US & Canada

US and Iranian officials are holding talks in Muscat amid escalating tensions and a US military buildup in the Gulf.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

US says two people were killed in strike on a vessel in the Pacific Ocean, continuing a campaign denounced as illegal.

The United States military has said that it killed two people in its latest attack on a vessel in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), which oversees US military operations in Latin America, said on Thursday that “two narco-terrorists were killed during this action”.

SOUTHCOM did not provide any evidence to support its claim that the vessel and the two victims were involved in drug trafficking.

US strikes on vessels in the Pacific and Caribbean, which have killed at least 126 people in 34 attacks since the first recorded incident in September 2025, have been widely denounced as illegal under international law.

The latest strike appears to be the first conducted by the Trump administration in 2026, according to records of the strikes tabulated by the watchdog group Airwars.

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

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is facing the possibility it could run out of funding next week, as Democrats press for reforms to its immigration enforcement tactics.

But Republican leaders on Thursday pushed back against the Democratic proposals, rejecting them as moot.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, for instance, called the demands “unrealistic and unserious”.

“This is not a blank check situation where Republicans just do agree to a list of Democrat demands,” Thune said, adding that the two parties appeared to be at an impasse.

“We aren’t anywhere close to having any sort of an agreement.”

Congress needs to pass funding legislation for the DHS by February 13, or else its programmes could be temporarily shuttered.

Ten demands from Democrats

Currently, Democrats are focused on changes to DHS’s immigration operations, particularly through programmes like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

But any funding shortfall stands to affect other Homeland Security functions as well, including the services offered by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which conducts security screenings at airports.

Top Democrats, however, have argued that a Homeland Security shutdown is necessary, given the abuses that have unfolded under President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Just last month, two US citizens, Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good, were killed at the hands of immigration agents in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in incidents that were caught on bystander video.

Their shooting deaths have since gone viral, prompting international outrage. Other footage shows masked agents deploying chemical agents and beating civilians who were documenting their activities or protesting – activities protected under the US Constitution.

To protect civil liberties and avoid further bloodshed, Democrats on Wednesday night released a series of 10 demands.

Many pertain to agent transparency. One of the demands was a ban on immigration agents wearing face masks, and another would require them to prominently display their identification number and agency.

Body cameras would also be mandated, though the Democrats clarified that the footage obtained through such devices should only be used for accountability, not to track protesters.

Other proposed rules would codify use-of-force policies in the Homeland Security Department and prohibit entry into households without a judicial warrant, as has been common practice under US law. They would also outlaw racial profiling as a metric for conducting immigration stops and arrests.

Political battle over funding

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he was “astounded to hear” that Republicans considered the demands to be unreasonable.

“It’s about people’s basic rights. It’s about people’s safety,” Schumer said. He called on Republicans to “explain why” they objected to such standards.

In a joint statement with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Schumer appealed to members of both parties to coalesce around what he described as common-sense guardrails.

“Federal immigration agents cannot continue to cause chaos in our cities while using taxpayer money that should be used to make life more affordable for working families,” Schumer and Jeffries wrote.

“It is critical that we come together to impose common sense reforms and accountability measures that the American people are demanding.”

Already, Democrats succeeded in separating Homeland Security funding from a spending bill passed on Tuesday to prevent a partial government shutdown.

Some Democrats and Republicans have pushed for a second split in order to vote on funding for ICE and CBP separately from FEMA and TSA spending.

But Republican leaders have opposed holding separate votes on those agencies, with Thune arguing it would amount to giving Democrats the ability to “defund law enforcement”.

Thune added that he would encourage Democrats to submit their reforms in legislation separate from Homeland Security funding.

It remains to be seen whether the two parties can agree to a compromise before the February 13 deadline. Democrats, meanwhile, have continued to push for other measures, including the removal of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has faced questions from the United States Senate about President Donald Trump’s ongoing campaign to slash interest rates, despite concerns that such a move could turbo-charge inflation.

Bessent appeared on Thursday before the Senate’s Financial Stability Oversight Council.

There, he received a grilling from Democrats over rising consumer prices and concerns about Trump’s attempts to influence the Federal Reserve, the US central bank.

One of his early clashes came with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who sought answers about a report in The Wall Street Journal that indicated Trump joked about suing his nominee for the Federal Reserve chair, Kevin Warsh, if he failed to comply with presidential demands.

“Mr Secretary, can you commit right here and now that Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh will not be sued, will not be investigated by the Department of Justice, if he doesn’t cut interest rates exactly the way that Donald Trump wants?” Warren asked.

Bessent evaded making such a commitment. “That is up to the president,” he replied.

Pressure on Federal Reserve members

Last week, Trump announced Warsh would be his pick to replace the current Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, who has faced bitter criticism over his decision to lower interest rates gradually.

By contrast, Trump has repeatedly demanded that interest rates be chopped as low as possible, as soon as possible.

In December, for instance, he told The Wall Street Journal that he would like to see interest rates at “one percent and maybe lower than that”.

“We should have the lowest rate in the world,” he told the newspaper. Currently, the federal interest rate sits around 3.6 percent.

Experts say a sudden drop in that percentage could trigger a short-term market surge, as loans become cheaper and money floods the economy. But that excess cash could drive down the value of the dollar, leading to higher prices in the long term.

Traditionally, the Federal Reserve has served as an independent government agency, on the premise that monetary decisions for the country should be made without political interference or favour.

But Trump, a Republican, has sought to bring the Federal Reserve under his control, and his critics have accused him of using the threat of legal action to pressure Federal Reserve members to comply with his demands.

In August, for instance, he attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook based on allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied.

Cook had been appointed to the central bank by Trump’s predecessor and rival, Democrat Joe Biden, and she has accused Trump of seeking her dismissal on political grounds. The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case.

Then, in early January, the Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation into Powell, echoing accusations Trump made, alleging that Powell had mismanaged renovations to the Federal Reserve building.

Powell issued a rare statement in response, accusing Trump of seeking to bully Federal Reserve leaders into compliance with his interest rate policy.

“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President,” Powell wrote.

Bipartisan scrutiny of Powell probe

Given the string of aggressive actions against Powell and Cook, Trump’s joke about suing Warsh fuelled rumours that the Federal Reserve’s independence could be in peril.

Within hours of making the joke on January 31, Trump himself faced questions about how serious he might have been.

“It’s a roast. It’s a comedy thing,” Trump said of his remarks as he spoke to reporters on Air Force One. “It was all comedy.”

Warren, however, pressed Bessent about Trump’s remarks and chided the Treasury chief for not rejecting them.

“I don’t think the American people are laughing,” Warren told Bessent. “They’re the ones who were struggling with the affordability.”

The prospect of Trump exerting undue influence over the Federal Reserve even earned a measure of bipartisan criticism during Thursday’s council meeting.

Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, opened his remarks to Bessent with a statement denouncing the probe into Powell, even though he acknowledged he was “disappointed” with the current Fed chair.

Still, Tillis emphasised his belief that Powell committed no crime, and that the investigation would discourage transparency at future Senate hearings.

He imagined future government hearings becoming impeded by legal formalities, for fear of undue prosecution.

