US & Canada

Canadian firm ends its sponsorship of the Israeli-owned team following multiple pro-Palestine protests at major cycling races.

The title sponsor of Israel-Premier Tech has ended its association with the cycling team with immediate effect after protests against the team’s participation in races and despite the outfit saying it would undergo a full rebrand for the 2026 season to operate under a new name.

Canadian company Premier Tech said on Friday it had broken off its sponsorship deal after the team was targeted by pro-Palestinian protesters at several races this year, with stages of the Vuelta a Espana grand tour in August and September disrupted by demonstrators before the race was abandoned by organisers.

The sponsors removed their full name from riders’ jerseys at the Vuelta.

The team, owned by Canadian-Israeli property developer Sylvan Adams, was created in 2014 by Ron Baron and Ran Margaliot and is based in Israel.

It was also subject to isolated protests during the sport’s other two main stage races: the Giro d’Italia and Tour de France, and had been accused of sportswashing by pro-Palestine groups.

After the Vuelta, the Canadian multinational Premier Tech called for the team to change its name to remove “Israel” and to adopt a new identity and brand image.

The team agreed to move away from its “Israeli identity”.

However, the Canadian-based manufacturer and horticulture firm Premier Tech said it would step down as co-title sponsor of the team with immediate effect.

“Although we took notice of the team’s decision to change its name for the 2026 season, the core reason for Premier Tech to sponsor the team has been overshadowed to a point where it has become untenable for us to continue as a sponsor,” the company added.

“We want to thank the team – riders and staff – for the four unforgettable seasons by their side, and to acknowledge their incredible accomplishments and professionalism, both on and off the road.”

Canadian cyclist Derek Gee, who finished fourth overall at this year’s Giro d’Italia, also left Israel-Premier Tech shortly before the Vuelta over what he described as “personal beliefs”.

Last month, Gee said he was facing a damages claim of 30 million euros ($35m) from the team.

In September, a United Nations inquiry found that Israel’s war on Gaza was a genocide and held the Israeli government responsible for the war that has killed at least 68,875 Palestinians.

Although the team is privately-owned rather than state-run, Adams had dubbed himself an unofficial ambassador for Israel, and the outfit had been hailed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for refusing to quit the Vuelta ahead, despite protests, until the race was eventually abandoned.

In October, Adams stepped back from his day-to-day involvement with the team and no longer speaks on its behalf.

The team joined the World Tour elite level of road racing before the 2020 season and in July that year recruited four-time Tour de France winner Chris Froome.

Amid the pro-Palestine protests at the Vuelta, Spanish Sports Minister Pilar Alegria had called for a ban on Israeli sports teams in the same way that Russian sides broadly were banned in 2022 after the country invaded Ukraine, highlighting a “double standard”.

“It is difficult to explain and understand that there is a double standard,” Alegria told Spanish radio station Cadena SER in September.

“Given that there has been such a massacre, a genocide, such an absolutely terrible situation we are living through day-by-day, I would agree that the international federations and committees should take the same decision as in 2022,” she added.

“[The protests] are a clear representation of what the people feel, sport cannot be distanced from the world that surrounds it.”

Foreign minister says Budapest ‘obtained an indefinite exemption from the sanctions’ on Russian oil and gas shipments.

Hungary’s foreign minister says Budapest has secured an indefinite waiver from US sanctions on Russian oil and gas imports, as a White House official reiterated that the exemption was for only a period of one year.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban met President Donald Trump at the White House on Friday to press for a reprieve after the US last month imposed sanctions on Russian oil companies Lukoil and Rosneft.

After the meeting, Orban told Hungarian media that Budapest had “been granted a complete exemption from sanctions” affecting Russian gas delivered to Hungary from the TurkStream pipeline, and oil from the Druzhba pipeline.

But a White House official later told the Reuters news agency that Hungary had been granted a one-year exemption from sanctions connected to using Russian energy.

On Saturday, Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said there would be no sanctions for “an indefinite period”.

“The prime minister was clear. He has agreed with the US President [Donald Trump] that we have obtained an indefinite exemption from the sanctions,” Szijjarto wrote on Facebook.

“There are no sanctions on oil and gas shipments to Hungary for an indefinite period.”

However, a White House official repeated in an email to the Reuters news agency on Saturday that the exemption is for one year.

Hungary expected to buy US LNG

The White House official who spoke to Reuters added that Hungary would also diversify its energy purchases and had committed to buying US liquefied natural gas with contracts valued at some $600m.

Orban has maintained close ties with both Moscow and Washington, while often bucking the rest of the EU on pressuring Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.

The Hungarian leader offered to host a summit in Budapest between Trump and Putin, although the US leader called it off in October and hit Moscow with sanctions for the first time in his presidency.

Budapest relies heavily on Russian energy, and Orban, 15 years in power, faces a close election next year.

International Monetary Fund figures show Hungary bought 74 percent of its gas and 86 percent of its oil from Russia in 2024, warning that an EU-wide cutoff of Russian natural gas alone could cost Hungary more than 4 percent of its GDP.

Orban said that, without the agreement, energy costs would have surged, hitting the wider economy, pushing up unemployment and generating “unbearable” price rises for households and firms.

This week, Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani made history by becoming the first Muslim mayor of New York City. His road to victory was anything but smooth. After he secured a historic win in the mayoral primary, he faced a landslide of attacks from across the political spectrum. In the months that followed, the hateful rhetoric from right-wing provocateurs, social media personalities, and even his three opponents mushroomed.

Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa claimed that Mamdani supports “global jihad”; independent candidate and former New York governor Andrew Cuomo agreed with a comment that Mamdani would celebrate “another 9/11”; and outgoing NYC mayor, Eric Adams, who dropped out and endorsed Cuomo, suggested that a Mamdani mayorship would turn New York into Europe, where “Islamic extremists … are destroying communities.”

Sadly, as researchers of anti-Muslim bias, and Muslim individuals who came of age in a post-9/11 America, we know attacks of this nature – on someone’s character or fitness for a job because of their religious background or national origin – aren’t entirely unexpected. We know that Islamophobia spikes not after a violent act, but rather during election campaigns and political events, when anti-Muslim rhetoric is used as a political tactic to garner support for a specific candidate or policy.

Worryingly, these attacks also reflect a general trend of rising Islamophobia, which our research has recently uncovered. The latest edition of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding’s (ISPU) American Muslim Poll, which contains our Islamophobia Index, released on October 21, reveals that in the last three years, Islamophobia has sharply risen in the US, across almost all demographic groups.

