washington University in St Louis, told Al Jazeera on Monday.

Beachy said he expected the Trump administration to appoint a new board but expressed concern about the nature of the research and education that would be supported by the science agency in the future.

“The nature of the board – partisan or independent? – and how it interacts with the agency is of critical importance to the continuing success of the NSF,” Beachy said.

Democratic lawmakers, who had earlier reported hearing of the dismissals from unspecified sources, blasted the Trump administration’s action.

“This is the latest stupid move made by a president who continues to harm science and American innovation,” Zoe Lofgren, the most senior member of the US House of Representatives’ science committee, said in a statement.

“Will the president fill the NSB with MAGA loyalists who won’t stand up to him as he hands over our leadership in science to our adversaries?” Lofgren said, calling the firings a “real bozo the clown move”.

The White House and the NSF did not immediately respond to requests for comment sent outside of usual business hours.

Trump has yet to publicly confirm or comment on the firings, but his administration previously targeted the NSF for sweeping cuts.

Under last year’s cost-cutting drive, led by tech billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, officials scrapped or halted more than 1,600 NSF grants worth nearly $1bn.

The NSF, established as an independent federal agency in 1950, spent more than $8bn on scientific research and education in 2025, making it one of the largest individual funders of science worldwide.

Boston World Cup host committee says fans will be allowed to tailgate for all seven matches at the Gillette Stadium.

In a reversal of an earlier decision, FIFA will allow tailgating at World Cup games at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts, the Boston World Cup host committee announced.

The committee said on Monday that the shift conforms with local policies that allow tailgating “like any other event hosted at the stadium as there are no venue restrictions or local public safety restrictions in place that would prohibit it”.

FIFA originally stated that tailgating would ⁠⁠not be allowed at any of the 104 matches, of which the United States is hosting 78, causing an uproar among football fans in the country.

The US is cohosting the 2026 tournament with Canada and Mexico from June 11 to July 19.

The Gillette Stadium – rebranded as the Boston Stadium during the World Cup to comply with FIFA’s policy prohibiting corporate-sponsored names for tournament venues – will host five group-stage matches, one round-of-32 match and a quarterfinal match at the home of the National Football League’s (NFL) New England Patriots.

Patriots games, New England Revolution ‌‌games and concerts allow tailgating at the stadium.

Space will be severely reduced from what is normally available. There are about 20,000 parking spots available for Patriots games, but only about 5,000 will be available for public use during the World Cup.

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority has set train prices at $80 for a round trip from Boston to Foxborough for tournament games, four times what it charges for NFL and MLS games. There is also an express bus option that will depart from various Boston-area locations, which will cost $95 for a round trip.

New York City announced on Monday that a fan fest for each of the city’s five boroughs will be ‌‌held in conjunction with World Cup matches at the MetLife Stadium – to be known as New York New Jersey Stadium – in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

What is tailgating in the US?

In the context of US sports, tailgating is a pre-game social event that sees fans of a team park their cars outside the stadium hosting the game. The supporters then gather around these parked cars to socialise by drinking, eating, and often cooking on site while they soak in the match-day atmosphere despite not being inside the venue.

It can often begin several hours before the start of the action inside the stadium. The culture is most common during NFL matches and is especially popular among fans of US football.

Which other US stadiums are hosting the World Cup?

The USA will open their World Cup campaign against Paraguay on June 12 at the SoFi Stadium, to be renamed the Los Angeles Stadium, in Inglewood, California.

The MetLife Stadium will host the final on July 19.

The other World Cup stadiums in the US are:

• Philadelphia (Lincoln Financial Field)
• Dallas (AT&T Stadium)
• Seattle (Lumen Field)
• Kansas City (Arrowhead Stadium)
• Miami (Hard Rock Stadium)
• Atlanta (Mercedes-Benz Stadium)
• Houston (NRG Stadium)
• San Francisco Bay Area (Levi’s Stadium)

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt blamed democrats for promoting the rhetoric which fuels what she described as “cult of hatred” against US President Donald Trump following the shooting that took place at the correspondents’ dinner in Washington, DC on Saturday.

The reinstated map, backed by President Donald Trump, could flip key districts to Republicans.

The US Supreme Court has formally reinstated a redrawn Texas electoral map expected to boost Republican representation in the US House of Representatives, as President Donald Trump’s party seeks to maintain control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections.

The ruling, issued on Monday, split along ideological lines, with the court’s six conservative justices in the majority and the three liberal justices dissenting.

The map – sought by Trump, approved by the Republican-led state legislature in August 2025, and signed by Governor Greg Abbott – could flip up to five Democratic Party-held House seats to Republicans.

The Supreme Court’s ruling overturned a lower court decision that had blocked the map’s use after finding it was likely racially discriminatory and in violation of constitutional protections.

Trump had urged Republican lawmakers last year to redraw congressional maps to strengthen the party’s position ahead of the November midterms, a push that has since evolved into a broader nationwide battle over redistricting.

Civil rights advocates sharply criticised the decision, arguing that the redistricting weakens the political influence of racial minorities.

“This was an intentional effort to limit the power of Black people and other people of colour,” Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said on Monday.

“This ruling does not erase the facts. Texas dismantled majority-minority congressional districts after the Trump administration urged the state to do exactly that.

“The result is a rigged map that limits the power of voters of colour in a state with a long record of voter suppression,” he added.

Florida proposal escalates redistricting battle

The fight over electoral maps is playing out beyond Texas.

In Florida, Republican Governor Ron DeSantis on Monday proposed a new congressional map aimed at flipping four Democratic-held House seats in the midterm elections.

It remains unclear whether the proposal has enough support in the Republican-controlled legislature to pass. DeSantis has called a special session starting Tuesday to consider the plan.

The map, which DeSantis first shared with Fox News, would likely give Republicans 24 of the state’s 28 US House seats, up from its current 20-8 majority.

Republicans can afford to lose only two House seats in November’s election to retain a majority. A Democratic-controlled House could launch investigations into Trump’s administration while blocking parts of his legislative agenda.

In Virginia, voters last week narrowly approved a Democratic-backed map targeting four Republican incumbents. Republicans have filed multiple lawsuits challenging the measure, and the state’s Supreme Court heard arguments in one such case on Monday.

Any overhaul in Florida would likely face legal challenges. In 2010, voters approved a constitutional amendment barring lawmakers from drawing districts for political gain, a practice known as gerrymandering.

Some Florida Republicans have also raised concerns that an aggressive redraw could leave incumbents exposed in a potential Democratic wave year, as Democrats have outperformed their 2024 margins in dozens of elections since Trump returned to office in January 2025.

Virginia and Florida represent what are likely the final battlegrounds in the redistricting war that Trump initiated last year with Texas.