“They’re going to be flanked with attorneys, and anytime that they think that they’re in the middle of a perjury trap, they’re probably just going to say, ‘I’ll submit it to the record after consultation with my attorneys,’” Tillis said, sketching out the scenario.

“Is that really the way we want oversight to go in the future?”

For his part, Bessent indicated that he backed the Federal Reserve’s long-term goal to keep interest rates at about 2 percent.

“It is undesirable to completely eliminate inflation,” Bessent said. “What is desirable is to get back to the Fed’s 2 percent target, and for the past three months, we’ve been at 2.1 percent.”

Scrutinising the lawsuit against the IRS

As Thursday’s hearing continued, Bessent was forced to defend the Trump administration on several fronts, ranging from its sweeping tariff policy to its struggle to lower consumer prices.

But another element of Trump’s agenda took centre stage when Democrat Ruben Gallego of Arizona had his turn at the microphone.

Gallego sought to shine a light on the revelation in January that Trump had filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) — part of his own executive branch.

Trump is seeking $10bn in damages for the leak of his tax returns during his first term as president. The IRS itself was not the source of the leak, but rather a former government contractor named Charles Littlejohn, who was sentenced to five years in prison.

Bessent was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, though he currently serves both as the Treasury secretary and the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.

Critics have argued that Trump’s lawsuit amounts to self-dealing: He holds significant sway over the Justice Department, which would defend the federal government against such lawsuits, and he could therefore green-light his own settlement package.

In Thursday’s exchange with Gallego, Bessent acknowledged that any damages paid to Trump would come from taxpayer funds.

“ Where would that $10bn come from?” Gallego asked.

“ It would come from Treasury,” Bessent replied. He then underscored that Trump has indicated any money would go to charity and that the Treasury itself would not make the decision to award damages.

Still, Gallego pressed Bessent, pointing out that the Treasury would ultimately have to disburse the funds — and that Bessent would be in charge of that decision.

That circumstance, Gallego argued, creates a conflict of interest, since Bessent is Trump’s political appointee and can be fired by the president.

“Have you recused yourself from any decisions about paying the president on these claims?” Gallego asked.

Bessent sidestepped the question, answering instead, “I will follow the law.”

Friedrich Merz said concerns about a further escalation with Iran have dominated his trip to the Gulf region.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has warned of the threat of a military escalation in the Middle East before talks between Iran and the United States in Oman on Friday.

Speaking in Doha on Thursday, Merz said that fears of a new conflict had characterised his talks during his trip to the Gulf region.

“In all my conversations yesterday and today, great concern has been expressed about a further escalation in the conflict with Iran,” he said during a news conference.

Merz also urged Iran to end what he called aggression and enter into talks, saying Germany would do everything it could to de-escalate the situation and work towards regional stability.

The warning came in the run-up to a crucial scheduled meeting between officials from Tehran and Washington in Muscat.

Mediators from Qatar, Turkiye and Egypt have presented Iran and the US with a framework of key principles to be discussed in the talks, including a commitment by Iran to significantly limit its uranium enrichment, two sources familiar with the negotiations have told Al Jazeera.

Before the talks, both sides appear to be struggling to find common ground on a number of issues, including what topics will be up for discussion.

Iran says the talks must be confined to its long-running nuclear dispute with Western powers, rejecting a US demand to also discuss Tehran’s ballistic missiles, and warning that pushing issues beyond the nuclear programme could jeopardise the talks.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett said the US is eager for the talks to follow what they see as an agreed-upon format.

“That agreed-upon format includes issues broader than what the US understands Iran is willing to discuss in this initial set of talks,” she explained.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday that talks would have to include the range of Iran’s ballistic missiles, its support for armed groups around the Middle East and its treatment of its own people, in addition to its nuclear programme.

A White House official has told Al Jazeera that Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and a key figure in his Middle East policy negotiations, and Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, have arrived in the Qatari capital, Doha, in advance of the talks.

Halkett said that Qatar is playing an instrumental role in trying to facilitate these talks, along with other regional US partners, including Egypt.

“We understand, according to a White House official, that this is perhaps part of the reason for the visit – to try and work with Qatar in an effort to try and get Iran to expand and build upon the format of these talks.”

Pressure on Iran

The talks come as the region braces for a potential US attack on Iran after US President Donald Trump ordered forces to amass in the Arabian Sea following a violent crackdown by Iran on protesters last month.

Washington has sent thousands of troops to the Middle East, as well as an aircraft carrier, other warships, fighter jets, spy planes and air refuelling tankers.

Trump has warned that “bad things” would probably happen if a deal could not be reached, ratcheting up pressure on Iran.

This is not the first time Iranian and US officials have met in a bid to revive diplomacy between the two nations, which have not had official diplomatic relations since 1980.

In June, US and Iranian officials gathered in the Omani capital to discuss a nuclear agreement, but the process stalled as Israel launched attacks on Iran, killing several military leaders and top nuclear scientists, and targeting nuclear facilities. The US later briefly joined the war, bombing several Iranian nuclear sites.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has agreed to reveal the vetting process used by the ruling Labour Party to approve Peter Mandelson’s appointment as the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States in December 2024 after new revelations from the Jeffrey Epstein files about the relationship between the diplomat and the billionaire sex offender.

For one, the latest release of files relating to the investigation of Epstein by the US Department of Justice showed that Mandelson maintained his relationship with Epstein after Epstein served a sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2008. But chief among the claims against Mandelson now are the suggestions he received payments from the late financier and may have shared market-sensitive information with him that was of financial interest to Epstein.

Epstein died in prison by suicide in 2019 before his trial stemming from his second prosecution for sex offences, including allegations of trafficking dozens of girls, could take place.

On Thursday, Starmer apologised to victims of Epstein for appointing Mandelson as ambassador to the US despite knowing of his ties to the disgraced financier.

“It had been publicly known for some time that Mandelson knew Epstein, but none of us knew the depth and the darkness of that relationship,” Starmer said.

“I am sorry. Sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed you, sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointing him.”

Who is Peter Mandelson and what is he accused of?

Since the release on Friday of the latest tranche of Epstein files, including emails between Epstein and Mandelson, UK media have widely reported that the government suspects Mandelson may have illegally shared market-sensitive information with Epstein 15 years ago.

The newly released files include more than 3 million pages of documents and more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.

As a life peer, Mandelson, 72, was a member of the House of Lords before he resigned this week. He was a veteran Labour politician who served in the cabinets of Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from 1997 to 2010. After Labour swept back into power after 14 years in the opposition in 2024, he was appointed ambassador to the US, taking up his post on February 10 last year.

He resigned from the Labour Party on Sunday.

“I have been further linked this weekend to the understandable furore surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and I feel regretful and sorry about this,” Mandelson said in a letter reported by British media.

“While doing this I do not wish to cause further embarrassment to the Labour Party and I am therefore stepping down from membership of the party.”

Alleged leaks of sensitive information by Mandelson took place in 2009 when he was serving as the UK’s business secretary in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

This is not the first time that Mandelson has been embarrassed by his friendship with Epstein. On September 11, the UK fired Mandelson as ambassador to the US over emails between the two men, the British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) said.