Among the general population in the US, on our 1 to 100 scale, the index increased from a score of 25 in 2022 to a score of 33 in 2025. This jump was most pronounced among white Evangelicals, whose score increased from 30 to 45 between 2022 and 2025, and Catholics, whose score increased from 28 to 40 during the same period. Protestants also saw a rise of 7 points, from 23 in 2022 to 30 in 2025. Jews had an Islamophobia score of 17 in 2022, the lowest of any group that year, which increased only slightly to 19 in 2025, the same score as Muslims in 2025. The only group that did not change since 2022 is the non-affiliated.

Undoubtedly, the weaponisation of Islamophobia by high-profile individuals is a major driver of this worrying trend. And it can lead to devastating outcomes for Muslims: From job loss and inability to freely worship, to religious-based bullying of Muslim children in public schools and discrimination in public settings, to even physical violence. Simply put, dangerous rhetoric can have dangerous consequences.

Much of this Islamophobic rhetoric relies on five common stereotypes about Muslims, which we used in putting together our index: That they condone violence, discriminate against women, are hostile to the US, are less civilised, and are complicit in acts of violence committed by Muslims elsewhere. We then surveyed a nationally representative sample, including 2,486 Americans, to identify the extent to which they believed in these tropes.

More Americans are embracing these stereotypes about Muslims, even though they are easily disproved.

For example, despite popular media portrayals of Muslims as more prone to violence or as being complicit in violence perpetrated by Muslims elsewhere in the world, ISPU research shows American Muslims overwhelmingly reject violence. They are more likely than the general public to reject violence carried out by the military against civilians and are as likely to reject individual actors targeting civilians.

The popular stereotype that Muslim communities discriminate against their women also does not hold water. The fact is that Muslim women face more racial and religious discrimination than they do gender discrimination, which all women, Muslim or not, report at equal levels in the United States. The vast majority (99 percent) of Muslim women who wear hijab say they do so out of personal devotion and choice – not coercion. And Muslim women report that their faith is a source of pride and happiness.

Our research also disproves the belief that most Muslims living in the US are hostile to the country. We have found that Muslims with strong religious identities are more likely than those with weaker ones to hold a strong American identity. It also shows that Muslims participate in public life from the local to the national level through civic engagement, working with neighbours to solve community problems, and contributing during times of national crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and the Flint water crisis.

The trope that most Muslims living in the US are less “civilised” than other people has no factual basis, as well. The use of the “civilised/uncivilised” dichotomy strips individuals of their human dignity and separates people into a false, ethnocentric hierarchy on the basis of race or religion. Accusing a group of being less civilised than another is a frequently used dehumanising tactic. Dehumanisation, defined by Genocide Watch as when one group denies the humanity of the other group, is a step on the path to genocide.

We have seen all of these tropes activated in the past few weeks to launch Islamophobic attacks on Mamdani. We have also seen too many of our politicians and public figures use them comfortably in their public speech, placing an entire faith community in harm’s way. As Mamdani said in a speech addressing the Islamophobic attacks by his fellow candidates, “In an era of ever-diminishing bipartisanship, it seems that Islamophobia has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement.”

But Islamophobia isn’t just bad for Muslims – it undermines our democracy and constitutional freedoms. Research has linked belief in these anti-Muslim tropes to greater tolerance for anti-democratic policies. People who embrace Islamophobic beliefs are more likely to agree to limiting democratic freedoms when the country is under threat (suspending checks and balances, limiting freedom of the press), condone military and individual attacks on civilians (a war crime under the Geneva Convention), and approve of discriminatory policies targeting Muslims (banning Muslims, surveilling mosques, and even restricting the ability to vote).

Weaponising Islamophobia in political speech may be perceived as a winning strategy to rally support, but communities where it is deployed end up losing. That is why such practices must be challenged. Confronting and denouncing hate means preserving democracy and human dignity. Perhaps the election of Mamdani will signal a real shift away from this political strategy. As the mayor-elect said in his acceptance speech, “No more will New York be a city where you can traffic in Islamophobia and win an election.”

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

Forty-two million face food aid delays after the nation’s top Court lets US president pause full SNAP payments.

The United States Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to temporarily withhold about $4bn in federal food aid for November, leaving 42 million low-income Americans in need uncertain about their benefits amid the nation’s longest-ever government shutdown.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued the administrative stay on Friday, giving a lower court more time to assess the administration’s request to only partially fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as food stamps.

The SNAP programme supports Americans whose income falls below 130 percent of the federal poverty line. For the 2026 fiscal year, the maximum monthly benefit is $298 for an individual and $546 for a two-person household.

The Supreme Court order pauses a ruling by a federal judge in Rhode Island that had required the government to immediately release the full amount of funding.

The stay will remain in place until two days after the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston rules on whether to block the lower court’s decision. SNAP typically costs between $8.5bn and $9bn each month.

Earlier this week, District Judge John McConnell, appointed by former President Barack Obama, accused the Trump administration of withholding SNAP funds for “political reasons”. His ruling ordered the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to use money from a separate child nutrition fund, worth more than $23bn and financed through tariffs, to cover the shortfall in food assistance.

‘Judicial activism at its worst’

The administration had planned to provide $4.65bn in emergency funding, half the amount needed for full benefits. It argued that McConnell’s ruling would “sow further shutdown chaos” and prompt “a run on the bank by way of judicial fiat”, according to filings by the Department of Justice.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the Supreme Court’s intervention, calling McConnell’s order “judicial activism at its worst”.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday refused to immediately halt McConnell’s ruling before the Supreme Court’s stay was announced. The USDA had already informed state governments that it was preparing to distribute full SNAP payments, triggering confusion among officials and recipients as the administration appealed.

SNAP benefits lapsed at the start of November, for the first time in the programme’s six-decade history. Many recipients have since turned to food pantries or cut back on essentials like medication to stretch their limited budgets.

The next hearing in the 1st Circuit is expected soon, while millions of families wait to see whether full benefits will resume.

Trump calls it a ‘disgrace’ that South Africa is hosting the G20, reiterates debunked claims of a ‘genocide’ against white farmers.

President Donald Trump has said no United States officials will attend this year’s Group of 20 (G20) summit in South Africa, citing the country’s treatment of white farmers.

Writing on his Truth Social platform on Friday, Trump said it was a “total disgrace that the G20 will be held in South Africa”.

“Afrikaners (People who are descended from Dutch settlers, and also French and German immigrants) are being killed and slaughtered, and their land and farms are being illegally confiscated,” Trump wrote, reiterating claims that have been rejected by authorities in South Africa.

“No US Government Official will attend as long as these Human Rights abuses continue. I look forward to hosting the 2026 G20 in Miami, Florida!” he added.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has repeatedly claimed that white South Africans are being persecuted in the Black-majority country, a claim rejected by South Africa’s government and top Afrikaner officials.