On Tuesday, UK police launched a criminal investigation into Mandelson over suspected misconduct in public office linked to his relationship with Epstein.

Misconduct in public office is punishable in the UK with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Besides his sacking as ambassador, Mandelson has previously been forced to resign from ministerial posts for alleged misconduct on two occasions – in 1998 and 2001.

Who was Jeffrey Epstein?

Epstein was a billionaire financier born and raised in New York who was known for socialising with celebrities and politicians.

Criminal investigations indicated he may have abused hundreds of girls over the course of his high-profile career. He was arrested in 2019 on federal criminal charges relating to alleged exploitation of underage girls dating back two decades. He died in prison before he could come to trial.

He also was previously accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in 2005 after her parents made a report to the police. In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting prostitution and soliciting prostitution from a minor in relation to a single victim.

He spent 13 months in prison on a work-release programme, which allowed him to leave jail to go to work during the day and return at night.

The US attorney in Manhattan also prosecuted Epstein’s former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell as a coconspirator in his sexual abuse scheme. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence, which she received in 2022.

What do we know about Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein?

When Mandelson was fired as ambassador to the US in September, the FCDO wrote: “In light of the additional information in emails written by Peter Mandelson, the prime minister has asked the foreign secretary to withdraw him as ambassador.

“The emails show that the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time of his appointment.”

These particular emails were obtained and published by the UK’s Sun newspaper in September. In them, Mandelson told Epstein to “fight for early release” shortly before he was sentenced in 2008.

“I think the world of you,” Mandelson told Epstein before his sentence began.

“I can still barely understand it. It just could not happen in Britain,” Mandelson wrote. “You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can.”

It is now clear from the latest tranche of Epstein files that Mandelson continued his friendship with Epstein for some time after the financier had been convicted of sex offences.

What do the new Epstein files reveal?

From 2003 to 2004, bank records indicated that Epstein made three payments totalling $75,000 to accounts connected to Mandelson or his partner Reinaldo Avila da Silva. Mandelson has said he does not recall receiving any such funds and has pledged to examine whether the documents are genuine.

According to these documents, in 2009, Epstein sent da Silva 10,000 pounds ($13,607, or $20,419 today after inflation) to pay for an osteopathy course. This week, Mandelson told The Times of London: “In retrospect, it was clearly a lapse in our collective judgement for Reinaldo to accept this offer.”

Emails revealed in the latest tranche of files from the US Justice Department also shine a light on the close friendship between the two men.

In October 2009, Epstein wrote in an email to Mandelson: “You can marry princess beatrice, the queen would have a queen as a grandson,” referring to the daughter of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former prince whose royal titles were stripped last year over his own links to Epstein and allegations of the sexual abuse of Virginia Giuffre, who successfully sued Mountbatten-Windsor.

“does that make it incest, how exciting,” Epstein wrote.

In 2010, Lesley Groff, known to have been Epstein’s long-term executive assistant, emailed his boss: “Mandelson’s holiday plans arc still being sorted out. They hope to be in touch soon.”

In 2013, Epstein emailed Mandelson, saying he knew Mandelson was visiting St Petersburg, Russia. Mandelson described the city as “a rave”, to which Epstein asked whether “its for gays”. Mandelson responded, “Er no, tastey [sic] models and dancing.”

But the emails also suggested Mandelson passed sensitive information to the financier.

On May 9, 2010, Mandelson emailed Epstein, saying: “Sources tell me 500 b euro bailout, almost compelte [sic].” The next morning, European governments approved a 500-billion-euro bailout for banks in the wake of the global financial crisis.

Also in May 2010, Mandelson emailed Epstein, saying, “Finally got him to go today.” It is believed that Mandelson was referring to former Labour Prime Minister Brown.

Epstein replied to this email: “I have faith, the value of some chapters in your book should now increase.”

Brown announced his resignation just hours after this email exchange.

What has Starmer said?

Under mounting pressure from opposition politicians and within his own party this week, Starmer agreed to release information about the process through which Mandelson was appointed ambassador in 2024.

At a question and answer session on Wednesday in the House of Commons dominated by the Epstein revelations, Starmer admitted that he knew of Mandelson’s friendship with Epstein but said Mandelson had “lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador”.

“Mandelson betrayed our country, our parliament and my party,” Starmer said. “I regret appointing him. If I knew then what I know now, he would never have been anywhere near government.”

Starmer said he would ensure that “all of the material” is published, except for documents that compromise Britain’s national security, international relations or the police investigation into Mandelson’s activities.

On Tuesday, Starmer told his cabinet he was “appalled by the information” regarding Mandelson and was concerned more details could come to light, according to a Downing Street readout of the cabinet meeting.

Starmer also said he had ordered the civil service to conduct an “urgent” review of all of Mandelson’s contacts with Epstein while he was in government.

“The alleged passing on of emails of highly sensitive government business was disgraceful,” Starmer said, adding that he was not yet “reassured that the totality of information had yet emerged”.

How will this affect Starmer?

Members of parliament expressed their dismay and called on him to step down.

Conservative MP Luke Evans said: “At the end of the day, he [Starmer] made the decision to appoint Mandelson to the post of ambassador, so he must explain his decision-making process.”

Alex Burghart, the shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said: “There is no doubt that the prime minister’s judgement is being called sharply into question at this moment. It is becoming harder to see how any of us can rely on his judgement in future.”

Conservative MP Graham Stuart added: “The fact is that he appointed a person who had already broken all the Nolan Principles before his appointment as well as doing so after it. I think that makes the prime minister’s position untenable.”

The Nolan Principles are a set of ethical standards for all public office holders in the UK.

“I would say that today is the crumbling of Starmer. His judgement is poor, and it is ruining this country and the Labour Party,” Conservative MP Esther McVey said.

What do we know about how Mandelson was approved as US ambassador?

Facing questions from Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch in the House of Commons in September, Starmer maintained that “full due process was gone through” for the purposes of Mandelson’s appointment.

Mandelson’s ties to Epstein, who is said to have nicknamed him “Petie”, had been publicly known for years.

But The Times of London reported that Starmer received just a two-page vetting note from the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team about Mandelson’s appointment.

That document suggested that while Epstein was in prison in 2009, Mandelson stayed at Epstein’s townhouse in Manhattan. The report also contained a photograph of Mandelson and Epstein together.

This indicated that by late 2024, the UK government had documentation showing Mandelson had remained close to Epstein even after his 2008 conviction.

The United States has hosted its first critical minerals summit aimed at challenging China’s dominance of the global supply chain for rare earth elements. But political economist Stefan Zylinski warns that Global South countries are likely to bear the greatest cost from any plan conceived by the Global North.

EXCLUSIVE

Email exchange shows Epstein sought to arrange meeting between top Democrat and US Virgin Islands representative.

An associate of the United States Virgin Islands’ sole representative in the US Congress asked Jeffrey Epstein for help to arrange a meeting between the politician and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, according to documents released by the US Justice Department.

The outreach to Epstein was made on behalf of Stacey Plaskett, the islands’ delegate to the House of Representatives, as the politician sought to lobby Schumer for relief after two hurricanes ripped through the Caribbean in 2017, according to the documents.