Trump had already said on Wednesday that he would not attend the summit – which will see the heads of states from the world’s leading and emerging economies gather in Johannesburg on November 22 and 23 – as he also called for South Africa to be thrown out of the G20.

US Vice President JD Vance had been expected to attend the meeting in place of the president. But a person familiar with Vance’s plans told The Associated Press news agency that he will no longer travel to South Africa.

Tensions first arose between the US and South Africa after President Cyril Ramaphosa introduced a new law in January seeking to address land ownership disparities, which have left three-quarters of privately owned land in the hands of the white minority more than three decades after the end of apartheid.

The new legislation makes it easier for the state to expropriate land, which Ramaphosa insists does not amount to confiscation, but creates a framework for fair redistribution by allowing authorities to take land without compensation in exceptional circumstances, such as when a site has been abandoned.

Shortly after the introduction of the Expropriation Act, Trump accused South Africa of “confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY”.

“The United States won’t stand for it, we will act,” he said.

In May, Trump granted asylum to 59 white South Africans as part of a resettlement programme that Washington described as giving sanctuary after racial discrimination.

The same month, when Trump met with President Ramaphosa in the White House, he ambushed him with the claim that a “genocide” is taking place against white Afrikaners in his country.

Ramaphosa denied the allegations, telling Trump “if there was Afrikaner farmer genocide, I can bet you, these three gentlemen would not be here”, pointing to three white South African men present – professional golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen, and South Africa’s richest man, Johann Rupert.

South African historian Saul Dubow, professor of Commonwealth history at the University of Cambridge, previously told Al Jazeera that there is no merit to “Trump’s fantasy claims of white genocide”.

Dubow suggested that Trump may be more angry about South Africa’s genocide case filed against Israel in the International Court of Justice over its war on Gaza.

Nonetheless, the Trump administration has maintained its claim of widespread persecution. On October 30, the White House indicated that most new refugees admitted to the US will be white South Africans, as it slashed the number of people it will admit annually to just 7,500.

“The admissions numbers shall primarily be allocated among Afrikaners from South Africa pursuant to Executive Order 14204 and other victims of illegal or unjust discrimination in their respective homelands,” the White House said.

US district judge blocks Donald Trump’s use of military force to tackle protests against immigration officers.

United States President Donald Trump unlawfully ordered National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, a federal judge has ruled, marking a legal setback for the president’s use of the military for policing duties in US cities.

The ruling on Friday by US District Judge Karin Immergut is the first to permanently block Trump’s use of military forces to quell protests against immigration authorities.

Immergut, a Trump appointee, rejected the administration’s claim that protesters at an immigration detention facility were waging a rebellion that legally justified sending troops to Portland.

Democrats have said Trump is abusing military powers meant for genuine emergencies such as an invasion or an armed rebellion.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield described the ruling as a “huge victory” and the “decision confirms that the President cannot send the Guard into Oregon without a legal basis for doing so”.

“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Rayfield said in a post on social media.

BREAKING NEWS: We just secured a final court order blocking National Guard deployment!

Today’s ruling is a huge victory for Oregon. The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law. pic.twitter.com/ffzgj0zCjM

— Attorney General Dan Rayfield (@AGDanRayfield) November 8, 2025

Portland’s Mayor Keith Wilson also applauded the decision, saying it “vindicates Portland’s position while reaffirming the rule of law that protects our community”.

“As I have said from the beginning, the number of federal troops needed in our city is zero,” Wilson said, according to local media reports.

The City of Portland and the Oregon Attorney General’s Office sued in September, alleging that the Trump administration was exaggerating occasional violence to justify sending in troops under a law permitting presidents to do so in cases of rebellion.

Echoing Trump’s description of Portland as “war-ravaged”, lawyers from the Department of Justice had described a violent siege overwhelming federal agents in the city.

But lawyers for Oregon and Portland said violence has been rare, isolated and contained by local police.

“This case is about whether we are a nation of constitutional law or martial law,” Portland’s lawyer Caroline Turco had said.

The Trump administration is likely to appeal Friday’s ruling, and the case could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court.

A review by the Reuters news agency of court records found that at least 32 people were charged with federal crimes stemming from the Portland protests since they began in June. Of the 32 charged, 11 pleaded guilty to misdemeanours, and those who have been sentenced received probation.

About half the defendants were charged with assaulting federal officers, including 14 felonies and seven misdemeanours.

Prosecutors dismissed two cases.

Charging documents describe protesters kicking and shoving officers, usually while resisting arrest.

Three judges, including Immergut, have now issued preliminary rulings that Trump’s National Guard deployments are not allowed under the emergency legal authority cited by his administration.

The race for access to Central Asia’s natural resources is intensifying.

United States President Donald Trump has set his sights on the C5 nations, comprised of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan.

He hosted a summit with their leaders at the White House, as Washington aims to get access to the mineral-rich region and reduce its reliance on China for imports of critical minerals.

But the leaders of the C5 face a delicate balancing act to make deals with the US without annoying Moscow or Beijing.

The meeting in Washington came just a month after Russia’s Vladimir Putin attended a summit with the C5.

And earlier in the year, the Chinese president also met C5 leaders, hoping to maintain China’s role in the region.

So, can Washington succeed in a region long dominated by Russia, and where China is making inroads?

Presenter: Nick Clark

Guests:

Zhumabek Sarabekov – Acting Director at the Institute of World Economics and Politics in Kazakhstan

William Courtney – Senior Fellow at the RAND Corporation

Dakota Irvin – a Senior Analyst at PRISM Strategic Intelligence

United States Senate Majority Leader John Thune has promptly swatted down a Democratic offer to reopen the US government and extend expiring healthcare subsidies for a year, calling it a “nonstarter” as the partisan impasse over the shutdown continued into its 38th day.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer made the offer to reopen the government on Friday as Republicans have refused to negotiate on their demands to extend healthcare subsidies. It was a much narrower version of a broad proposal Democrats laid out a month ago to make the health tax credits permanent and reverse Medicaid cuts that Republicans enacted earlier this year.

Schumer offered Republicans simultaneous votes to end the government shutdown and extend the expiring healthcare subsidies, along with a bipartisan committee to address Republican demands for changes to the Affordable Care Act.

“All Republicans have to do is say yes,” Schumer said.

But Republicans quickly said no, and Thune reiterated that they would not trade offers on healthcare until the government is reopened. “That’s what we’re going to negotiate once the government opens up,” Thune said after Schumer made his proposal on the floor.

Thune said he thinks the offer is an indication that Democrats are “feeling the heat”.

“I guess you could characterise that as progress,” he said. “But I just don’t think it gets anywhere close to what we need to do here.”

It was unclear what might happen next. Thune has suggested a weekend Senate session was possible. US President Donald Trump called on the Senate to stay in town “until they have a Deal to end the Democrat Shutdown”.

Despite the impasse, lawmakers in both parties were feeling increased urgency to alleviate the growing crisis at airports, pay government workers and restore delayed food aid to millions of people. Thune pleaded with Democrats as he opened the Senate on Friday to “end these weeks of misery”.

Moderates continue to negotiate

As leaders of the two parties disagreed, a small group of Democrats led by New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen continued to negotiate among themselves and with rank-and-file Republicans on a deal that would end the shutdown.

The group has been discussing for weeks a vote for a group of bills that would pay for parts of government – food aid, veterans programmes and the legislative branch, among other things – and extend funding for everything else until December or January. The three annual spending bills that would likely be included are the product of bipartisan negotiations that have continued through the shutdown.

But the contours of that agreement would only come with the promise of a future healthcare vote, rather than a guarantee that Affordable Care Act subsidies are extended by the end of the year. Many Democrats have said that this is unacceptable.

Still, Republican leaders only need five additional votes to fund the government, and the group involved in the talks has ranged from 10 to 12 Democratic senators.

Republicans eye new package of bills

Trump urged Republicans at a White House breakfast on Wednesday to end the shutdown quickly and scrap the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 Senate votes for most legislation, so that they bypass Democrats altogether and fund the government.

“I am totally in favour of terminating the filibuster, and we would be back to work within 10 minutes after that vote took place,” Trump said on Friday.

Republicans have emphatically rejected Trump’s call, and Thune has instead been eyeing a bipartisan package that mirrors the proposal the moderate Democrats have been sketching out. But it is unclear what Thune, who has refused to negotiate, would promise on healthcare.

The package would replace the House-passed legislation that the Democrats have now rejected 14 times. That bill would only extend government funding until November 21, a date that is rapidly approaching after six weeks of inaction.

A choice for Democrats

A test vote on new legislation could come in the next few days if Thune decides to move forward.

Then Democrats would have a crucial choice to make: Do they keep fighting for a meaningful deal on extending the subsidies that expire in January, while prolonging the pain of the shutdown? Or do they vote to reopen the government and hope for the best as Republicans promise an eventual healthcare vote, but not a guaranteed outcome?

After a caucus meeting on Thursday, most Democrats suggested they would continue to hold out for Trump and Republican leaders to agree to negotiations.

“That’s what leaders do,” said Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat from New Mexico. “You have the gavel, you have the majority, you have to bring people together.”

Hawaii Democrat Senator Brian Schatz said Democrats are “obviously not unanimous”, but “without something on healthcare, the vote is very unlikely to succeed”.

Johnson delivers setback to bipartisan talks

Democrats are facing pressure from unions eager for the shutdown to end and from allied groups that want them to hold firm. Many Democrats have argued that the wins for Democrats on Election Day show voters want them to continue the fight until Republicans yield and agree to extend the health tax credits.

A vote on the healthcare subsidies “has got to mean something”, said Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. “That means a commitment by the speaker of the House, that he will support the legislation, that the president will sign.”

But Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, made clear he will not make any commitments. “I’m not promising anybody anything,” Johnson said on Thursday when asked if he could promise a vote on a healthcare bill.

US airlines have begun cancelling flights because of a federal government shutdown. They are required to cut traffic 10 percent by November 14 due to inadequate air traffic controller staffing. Many controllers are working without pay during the shutdown.

“If they’re able then to treat Sami in this way, it’s only a matter of time before they start to treat US citizens like that too.”

The wife of pro-Palestinian commentator and journalist Sami Hamdi told Al Jazeera that his detention by US immigration authorities poses a threat to every American citizen and visitor to the country.

“It’s an historic moment for the Congress. It’s an historic moment for the women of America. It is a moment for which we have waited over 200 years,” said United States Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi in January 2007, upon becoming the speaker of the US House of Representatives.

“For our daughters and our granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling,” she added, addressing an applauding audience at the House in Washington, DC.

Pelosi, 85, who has served as the Democratic representative for California’s 11th Congressional District since 1987, made history when she was elected as the 52nd speaker of the House of Representatives – as the first-ever woman – and served from 2007 to 2011. She later served again from 2019 to 2023.

On Thursday this week, she announced her retirement from Congress as of January next year.

Paying tribute to her home city of San Francisco, she announced her decision in a video message, telling and citizens of the city: “It was the faith that you had placed in me and the latitude that you have given me that enabled me to shatter the marble ceiling and be the first woman speaker of the House, whose voice would certainly be heard.

“I want you, my fellow San Franciscans, to be the first to know I will not be seeking re-election to Congress,” Pelosi, 85, added.

“With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative.”

Seen as one of the most powerful figures in the modern Democratic Party and one of the most powerful women in US politics, Pelosi was re-elected as speaker of the House in 2019 and served until 2023.

At the end of her second tenure, she stepped down from House leadership for the Democratic Party but retained the honorary title of speaker emerita of the House.

Here’s what we know:

Who is Nancy Pelosi?

Nancy Patricia Pelosi was born on March 26, 1940, in Baltimore, Maryland, and is the only daughter and youngest of six siblings.

She comes from a family with political lineage. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr, was a congressman who served as mayor of Baltimore for 12 years. Her older brother, Thomas D’Alesandro III, also served as mayor of Baltimore.

After graduating with a bachelor’s degree in political science from Trinity College in Washington, DC in the 1960s, Pelosi started an internship with the Maryland senator at the time, Daniel Brewster.

In 1963, she married Paul Pelosi, an American businessman and San Francisco native, and the couple moved to the city six years later, with their six children.

In the 1980s, Pelosi began working with the Democratic National Committee in the state of California. Starting as a fundraiser, she progressed to become the chair of both the California Democratic Party between 1981 and 1983 and the host committee for the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco.

How long has Pelosi been in Congress?

In 1987, Pelosi was elected to Congress as a Democratic representative – a seat she campaigned for, promising action against AIDS, which was badly affecting people, especially from the LGBTQ+ community, in her city of San Francisco.

A national law addressing the epidemic emerged in the 1990s in the form of the Ryan White Care Act, and Pelosi, who was in Congress at the time, celebrated the moment. That law provided the largest funding programme for people with AIDS.

As a congresswoman for nearly 40 years, Pelosi has climbed through the ranks and, in 2001, became the first woman to hold the post of the House minority whip for the Democratic Party. In this post, it was her duty to advance the policies of her party.

In 2002, she became the House minority leader and, in 2007, she was elected speaker of the House when Republican George W Bush was in power.

“In this House, we may be different parties, but we serve one country,” she told the House while accepting the post in January 2007.