“We have to help Stacey get a meeting with Schumer. Any thoughts?” Erika Kellerhals, a tax lawyer in the US Virgin Islands, wrote to Epstein in an email on January 24, 2018.

“[S]hould not be a problem need to know the reason and subject,” Epstein wrote back a few hours later.

“She has been unable to confirm a meeting with him. He is driving the disaster relief bill and has only been talking about Puerto Rico and not the [Virgin Islands]. She’s concerned we will be ignored,” Kellerhals told Epstein in response.

After his exchange with Kellerhals, Epstein sent an email to Kathy Ruemmler, a former chief counsel to US President Barack Obama, asking for help in setting up a meeting with Schumer.

“schumer is driving the puerto rico . virgin islands relief=bill. the VI congressional rep Stacey plaskett , h=s not been able to get a meeting. confirmed with him. ca= you help?” Epstein wrote to Ruemmler, who is now the chief lawyer to Goldman Sachs.

“I do not have any relations=ip with him, but let me see whether I can get to his COS,” Ruemmler said in response, referring to his chief of staff.

The emails are among some 3.5 million pages of files released last week that relate to US authorities’ investigations into Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

It is not clear if a meeting between Schumer and Plaskett went ahead, though Congress ultimately approved emergency funds for the US Virgin Islands as part of a two-year budget package passed in February 2018.

There is no public record of Schumer meeting or directly communicating with Epstein.

Schumer, Plaskett and Kellerhals did not respond to requests for comment. Ruemmler could not be reached for comment.

The email exchange with Epstein, which has not been previously reported, is the latest among numerous examples of how the disgraced financier continued to exert influence at the highest levels of politics and business long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution with a minor.

Plaskett’s ties to Epstein have been a source of controversy for years.

Plaskett narrowly escaped censure by the House of Representatives last year over revelations that Epstein had coached her over text during a Congressional hearing in February 2019.

Shortly after Epstein was arrested for a second time in July 2019, Plaskett announced that she would donate a sum to charity equivalent to several campaign donations she had received from Epstein and his associates.

While Plaskett is a non-voting member of Congress, the Democrat participates in floor debates and sits on several influential committees, including the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Plaskett has previously denied enabling Epstein, calling him a “demon” and saying she was “disgusted by his deviant behavior”.

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s probe seen as latest effort by Trump administration to roll back diversity and inclusion policies.

Nike is being investigated in the United States over claims that it discriminated against white workers through its diversity and inclusion policies.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said on Wednesday that it had filed a court motion to compel Nike to produce information related to allegations of “intentional race discrimination” against white employees.

The allegations relate to a suspected pattern of discrimination in “hiring, promotion, demotion, or separation decisions, including selection for layoffs; internship programs; and mentoring, leadership development and other career development programs”, the US government agency said.

The agency said it took the action after Nike had failed to respond to a subpoena for various information, including the criteria used in selecting employees for redundancies and setting executives’ pay.

EEOC chair, Andrea Lucas, an ardent critic of racial diversity initiatives who was appointed last year by President Donald Trump, said US anti-discrimination law is “colour-blind” and protects employees of “all races”.

“Thanks to President Trump’s commitment to enforcing our nation’s civil rights laws, the EEOC has renewed its focus on even-handed enforcement of Title VII,” Lucas said in a statement, referring to a section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, colour, religion or sex.

Nike, based in Beaverton, Oregon, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The EEOC’s action is seen as the latest move by the Trump administration to roll back policies promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace.

In one of his first acts upon returning to the White House, Trump signed an executive order to abolish “radical” and “wasteful” DEI initiatives introduced under his predecessor, Joe Biden.

Like many corporate giants in the US, Nike publicly backed social justice causes such as Black Lives Matter prior to Trump’s re-election in 2024.

Between 2020 and 2021, Nike’s share of non-white employees rose more than four percentage points, the most among firms apart from healthcare provider Danaher, according to a Bloomberg analysis of company data reported to the EEOC.

The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), a United Nations agency, has issued a new report warning of an uptick in measles cases throughout the region.

On Wednesday, the organisation issued an epidemiological alert that called for member states to strengthen “routine surveillance and vaccination activities” in order to combat the spread of the disease.

“The sharp increase in measles cases in the Americas Region during 2025 and early 2026 is a warning sign that requires immediate and coordinated action by Member States,” PAHO said in a statement.

Overall, in the first three weeks of 2026 alone, PAHO documented 1,031 cases of measles in the Americas. Throughout 2025, a total of 14,891 cases were confirmed.

Some of the biggest outbreaks the PAHO highlighted were unfolding in North America, with countries like the United States, Mexico and Canada facing high numbers of cases.

What is measles?

Measles is a highly contagious airborne virus capable of infecting nine out of every 10 people exposed to it, if they are unvaccinated.

In most cases, symptoms of the disease clear up within several weeks. However, measles can be deadly or cause life-altering health complications, particularly among young children.

Some sufferers find themselves with ear infections and lung inflammation. Others experience pneumonia or encephalitis, a swelling of the brain that can cause lasting damage, including seizures and memory loss.

The only way to prevent measles and halt its spread is by taking a vaccine. That care is often administered through a combination vaccine known by the acronym MMR, for measles, mumps and rubella.

Doctors typically advise patients to get vaccinated early. For healthy children, the general guidance is to receive the first MMR dose before 15 months of age. The second and final dose is recommended before age six.

The MMR vaccine is widely considered safe. But in countries like the US, vaccination rates have fallen in recent years, in part due to conspiracy theories and misleading statements.

The country’s Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, for instance, has previously asserted that the vaccine “wanes very quickly”, despite the fact that it offers lifelong protection.

Kennedy has also claimed there were health risks associated with the vaccine. But experts, including at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have repeatedly maintained that most people encounter no serious problems – and that the vaccine is far safer than exposure to measles itself.

“There have been no deaths shown to be related to the MMR vaccine in healthy people,” the Infectious Diseases Society of America says on its website.

High numbers in North America

According to PAHO’s report on Wednesday, the US has seen 171 new cases of measles in the first three weeks of 2026. The country experienced a total of 2,242 cases in 2025.

One of the ongoing outbreaks has been in South Carolina, where 876 incidents of measles have been reported in recent months. Of that total, 800 sufferers were unvaccinated, 16 had only received a partial vaccination, and 38 had an unknown vaccination status.

Meanwhile, in Texas, an outbreak resulted in 762 cases of measles between January and August. Two unvaccinated children died in that outbreak, and there were 99 hospitalisations.

In 2000, measles had been declared eliminated from the US, a sign that cases were no longer spreading domestically, though some cases did occur after exposure to the virus abroad.

Mexico, too, had achieved its measles elimination status in 1996, after an extensive vaccination campaign. The entire Americas region was declared measles-free in 2016.

But both the US and Mexico risk seeing their measles elimination status revoked, as outbreaks continue.

In Mexico, for instance, there were 6,428 cases of measles in 2025, the highest of any country in the Americas. For the first three weeks of 2026, there have been 740 more cases.

PAHO typically determines which countries have elimination status, and the organisation has indicated that it will review the situation in the US and Mexico during a virtual meeting on April 13.