What does the House Speaker do?

According to the US Congress website, the Speaker of the House is elected either at the start of a Congress, which lasts for two years, or if there is a vacancy due to death or resignation.

The election takes place by “roll call vote, during which Members state aloud the name of their preferred candidate. If no candidate receives a majority of votes cast, balloting continues.” A speaker remains in office as long as he or she holds the House’s majority vote.

The speaker of the House symbolises “the power and authority of the House” and is tasked with maintaining decorum in the House, allowing members to speak, overseeing debates, and undertaking non-legislative tasks like controlling the Hall of the House.

The Speaker is also responsible for “defending the majority party’s legislative agenda” and also has a role of serving as a member of the House.

But the speaker cannot debate or vote on topics discussed in the House or sit on any standing committee in the House. These committees handle specific issues like overseeing government departments or analysing various financial issues.

What policies has Pelosi championed?

As a congresswoman and speaker of the House twice during her tenure, Pelosi has pursued left-of-centre policies and has been instrumental in passing several important laws and policies.

Climate

When she first took the gavel in 2007 as speaker of the House, she focused on climate policies and set up the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which held many hearings.

In 2015, she supported former US President Barack Obama in joining the Paris Climate Agreement.

In 2017, President Donald Trump ceased US participation, but when President Joe Biden came to power in 2021, climate was once again on the agenda.

As speaker of the House, Pelosi oversaw the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, which also included policies to address climate change.

Women’s rights

As the first woman to hold the position of speaker of the House in the US, Pelosi has been seen as instrumental in advancing women’s rights.

When Obama came to power in 2008, with Pelosi as speaker, she ensured that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which addressed equal wages for men and women, was passed.

She also supported women’s reproductive rights, despite being a Catholic, and fought for Roe v Wade – a US law which established that women had a constitutional right to an abortion – when it was overturned during President Donald Trump’s first term.

Healthcare

During President Obama’s tenure, Pelosi was instrumental in ensuring his Affordable Care Act became a law in 2010.

The law lists guidelines to ensure federal subsidies to ensure every person in the US has access to medical care and services.

The law was initially unpopular in the House, but Pelosi held hearings and spoke to Democrats and Republicans to ensure the smooth passage of the bill.

Between 2021 and 2023, Pelosi was also able to help Democrats pass major bills to propel Biden’s agenda, which included a huge COVID-19 relief package.

Foreign policy

As a Congress member in 2003, she opposed the US’s war in Iraq. She has also voiced strong opposition to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

However, when it comes to Israel’s war in Gaza, Pelosi is a staunch supporter of Israel and has defended the US stance towards the war.

In 2024, however, she called on Biden to halt the transfer of arms to Israel.

Pelosi has also been hawkish towards China and triggered a controversy when she visited Taiwan in 2022.

What is her role now?

She currently serves as the Representative for California’s 11th Congressional District, which includes San Francisco, from where she focuses on employment rights.

After her second tenure as Speaker of the House ended in November 2023, Pelosi announced she would step down from the House’s leadership to make way for young members to take up the role.

The end of her tenure made headlines, and interviews with her focusing on her diet – which involved having “her daily hot dog” – also caught the media’s attention. Pelosi has often told reporters that she enjoys a hot dog with mustard for lunch every day, plenty of Ghirardelli chocolates, and a breakfast that generally includes ice cream.

After stepping down as speaker, Pelosi retained the title of Speaker Emerita of the House.

She is also renowned as a brilliant fundraiser for political campaigns. “I had to raise like a million dollars a day – well, at least five days a week,” she once told reporters.

Why is she retiring now?

Pelosi has not given the precise reason for her decision to retire now. But, according to US media reports, it was widely expected after close to 38 years of service.

“I say to my colleagues in the House all of the time, no matter what title they had bestowed upon me – speaker, leader, whip – there has been no greater honour for me than to stand on the House floor and say, ‘I speak for the people of San Francisco,’” she said in her video message announcing her retirement on Thursday.

How did Trump react to news of her resignation?

President Trump, who has clashed with Pelosi on numerous occasions, called her an “evil woman” following the news.

“I think she did the country a great service by retiring. I think she was a tremendous liability for the country,” he told reporters.

Pelosi and Trump are often referred to as adversaries by political commentators and US media outlets, due to their disagreements over policy.

In 2019, during Trump’s first term, Pelosi, Democrat Chuck Schumer – who is currently minority leader of the Senate – and Trump got into a heated argument over building a wall along the US border with Mexico. Trump threatened to shut down the government during the squabble, which was broadcast on television channels around the world.

That same year, Trump and Pelosi discussed the war in Syria, but their disagreements were made public by Trump himself, who tweeted a picture of Pelosi pointing a finger at him.

“Nervous Nancy’s unhinged meltdown!” he said.

Nervous Nancy’s unhinged meltdown! pic.twitter.com/RDeUI7sfe7

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2019

In 2020, their rocky relationship once again made headlines when Pelosi tore up a copy of Trump’s State of the Union speech, calling it a “lie”. Trump said her actions were illegal since it was a government document, but, in fact, it was her own copy of the speech – not the official document.

Trump supporters who stormed into the Capitol on January 6, 2021, to protest the 2020 presidential election results that Biden won, barged into Pelosi’s office looking for her but couldn’t find her.

In 2022, an assailant broke into Pelosi’s home in San Francisco and assaulted her husband with a hammer, fracturing his skull. The former House speaker was not at the house during the attack. Prosecutors believe the act was politically motivated.

In January 2023, Trump mocked her husband’s attack while addressing a California Republican party convention as he prepared to stand for the presidential race for a second time.

“We’ll stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi, who ruined San Francisco – how’s her husband doing, anybody know?” Trump said.

“And she’s against building a wall at our border, even though she has a wall around her house – which obviously didn’t do a very good job,” he added.

How have others reacted?

Many American politicians paid tribute to Pelosi on social media platforms this week.

Former Representative Democrat Gabby Giffords (Democrat-Arizona), who was shot in the head in 2011 by a gunman who also killed six others during a constituent event in Tucson in 2011, said in a press statement:  “As the first woman Speaker of the House, she inspired me and and at my bedside following the shooting that turned my life upside-down, she uplifted me.”

Former President Obama said on X: “For almost four decades, Nancy Pelosi has served the American people and worked to make our country better. No one was more skilled at bringing people together and getting legislation passed – and I will always be grateful for her support of the Affordable Care Act.”

Former President Biden called Pelosi “the best Speaker of the House in American history” and said it was the reason why he awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the US’s highest honour, in 2024.