Canada, meanwhile, already saw its measles elimination status rescinded in November. It has seen several measles outbreaks since October 2024.

PAHO found that there were 5,436 cases of measles last year, and 67 in the first three weeks of 2026.

The country can win back its elimination status only if it stops measles transmissions resulting from its outbreaks for more than one year.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a California redistricting measure meant to net the Democratic Party more congressional seats, rejecting a challenge from the state Republican Party.

There was no dissent in Wednesday’s decision, and the conservative-majority court did not offer any explanation for its decision.

Instead, its order was comprised of a single sentence, stating that the Republican application “is denied”.

Previously, in December, the Supreme Court had allowed a similar redistricting measure, designed to benefit Republicans in Texas, to move forward.

Democratic officials in California have applauded Wednesday’s decision as fair, given that Republican President Donald Trump has led a nationwide push to redraw congressional districts in his party’s favour.

“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a written statement.

“He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November.”

California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed Newsom’s remarks, blaming Trump for launching a kind of redistricting arms race that threatened to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

“The US Supreme Court’s decision is good news not only for Californians, but for our democracy,” Bonta said in the statement.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a win for Democratic efforts to counter the Trump-led redistricting efforts, which began last year in Texas.

In June last year, reports emerged that Trump had personally called Texas state politicians to redraw their congressional districts to give Republicans a greater advantage in Democrat-held areas.

Each congressional district elects one person to the US House of Representatives, which has a narrow Republican majority. Out of 435 seats, 218 are held by Republicans, and 214 by Democrats.

Texas, a Republican stronghold, proceeded to approve a newly revamped congressional map in August, overcoming a walkout by Democratic legislators.

That, in turn, prompted Newsom to launch a ballot initiative in California to counteract the Texas effort.

Just as the new Texas congressional map was designed to increase Republican seats by five, the California ballot initiative, known as Proposition 50, was also positioned to increase Democratic representation by five.

Voters in California passed the initiative overwhelmingly in a November special election, temporarily suspending the work of an independent redistricting commission that had previously drawn the state’s congressional maps.

Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential contender, framed Proposition 50 as a means of fighting “fire with fire”.

The new map approved under Proposition 50, however, will only be in place through the 2030 election, and Newsom has pledged to repeal it, should Republicans in Texas do the same with their new map.

The push to redistrict for partisan gain — a process known as gerrymandering — has long faced bipartisan pushback as an attack on democratic values.

Normally, redistricting happens every 10 years, after a new census is taken, to reflect population changes.

But this mid-decade redistricting battle comes before the pivotal 2026 midterm elections, which are slated to be a referendum on Trump’s second term as president. Trump has already expressed fear that he might be impeached, should Congress switch to Democratic control.

Partisan gerrymandering is not necessarily illegal, unless it purposefully disenfranchises voters on the basis of their race. That, in turn, is seen as a violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, an important piece of civil rights legislation from 1965.

In response to the passage of Proposition 50, Republicans in California sued Newsom and other state officials in an effort to overturn the new congressional map.

They argued the new map was created “specifically to favor Hispanic voters” and would dilute the representation of Republican voters in the state.

The Trump administration joined the lawsuit on November 13, backing the state Republicans.

But Bonta, the California attorney general, argued the redistricting process was legal. In court filings, he also maintained that Trump’s backing of the lawsuit was driven by self-interest.

“The obvious reason that the Republican Party is a plaintiff here, and the reason that the current federal administration intervened to challenge California’s new map while supporting Texas’s defense of its new map, is that Republicans want to retain their House majority for the remainder of President Trump’s term,” his court filing said.

Bonto also called on the Supreme Court not to “step into the political fray, granting one political party a sizeable advantage” by overturning Proposition 50.

The victory for California Democrats on Wednesday comes as redistricting fights continue across the country.

Already, states like North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri have adopted new congressional maps to favour Republicans. There has been pushback, though.

In December, Indiana’s Republican-led legislature voted down a partisan redistricting measure, despite pressure from Trump to pass it.

New Delhi, India – When US President Donald Trump announced a trade deal with India on Monday this week, he declared that New Delhi would pivot away from Russian energy as part of the agreement.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump said, had promised to stop buying Russian oil, and instead buy crude from the United States and from Venezuela, whose president, Nicolas Maduro, was abducted by US special forces in early January. Since then, the US has effectively taken control of Venezuela’s mammoth oil industry.

In return, Trump dialled down trade tariffs on Indian goods from an overall 50 percent to just 18 percent. Half of that 50 percent tariff was levied last year as punishment for India buying Russian oil, which the White House maintains is financing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.

But since Monday, India has not publicly confirmed that it has committed to either ceasing its purchase of Russian oil or embracing Venezuelan crude, analysts note. Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson, told reporters on Tuesday that Russia had received no indication of this from India, either.

And switching from Russian to Venezuelan oil will be far from straightforward. A cocktail of other factors – shocks to the energy market, costs, geography, and the characteristics of different kinds of oil – will complicate New Delhi’s decisions about its sourcing of oil, they say.

So, can India really dump Russian oil? And can Venezuelan crude replace it?

What is Trump’s plan?

Trump has been pressuring India to stop buying Russian oil for months. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the US and European Union placed an oil price cap on Russian crude in a bid to limit Russia’s ability to finance the war.

As a result, other countries including India began buying large quantities of cheap Russian oil. India, which before the war sourced only 2.5 percent of its oil from Russia, became the second-largest consumer of Russian oil after China. It currently sources around 30 percent of its oil from Russia.

Last year, Trump doubled trade tariffs on Indian goods from 25 percent to 50 percent as punishment for this. Later in the year, Trump also imposed sanctions on Russia’s two biggest oil companies – and threatened secondary sanctions against countries and entities that trade with these firms.

Since the abduction of Maduro by US forces in early January, Trump has effectively taken over the Venezuelan oil sector, controlling sales cash flows.

Venezuela also has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, estimated at 303 billion barrels, more than five times larger than those of the US, the world’s largest oil producer.

But while getting India to buy Venezuelan oil makes sense from the US’s perspective, analysts say this could be operationally messy.

How much oil does India import from Russia?

India currently imports nearly 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) of Russian crude, according to analytics company Kpler. Under Trump’s mounting pressure, that is lower than the average 1.21 million bpd in December 2025 and more than 2 million bpd in mid-2025.

One barrel is equivalent to 159 litres (42 gallons) of crude oil. Once refined, a barrel typically produces about 73 litres (19 gallons) of petrol for a car. Oil is also refined to produce a wide variety of products, from jet fuel to household items including plastics and even lotions.

Has India stopped Russian oil purchases?

India has reduced the amount of oil it buys from Russia over the past year, but it has not stopped buying it altogether.

Under increasing pressure from Trump, last August, Indian officials called out the “hypocrisy” of the US and EU pressuring New Delhi to back off from Russian crude.

“In fact, India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict,” Randhir Jaiswal, India’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said then. He added that India’s decision to import Russian oil was “meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer”.

Despite this, Indian refiners, currently the second-largest group of buyers of Russian oil after China, are reportedly winding up their purchases after clearing current scheduled orders.

Major refiners like Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL), Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd (MRPL), and HPCL-Mittal Energy Ltd (HMEL) halted purchasing from Russia following the US sanctions against Russian oil producers last year.

Other players like Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Bharat Petroleum Corporation, and Reliance Industries will soon stop their purchases.

What happens if India suddenly stops buying Russian oil?

Even if India wanted to stop importing Russian oil altogether, analysts argue it would be extremely costly to do so.

In September last year, India’s oil and petroleum minister, Hardeep Singh Puri, told reporters that it would also sharply push up energy prices and fuel inflation. “The world will face serious consequences if the supplies are disrupted. The world can’t afford to keep Russia off the oil market,” Puri said.

Analysts tend to agree. “A complete cessation of Indian purchases of Russian oil would be a major disruption. An immediate halt would spike global prices and threaten India’s economic growth,” said George Voloshin, an independent energy analyst based in Paris.

Russian oil would likely be diverted more heavily towards China and into “shadow” fleets of tankers that deliver sanctioned oil secretly by flying false flags and switching off location equipment, Voloshin told Al Jazeera. “Mainstream tanker demand would shift toward the Atlantic Basin, most likely increasing global freight rates as a result,” he noted.

Sumit Pokharna, vice president at Kotak Securities, noted that Indian refineries have reported robust margins in the last two years, majorly benefitting from the discounted Russian crude.

“If they move to higher-costing, like the US or Venezuela, then raw material cost would increase, and that would squeeze their margins,” he told Al Jazeera. “If it goes beyond control, they may have to pass the excess onto consumers.”

Can India stop buying Russian oil altogether?

It may not be able to. One of India’s two private refiners, Nayara Energy, is majority-Russian-owned and under heavy Western sanctions. The Russian energy firm Rosneft holds a 49.13 percent stake in the company, which operates a 400,000-barrel-per-day refinery in India’s Gujarat, PM Modi’s home state.

Nayara is the second-largest importer of Russian crude, buying about 471,000 barrels per day in January this year, accounting for nearly 40 percent of Russian supplies to India.

Its plant has relied solely on Russian crude since European Union sanctions were imposed on the company last July.

Nayara is not planning to load Russian oil in April as it shuts its refinery for more than a month for maintenance from April 10, according to Reuters.

Pokharna said the future of Nayara hangs in the balance, with the US unlikely to grant India an overt exemption for the Russia-backed company to import crude.

Can India switch to Venezuelan oil?

India has been a major consumer of Venezuelan oil in the past. At its peak, in 2019, India imported $7.2bn of oil, accounting for just under 7 percent of total imports. That stopped after the US slapped sanctions on Venezuelan oil, but some officials of the government-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation are still stationed in the Latin American country.

Now, major Indian refiners have said they are open to receiving Venezuelan oil again, but only if it is a viable option.

For one thing, Venezuela is roughly twice as far from India as Russia and five times further than the Middle East, meaning much higher freight costs.

Venezuelan oil is more expensive as well. “Russian Urals [a medium-heavy crude blend] has been trading at a wide-ranging discount of about $10-20 per barrel to Brent, while Venezuelan Merey currently offers a smaller discount of around $5-8 per barrel,” Voloshin told Al Jazeera.

“Importing from Venezuela and forgoing the Russian discount would be a costly affair for India,” said Pokharna. “From transportation cost to forgoing discounts, it could cost India $6-8 more per barrel – and that is a huge increase in the importing bill.”

Overall, a complete pivot away from Russia could raise India’s import bill by $9bn to $11bn – an amount roughly equal to India’s federal health budget – per year, according to Kpler.

“Venezuelan crude must be discounted by at least $10 to $12 per barrel to be competitive,” argued Voloshin. “This deeper discount is necessary to offset the much higher freight costs, increased insurance premiums for the longer Atlantic voyage, and the somewhat higher operational expenses required to process Venezuela’s extra-heavy high-sulfur crude.”

Without deeper discounts, the longer journey and complex handling make Venezuelan oil more expensive on a delivered basis, he added.

Another major issue is that many Indian refiners simply do not have the facilities to process very heavy Venezuelan oil.

Venezuelan crude is a heavy, sour oil, thick and viscous like molasses, with a high sulphur content requiring complex, specialised refineries to process it into fuel. Only a small number of Indian refineries are equipped to handle it.

“[Venezuelan oil’s heaviness] makes it an option only for complex refineries, leaving out older and smaller refineries,” Pokharna told Al Jazeera. “The shift is operationally difficult and would require blending with more expensive light crudes.”

Then there is the question of availability. Today, Venezuela produces barely a million barrels per day when pushed to its limit. Even if all production was sent to India, it would not match the total Russian oil import.

Where else could India buy oil?

India’s Minister Puri has said that New Delhi is looking to diversify sourcing options from nearly 40 countries.

As India has reduced Russian imports, it has increased them from Middle Eastern nations and other countries in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Now, while Russia accounts for nearly 27 percent share in India’s oil imports, OPEC nations, led by Iraq and Saudi Arabia, contribute 53 percent.

Reeling from Trump’s trade war, India has also increased purchases of US oil. American crude imports to India rose by 92 percent from April to November in 2025 to nearly 13 million tons, compared to 7.1 million in the same period in 2024.

However, India would be competing for these supplies with the European Union, which has pledged to spend $750bn by 2028 on US energy and nuclear products.

Meanwhile, for Venezuela to return to higher production, Caracas needs political stability, changes in foreign investment and oil laws, and to clear debts. That will take time, experts say.

United States border security chief Tom Homan has announced that the administration of President Donald Trump will “draw down” 700 immigration enforcement personnel from Minnesota while promising to continue operations in the northern state.

The update on Wednesday was the latest indication of the Trump administration pivoting on its enforcement surge in the state following the killing of two US citizens by immigration agents in Minneapolis in January.

Homan, who is officially called Trump’s “border czar”, said the decision came amid new cooperation agreements with local authorities, particularly related to detaining individuals at county jails. Details of those agreements were not immediately available.

About 3,000 immigration enforcement agents are currently believed to be in Minnesota as part of Trump’s enforcement operations.

“Given this increase in unprecedented collaboration, and as a result of the need for less law enforcement officers to do this work in a safer environment, I have announced, effective immediately, we will draw down 700 people effective today – 700 law enforcement personnel,” Homan said.

The announcement comes after Homan was sent to Minnesota at the end of January in response to widespread protests over immigration enforcement and the killing of Renee Nicole Good on January 7 by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent and Alex Pretti on January 24 by a US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer, both in Minneapolis.

Homan said reforms made since his arrival have included consolidating ICE and CBP under a single chain of command.

He said Trump “fully intends to achieve mass deportations during this administration, and immigration enforcement actions will continue every day throughout this country”.

Immigration rights observers have said the administration’s mass deportation approach has seen agents use increasingly “dragnet” tactics to meet large detention quotas, including randomly stopping individuals and asking for their papers. The administration has increasingly detained undocumented individuals with no criminal records, even US citizens and people who have legal status to live in the US.

Homan said agents would prioritise who they considered to be “public safety threats” but added, “Just because you prioritise public safety threats, don’t mean we forget about everybody else. We will continue to enforce the immigration laws in this country.”