“When I was President, we worked together to grow our economy, create millions of jobs, and make historic investments in our nation’s future. She has devoted much of her life to this country, and America will always be grateful,” he said on X.

Right-wing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene also lauded Pelosi’s leadership. “She had an incredible career. I served under her speakership in my first term of Congress. And I’m very impressed at her ability to get things done. I wish we could get things done for our party,” she told CNN.

Which internet controversies has Pelosi been part of?

According to the Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact, while Pelosi has been lauded for her political achievements, she has also been mocked.

Some posts on the internet said she was removed from the House for being drunk many times. This is untrue.

A few other posts said she associated with Mexican drug lord El Chapo in 2016, when in reality she was at a meeting to discuss US-Mexico trade and security in the Pacific with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and Representative Henry Cuellar from Texas, who internet users mistakenly identified as El Chapo.

Polls find large majorities of people in the US oppose military action against Venezuela, where Trump has ramped up military pressure.

Republicans in the United States Senate have voted down legislation that would have required US President Donald Trump to obtain congressional approval for any military attacks on Venezuela.

Two Republicans had crossed the political aisle and joined Democrats to vote in favour of the legislation on Thursday, but their support was not enough to secure passage, and the bill failed to pass by 51 to 49 votes.

“We should not be going to war without a vote of Congress,” Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said during a speech.

The vote comes amid a US military build-up off South America and a series of military strikes targeting vessels in international waters off Venezuela and Colombia that have killed at least 65 people.

The US has alleged, without presenting evidence, that the boats it bombed were transporting drugs, but Latin American leaders, some members of Congress, international law experts and family members of the deceased have described the US attacks as extrajudicial killings, claiming most of those killed were fishermen.

Fears are now growing that Trump will use the military deployment in the region – which includes thousands of US troops, a nuclear submarine and a group of warships accompanying the USS Gerald R Ford, the US Navy’s most sophisticated aircraft carrier – to launch an attack on Venezuela in a bid to oust President Nicolas Maduro.

Washington has accused Maduro of drug trafficking, and Trump has hinted at carrying out attacks on Venezuelan soil.

Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, referencing Trump’s military posturing towards Venezuela, said on Thursday: “It’s really an open secret that this is much more about potential regime change.”

“If that’s where the administration is headed, if that’s what we’re risking – involvement in a war – then Congress needs to be heard on this,” he said.

Earlier on Thursday, a pair of US B-52 bombers flew over the Caribbean Sea along the coast of Venezuela, flight tracking data showed.

Data from tracking website Flightradar24 showed the two bombers flying parallel to the Venezuelan coast, then circling northeast of Caracas before heading back along the coast and turning north and flying further out to sea.

The presence of the US bombers off Venezuela was at least the fourth time that US military aircraft have flown near the country’s borders since mid-October, with B-52s having done so on one previous occasion, and B-1B bombers on two other occasions.

Little public support in US for attack on Venezuela

A recent poll found that only 18 percent of people in the US support even limited use of military force to overthrow Maduro’s government.

Research by YouGov also found that 74 percent of people in the US believe that the president should not be able to carry out military strikes abroad without congressional approval, in line with the requirements of the US Constitution.

Republican lawmakers, however, have embraced the recent strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, adopting the Trump administration’s framing of its efforts to cut off the flow of narcotics to the US.

Questions of the legality of such attacks, either under US or international law, do not appear to be of great concern to many Republicans.

“President Trump has taken decisive action to protect thousands of Americans from lethal narcotics,” Senator Jim Risch, the Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in remarks declaring his support for the strikes.

While only two Republicans – Senators Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski – defected to join Democrats in supporting the legislation to limit Trump’s ability to wage war unilaterally on Thursday, some conservatives have expressed frustration with a possible war on Venezuela.

Trump had campaigned for president on the promise of withdrawing the US from foreign military entanglements.

In recent years, Congress has made occasional efforts to reassert itself and impose restraints on foreign military engagements through the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which reaffirmed that Congress alone has the power to declare war.

United States lawmakers have written to Andrew, Britain’s disgraced former prince, requesting that he sit for a formal interview about his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a day after King Charles III formally stripped his younger brother of his royal titles.

Separately, a secluded desert ranch where Epstein once entertained guests is coming under renewed scrutiny in the US state of New Mexico, with two state legislators proposing a “truth commission” to uncover the full extent of the financier’s crimes there.

On Thursday, 16 Democratic Party members of Congress signed a letter addressed to “Mr Mountbatten Windsor”, as Andrew is now known, to participate in a “transcribed interview” with the US House of Representatives oversight committee’s investigation into Epstein.

“The committee is seeking to uncover the identities of Mr Epstein’s co-conspirators and enablers and to understand the full extent of his criminal operations,” the letter read.

“Well-documented allegations against you, along with your longstanding friendship with Mr Epstein, indicate that you may possess knowledge of his activities relevant to our investigation,” it added.

The letter asked Andrew to respond by November 20.

The US Congress has no power to compel testimony from foreigners, making it unlikely Andrew will give evidence.

The letter will be another unwelcome development for the disgraced former prince after a turbulent few weeks.

On October 30, Buckingham Palace said King Charles had “initiated a formal process” to revoke Andrew’s royal status after weeks of pressure to act over his relationship with Epstein – who took his own life in prison in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges.

The rare move to strip a British prince or princess of their title – last taken in 1919 after Prince Ernest Augustus sided with Germany during World War I – also meant that Andrew was evicted from his lavish Royal Lodge mansion in Windsor and moved into “private accommodation”.

King Charles formally made the changes with an announcement published on Wednesday in The Gazette – the United Kingdom’s official public record – saying Andrew “shall no longer be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of ‘Royal Highness’ and the titular dignity of ‘Prince’”.

Andrew surrendered his use of the title Duke of York earlier in October following new abuse allegations from his accuser, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, in her posthumous memoir, which hit shelves last month.

The Democrat lawmakers referenced Giuffre’s memoir in their letter, specifically claims that she feared “retaliation if she made allegations against” Andrew, and that he had asked his personal protection officer to “dig up dirt” on his accuser for a smear campaign in 2011.

“This fear of retaliation has been a persistent obstacle to many of those who were victimised in their fight for justice,” the letter said. “In addition to Mr. Epstein’s crimes, we are investigating any such efforts to silence, intimidate, or threaten victims.”

Giuffre, who alleges that Epstein trafficked her to have sex with Andrew on three occasions, twice when she was just 17, took her own life in Australia in April.

In 2022, Andrew paid Giuffre a multimillion-pound settlement to resolve a civil lawsuit she had levelled against him. Andrew denied the allegations, and he has not been charged with any crime.