The “drawdown”, he added, would not apply to what he described as “personnel providing security for our officers”.

“We will not draw down on personnel providing security and responding to hostile incidents until we see a change,” he said.

Critics have accused immigration enforcement officers, who do not receive the same level of crowd control training as most local police forces, of using excessive violence in responding to protesters and individuals legally monitoring their actions.

Trump administration officials have regularly blamed unrest on “agitators”. They accused both Good and Pretti of threatening officers before their killings although video evidence of the exchanges has contradicted that characterisation.

Last week, the administration announced it was opening a federal civil rights investigation into the killing of Pretti, who was fatally shot while he was pinned to the ground by immigration agents. That came moments after an agent removed a gun from Pretti’s body, which the 37-year-old had not drawn and was legally carrying.

Federal authorities have not opened a civil rights investigation into the killing of Good, who they have maintained sought to run over an ICE agent before she was fatally shot. Video evidence appeared to show Good trying to turn away from the agent.

On Friday, thousands of people took to the streets of Minneapolis and other US cities amid calls for a federal strike in protest against the Trump administration’s deportation drive.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and other state and local officials have also challenged the immigration enforcement surge in the state, arguing that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE and the CBP, has been violating constitutional protections.

A federal judge last week said she will not halt the operations as a lawsuit progresses in court. Department of Justice lawyers have dismissed the suit as “legally frivolous”.

On Wednesday, a poll released by the Marquette Law School found wide-ranging disquiet over ICE’s approach, with 60 percent of US adults nationwide saying they disapproved of how the agency was conducting itself. The poll was conducted from January 21 to January 28, with many of the surveys conducted before Pretti’s killing.

The poll still found widespread support for ICE among Republicans, with about 80 percent approving of its work. Just 5 percent of Democrats voiced similar approval.

Perhaps most worryingly for Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterms in November, just 23 percent of independents – potential swing voters in the upcoming vote – approved of ICE’s actions.

Names of the rich and powerful are littered throughout the latest batch of the “Epstein files.” Here are some of the most prominent global figures.

What happens when a person has no country?

Citizens of Nowhere is a documentary short about stateless people in the United States – individuals who, through circumstance or legal technicality, belong to no nation. Without passports, citizenship or legal recognition, they live in a state of uncertainty.

From finding work and accessing education, to simply existing within a system that does not officially recognise them, stateless people face endless bureaucratic barriers.

This documentary short by Alicia Sully questions what citizenship really means, and what happens when a person has none.

A What Took You So Long? production, in association with United Stateless.

Leaked audio from the Epstein files suggests former UK prime minister and ‘Board of Peace’ member Tony Blair was known for earning large sums of money for advisory work after leaving office. Blair’s office told Al Jazeera the figures mentioned in the audio were ‘rubbish’.

US President Donald Trump lashed out at a journalist, calling her the ‘worst reporter’, after she questioned him about survivors of the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump’s name appears in the Epstein files. He has not been accused of any crimes by Epstein’s victims and has denied any wrongdoing.

Harden, an 11-time All-Star, was traded for the fifth time in his career after two and a half seasons at the LA Clippers.

The Cavaliers and Clippers ‌have finalised a trade that sends ‍11-time All-Star James ‍Harden to Cleveland, with Darius Garland and a second-round pick going to Los Angeles, ESPN and The Athletic both reported late on Tuesday.

Harden, 36, ⁠was held out of the Clippers’ lineup the ​last two games for what the team labelled ‍personal reasons.

The former NBA MVP and three-time scoring champ is averaging 25.4 points, 8.1 assists and 4.8 rebounds in ‍44 games this ⁠season, his 17th in the NBA.

Harden could block any trade because he is technically under contract for just this season, which requires his approval for the swap. The second year of his two-year, $81.5m deal is a player ​option, which is not fully guaranteed.

Garland, ‌26, has been sidelined since January 14 with a Grade 1 right toe sprain.

The two-time All-Star is averaging 18.0 points ‌and 6.9 assists over 26 games this season. He is in the third ‌year of a five-year, $197.2m ⁠contract.

The Cavaliers (30-21) are in contention in the Eastern Conference, one of four teams with either 30 or 31 wins behind first-place ‌Detroit (36-12), which explains the desire to make a big move by acquiring Harden.

The Clippers, 23-26, remain in ‍play-in contention in the West, currently in ninth place.

The NBA trade deadline is Thursday at 3pm ‌ET (20:00 GMT).

US President Donald Trump has said that talks with Iran are continuing to try to de-escalate tensions in the Gulf, even as the US military announced shooting down an Iranian drone that approached its aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea.

Thousands of people marched through Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, demanding the release of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, exactly one month since US forces abducted the couple in a bloody nighttime raid.

“Venezuela needs Nicolas!” the crowd chanted in Tuesday’s demonstration, titled “Gran Marcha” (The Great March).

Thousands carried signs in support of the abducted president, and many wore shirts calling for the couple’s return from detention in a US prison.

“The empire kidnapped them. We want them back,” declared one banner carried by marchers.

Nicolas Maduro Guerra, the detained president’s son and a member of Venezuela’s National Assembly, addressed the crowds from a stage, stating that the US military’s abduction of his father on January 3 “will remain marked like a scar on our face, forever”.

“Our homeland’s soil was desecrated by a foreign army”, Maduro Guerra said of the night US forces abducted his father.

The march, called by the government and involving many public sector workers, stretched for several hundred metres, accompanied by trucks blaring music.

Local media outlet Venezuela News said the march was part of a “global day of action” to demand the couple’s release. Protesters showed their solidarity around the world, demonstrating under banners with slogans like “Bring them back” and “Hands off Venezuela”.

The international event united voices “from diverse ideological trends”, who agreed “that the detention of President Maduro and Cilia Flores represents a flagrant violation of international law and a dangerous precedent for the sovereignty of nations”, the news outlet said.

“We feel confused, sad, angry. There are a lot of emotions,” said Jose Perdomo, a 58-year-old municipal employee, who marched in Caracas.

“Sooner or later, they will have to free our president”, he said, adding that he also backed Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodriguez.

Rodriguez has been walking a thin line since taking over as acting president, trying to appease Maduro’s supporters in government and accommodating the demands being placed on Caracas by US President Donald Trump.

Trump has said he is willing to work with Rodriguez, as long as Caracas falls in line with his demands, particularly on the US taking control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

Striking a conciliatory tone with Washington, and promising reform and reconciliation at home, Rodriguez has already freed hundreds of political prisoners and opened Venezuela’s nationalised hydrocarbons sector to private investment.

Earlier on Tuesday, hundreds of university students and relatives of political prisoners also marched in the capital, calling for the quick approval of an amnesty law promised by Rodriguez that would free prisoners from the country’s jails.

Legislation on the amnesty has not yet come before parliament.

For months, United States President Donald Trump has called him a “sick man” and an “illegal drug leader”.

But on Tuesday, Trump welcomed his Colombian counterpart, Gustavo Petro, to the White House for their first face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC.

Both leaders hailed the meeting as productive, while acknowledging the lingering tensions that divide them.