On Thursday, Democratic lawmakers also turned the spotlight on Zorro Ranch, proposing to the House of Representatives’ Courts, Corrections and Justice Interim Committee that a commission be created to investigate alleged crimes against young girls at the New Mexico property, which Epstein purchased in 1993.

State Representative Andrea Romero said several survivors of Epstein’s abuse have signalled that sex trafficking activity extended to the secluded desert ranch with a hilltop mansion and private runway in Stanley, about 56 kilometres (35 miles) south of the state capital, Santa Fe.

“This commission will specifically seek the truth about what officials knew, how crimes were unreported or reported, and how the state can ensure that this essentially never happens again,” Romero told a panel of legislators.

“There’s no complete record of what occurred,” she said.

Representative Marianna Anaya, presenting to the committee alongside Romero, said state authorities missed several opportunities over decades to stop Epstein.

“Even after all these years, you know, there are still questions of New Mexico’s role as a state, our roles in terms of oversight and accountability for the survivors who are harmed,” she said.

New Mexico laws allowed Epstein to avoid registering locally as a sex offender long after he was required to register in Florida, where he was convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution in 2008.

Republican Representative Andrea Reeb said she believed New Mexicans “have a right to know what happened at this ranch” and she didn’t feel the commission was going to be a “big political thing”.

To move forward, approval will be needed from the state House when the legislature convenes in January.

Abby Zwerner, 28, was shot in 2023 as she sat in a first-grade classroom and sustained life-threatening injuries.

A jury in the state of Virginia in the United States has awarded $10m to a former teacher who was shot by a six-year-old student.

The jury on Thursday sided with former teacher Abby Zwerner’s claim, made in a civil lawsuit, that an ex-administrator at the school had ignored repeated warnings that the six-year-old child had a gun in class.

Zwerner, 28, was shot in January 2023 as she sat at a reading table in her first-grade classroom and spent nearly two weeks in the hospital, required six surgeries and still does not have the full use of her left hand.

The bullet fired by the six-year-old narrowly missed her heart and remains in her chest.

Zwerner, who did not address reporters outside the court after the decision was announced, had sought $40m in damages against Ebony Parker, a former assistant principal at Richneck Elementary School in the city of Newport News, Virginia.

One of her lawyers, Diane Toscano, said the verdict sent a message that what happened at the school “was wrong and is not going to be tolerated, that safety has to be the first concern at school”.

Zwerner’s lawyers had claimed that Parker, the assistant principal at the time, had failed to act in the hours before the shooting after several school staff members told her that the student had a gun in his backpack.

“Who would think a six-year-old would bring a gun to school and shoot their teacher?” Toscano had asked the jury earlier.

“It’s Dr Parker’s job to believe that is possible. It’s her job to investigate it and get to the very bottom of it.”

Parker did not testify in the lawsuit.

The mother of the student who shot Zwerner was sentenced to four years in prison after being convicted of child neglect and firearms charges.

No charges were brought against the child, who told authorities he got his mother’s handgun by climbing onto a drawer to reach the top of a dresser, where the firearm was in his mother’s purse.

Newtown Action Alliance, an advocacy organisation that supports reforms aimed at addressing gun violence, said that the case points to the need for greater regulations over the storage of firearms in homes with children.

“Abby Zwerner was shot by her 6-year-old student using a gun from home,” the group said in a social media post, adding that “76 percent of school shooters get their guns from their homes or relatives”.

Abby Zwerner was shot by her 6-year-old student using a gun from home.

76% of school shooters get their guns from their homes or relatives.

Urge your Members of Congress to cosponsor Ethan’s Law.

Congressional Switchboard: (202) 224-3121#SafeStorageSavesLives #EndGunViolence pic.twitter.com/YZyuo0KxXj

— Newtown Action Alliance (@NewtownAction) November 6, 2025

Zwerner no longer works for the school district and has said she has no plans to teach again. She has since become a licensed cosmetologist.

While accidents involving young children accessing unsecured firearms in their homes are common in the US, school shootings perpetrated by those under 10 years old are rare.

A database compiled by US researcher David Riedman has registered about 15 such incidents since the 1970s.

New York’s new Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani won amid Islamophobic attacks, and is set to become the city’s first Muslim mayor. He pledged to serve all communities and to challenge United States President Trump’s policies. His win is being compared to that of London’s Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan, a counterweight to then-United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Are city mayors the new resistance to right-wing governments?

Shareholders approved the pay package with as much as 75 percent support on Thursday.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has scored a resounding victory as shareholders have approved a pay package of as much as $878bn over the next decade, endorsing his vision of morphing the electric vehicle (EV) maker into an AI and robotics juggernaut.

Shares of Tesla rose more than 3 percent in after-hours trading after the shareholders voted on Thursday. The proposal was approved with more than 75 percent support.

Musk took to the stage in Austin, Texas, along with dancing robots. “What we are about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla, but a whole new book,” he said. “This really is going to be quite the story.”

He added: “Other shareholder meetings are like snooze fests, but ours are bangers. I mean, look at this. This is sick.”

Shareholders also re-elected three directors on Tesla’s board and voted in favour of a replacement pay plan for Musk’s services because a legal challenge has held up a previous package.

The vote, analysts have said, is a positive for Tesla’s stock, whose valuation hangs on Musk’s vision of making vehicles drive themselves, expanding robotaxis across the United States and selling humanoid robots, even though his far-right political rhetoric has hurt the Tesla brand this year.

A win for Musk was widely expected as the billionaire was allowed to exercise the full voting rights of his roughly 15 percent stake after the carmaker moved to Texas from Delaware, where a legal challenge has held up a previous pay rise.

The approval comes even after opposition from some major investors, including Norway’s sovereign wealth fund.

Tesla’s board had said Musk could quit if the pay package was not approved.

The vote will also allay investor concerns that Musk’s focus has been diluted with his work in politics as well as in running his other companies, including rocket maker SpaceX and artificial intelligence startup xAI.

The board and many investors who lent their endorsement have said the nearly $1 trillion package benefits shareholders in the longer run, as Musk must ensure Tesla achieves a series of milestones to get paid.

Goals for Musk over the next decade include the company delivering 20 million vehicles, having one million robotaxis in operation, selling one million robots and earning as much as $400bn in core profit. But in order for him to get paid, Tesla’s stock value has to rise in tandem, first to $2 trillion from the current $1.5 trillion, and all the way to $8.5 trillion.

Under the new plan, Musk could earn as much as $878bn in Tesla stock over 10 years. Musk would be given as much as $1 trillion in stock but would have to make some payments back to Tesla.

The DOJ argued that the federal judge did not have the authority to make the decision.

A United States judge in Texas has approved the Department of Justice’s request to dismiss a criminal case against Boeing despite his objections to the decision.