At a news conference after their meeting, Petro waved away questions about his rocky history with Trump, whom he has publicly accused of human rights violations.

Instead, he called the interaction “ a meeting between two equals who have different ways of thinking”.

“He didn’t change his way of his thinking. Neither did I. But how do you do an agreement, a pact? It’s not as between twin brothers. It’s between opponents,” Petro said.

Separately, Trump told reporters from the Oval Office that he felt good about the meeting. “I thought it was terrific,” he said.

On the agenda for the two leaders were issues including the fight against transnational drug trafficking and security in Latin America.

Here are five takeaways from Tuesday’s meeting.

A White House charm offensive

Over the past year, Trump has invited the media to participate in his meetings with foreign leaders, often holding news conferences with the visiting dignitaries in the Oval Office.

Not this time, however. The meeting between Trump and Petro lasted nearly two hours, all of it behind closed doors.

But the two leaders emerged with largely positive things to say about one another.

In a post on social media, Petro revealed that Trump had gifted him several items, including a commemorative photograph of their meeting accompanied by a signed note.

“Gustavo – a great honor. I love Colombia,” it read, followed by Trump’s signature.

In another post, Petro showed off a signed copy of Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal. On its title page, Trump had scrawled another note to Petro: “You are great.”

“Can someone tell me what Trump said in this dedication?” Petro wrote jokingly in Spanish on social media. “I don’t understand much English.”

A turning point in a tense relationship?

Petro’s joke appeared to be a cheeky nod to his notoriously rocky relationship with Trump.

It was only six days into Trump’s second term, on January 26, 2025, that he and Petro began their feud, trading threats on social media over the fate of two US deportation flights.

Petro objected to the reported human rights violations facing the deportees. Trump, meanwhile, took Petro’s initial refusal to accept the flights as a threat to US “national security”. Petro ultimately backed down after Trump threatened steep sanctions on imported Colombian goods.

They continued to trade barbs in the months since. Petro, for instance, has condemned the deadly US attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, comparing the strikes with murder.

He has also criticised Trump for carrying out a US military offensive in Venezuela to abduct then-President Nicolas Maduro. That attack, Petro said, was tantamount to “kidnapping”.

Trump, meanwhile, stripped Petro of his US visa following the Colombian leader’s appearance at the United Nations General Assembly, where he criticised the US and briefly joined a pro-Palestinian protest.

The Trump administration also sanctioned Petro in October, blaming the left-wing leader for allowing “drug cartels to flourish”.

After removing Maduro from power on January 3, Trump offered a warning to Petro: he had better “watch his a**”. The statement was widely interpreted to be a threat of military action against Colombia.

But Trump and Petro appeared to have reached a turning point last month. On January 7, the two leaders held their first call together. Tuesday’s in-person meeting marked another first in their relationship.

Agreeing to disagree

Despite the easing tensions, the two leaders used their public statements after the meeting to reaffirm their differences.

Trump was the first to speak, holding a news conference in the Oval Office as he signed legislation to end a government shutdown.

The US president, a member of the right-wing Republican Party, used the appearance to reflect on the political tensions the two leaders had in the lead-up to the meeting.

“He and I weren’t exactly the best of friends, but I wasn’t insulted, because I’d never met him,” Trump told reporters.

He added that Tuesday’s meeting was nevertheless pleasant. “I didn’t know him at all, and we got along very well.”

Petro, meanwhile, held a longer news conference at the Colombian Embassy in Washington, DC, where he raised some points of divergence he had with Trump.

Among the topics he mentioned was Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which the US has supported, and sustainable energy initiatives designed to be carbon neutral. Trump, in the past, has called the so-called green energy programmes a “scam”.

Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing leader, also reflected on his region’s history with colonialism and foreign intervention. He told reporters it was important that Latin America make decisions for itself, free from any outside “coercion”.

“ We don’t operate under blackmail,” he said at one point, in an apparent reference to Trump’s pressure campaigns.

Differing approach to combating drug trafficking

One of the primary points of contention, however, was Petro’s approach to combating drug trafficking.

Colombia is the world’s largest producer of cocaine, responsible for 68 percent of the global supply.

The Trump administration has used the fight against global drug trafficking as a justification for carrying out lethal military strikes in international waters and in Venezuela, despite experts condemning the attacks as illegal under international law.

It has also stripped Colombia of its certification as an ally in its global counter-narcotics operations.

Trump’s White House has said it will consider reversing that decision if Petro takes “more aggressive action to eradicate coca and reduce cocaine production and trafficking”.

But Petro has rejected any attempt to label him as soft on drug trafficking, instead touting the historic drug busts his government has overseen.

He made this argument yet again after Tuesday’s meeting, claiming that no other Colombian administration had done as much as his to fight cocaine trafficking.

Rather than take a militarised approach to destroying crops of coca, the raw ingredient for cocaine, Petro argued that he has had more success with voluntary eradication programmes.

This push, he said, succeeded in “getting thousands of peasant farmers to uproot the plant themselves”.

“These are two different methods, two different ways of understanding how to fight drug trafficking,” Petro said. “One that is brutal and self-interested, and what it ends up doing is promoting mafia powers and drug traffickers, and another approach, which is intelligent, which is effective.”

Petro maintained it was more strategic to go after top drug-ring leaders than to punish impoverished rural farmers by forcibly ripping up their crops.

“I told President Trump, if you want an ally in fighting drug trafficking, it’s going after the top kingpins,” he said.

A Trumpian note

Tuesday’s meeting ultimately marked yet another high-profile reversal for Trump, who has a history of shifting his relationships with world leaders.

Last year, for instance, he lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a public Oval Office clash, only to warm to the wartime leader several months later.

But Colombia is quickly approaching a pivotal presidential election in May, which will see Petro’s left-wing coalition, the Historic Pact, seek to defend the presidency against an ascendant far right.

Petro himself cannot run for consecutive terms under Colombian law. But there is speculation that Tuesday’s detente with Trump may help Petro’s coalition avoid US condemnation ahead of the vote.

Colombia, after all, was until recently the largest recipient of US aid in South America, and it has long harboured close ties with the North American superpower. Straining those ties could therefore be seen as an election liability.

While Petro acknowledged his differences with Trump during his remarks, at times he expressed certain views that overlapped with the US president’s.

Like Trump has in the past, Petro used part of his speech on Tuesday to question the role of the UN in maintaining global security.

“ Did it not show incapacity? Isn’t a reform needed?” Petro asked, wondering aloud if there was “something superior to the United Nations that would bring humanity together better in a better way”.

But when it came to donning Trump’s signature “Make America Great Again” baseball cap, Petro drew a line – or rather, a squiggle.

On social media, he shared an adjustment he made to the cap’s slogan. A jagged, Sharpie-inked “S” amended the phrase to include the entire Western Hemisphere: “Make Americas Great Again.”

We’re talking to educators with decades of experience and seeing why nobody is reading books any more. Is it fair to blame everything on technology? Are parents being present enough with their children, and what does that mean for our collective future?

Presenter: Stefanie Dekker

Guests:
Beth Gaskill – Founder of Big City Readers

Keisha Siriboe – Literacy advocate

Margaret Kunji – Former educator