On Thursday, Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court in Fort Worth dismissed the case, which will allow the plane maker to avoid prosecution over charges related to two deadly 737 MAX crashes: the 2018 Lion Air crash in Indonesia and the 2019 Ethiopian Airlines crash.

O’Connor said he disagreed with the Justice Department’s argument that ending the case served the public interest, noting that he lacked the authority to overrule it.

The government argued Boeing has improved, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is providing enhanced oversight. Boeing and the government argued O’Connor had no choice but to dismiss the case.

He said the deal with the aerospace giant “fails to secure the necessary accountability to ensure the safety of the flying public”.

In September, O’Connor held a three-hour hearing to consider objections to the deal, questioning the government’s decision to drop a requirement that Boeing face oversight from an independent monitor for three years and instead hire a compliance consultant.

O’Connor said the government’s position is “Boeing committed crimes sufficient to justify prosecution, failed to remedy its fraudulent behaviour on its own during the [deferred prosecution agreement], which justified a guilty plea and the imposition of an independent monitor, but now Boeing will remedy that dangerous culture by retaining a consultant of its own choosing”.

The DOJ first criminally charged Boeing for the crashes in January 2021, but also agreed to deferred prosecution in the case.

The plane maker was charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the US. Courts found that Boeing deceived the FAA about what is called the manoeuvring characteristics augmentation system, which affects flight control systems on the aircraft.

“Boeing’s employees chose the path of profit over candor by concealing material information from the FAA concerning the operation of its 737 Max airplane and engaging in an effort to cover up their deception,” acting Assistant Attorney General David P Burns of the DOJ’s criminal division said in a statement at the time.

O’Connor said in 2023 that “Boeing’s crime may properly be considered the deadliest corporate crime in US history”.

Under the non-prosecution deal, Boeing agreed to pay an additional $444.5m into a crash victims’ fund to be divided evenly per victim of the two fatal 737 MAX crashes, on top of a new $243.6m fine and more than $455m to strengthen the company’s compliance, safety, and quality programmes.

On Wall Street, Boeing’s stock was up by 0.2 percent as of 11am in New York (16:00 GMT).

The US Supreme Court has questioned US President Donald Trump’s authority to use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners around the world.

In a closely watched hearing on Wednesday in Washington, DC, conservative and liberal Supreme Court judges appeared sceptical about Trump’s tariff policy, which has already had ramifications for US carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers.

The US president had earlier claimed that his trade tariffs – which have been central to his foreign policy since he returned to power earlier this year – will not affect US businesses, workers and consumers.

But a legal challenge by a number of small American businesses, including toy firms and wine importers, filed earlier this year, has led to lower courts in the country ruling that Trump’s tariffs are illegal.

In May, the Court of International Trade, based in New York, said Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs and “the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, in August.

Now, the Supreme Court, the country’s top court, is hearing the issue. Last week, the small business leaders, who are being represented by Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal, told the Court that Trump’s import levies were severely harming their businesses and that many have been forced to lay off workers and cut prices as a result.

In a post on his Truth Social Platform on Sunday, Trump described the Supreme Court case as “one of the most important in the History of the Country”.

“If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World,” he added.

What happened in Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing, and what could happen if the court rules against Trump’s tariffs?

Here’s what we know:

What was discussed at the Supreme Court on Wednesday?

During a hearing which lasted for nearly three hours, the Trump administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General D John Sauer, argued that the president’s tariff policy is legal under a 1977 national law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

According to US government documents, IEEPA gives a US president an array of economic powers, including to regulate trade, in order “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat”.

Trump invoked IEEPA in February to levy a new 25 percent tax on imports from Canada and Mexico, as well as a 10 percent levy on Chinese goods, on the basis that these countries were facilitating the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the US, and that this constituted a national emergency. He later paused the tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but increased China’s to 20 percent. This was restored to 10 percent after Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping last month.

In April, when he imposed reciprocal tariffs on imports from a wide array of countries around the world, he said those levies were also in line with IEEPA since the US was running a trade deficit that posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to the nation.

Sauer argued that Trump had imposed the tariffs using IEEPA since “our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe”.

He also told the court that the levies are “regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs”.

But Neal Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses that have brought the case, countered this. “Tariffs are taxes,” Katyal said. “They take dollars from Americans’ pockets and deposit them in the US Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone.”

What did the judges say about tariffs?

The judges raised another sticking point: Also, under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to regulate tariffs. Justice John Roberts noted that “the [IEEPA] statute doesn’t use the word tariff.”

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan also told Sauer, “It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.”

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump during his first term as president, asked Sauer, “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defence and industrial base?

“I mean, Spain, France? I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy,” Coney Barrett said.

Sauer replied that “there’s this sort of lack of reciprocity, this asymmetric treatment of our trade, with respect to foreign countries that does run across the board,” and reiterated the Trump administration’s power to use IEEPA.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took issue with the notion that the tariffs are not taxes, as asserted by Trump’s team. She said, “You want to say that tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

According to recent data released by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, as of the end of August, IEEPA tariffs had generated $89bn in revenues to the US Treasury.

During the court’s arguments on Wednesday, Justice Roberts also suggested that the court may have to invoke the “major questions” doctrine in this case after telling Sauer that the president’s tariffs are “the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress”.

The “major questions” doctrine checks a US executive agency’s power to impose a policy without Congress’s clear directive. The Supreme Court previously used this to block former President Joe Biden’s policies, including his student loan forgiveness plan.

Sauer argued that the “major questions” doctrine should not apply in this context since it would also affect the president’s power in foreign affairs.

Why is this case the ultimate test of Trump’s tariff policy?

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority and generally takes several months to make a decision. While it remains unclear when the court will make a decision on this case, according to analysts, the fact that this case was launched against Trump at all is significant.

In a recent report published by Max Yoeli, senior research fellow on the US and Americas Programme at UK-based think tank Chatham House, said, “The Supreme Court’s outcome will shape Trump’s presidency – and those that follow – across executive authority, global trade, and domestic fiscal and economic concerns.”

“It is likewise a salient moment for the Supreme Court, which has empowered Trump and showed little appetite to constrain him,” he added.

Penny Nass, acting senior vice president at the German Marshall Fund’s Washington DC office, told Al Jazeera that the verdict will be viewed by many as a test of Trump’s powers.

“A first impact will be the most direct judicial restraint at the highest level on Presidential power. After a year testing the limits of his power, President Trump will start to see some of constraints on his power,” she said.

According to international trade lawyer Shantanu Singh, who is based in India, the global implications of this case could also be huge.

“One objective of these tariffs was to use them as leverage to get trade partners to do deals with the US. Some countries have concluded trade deals, including to address the IEEPA tariffs,” he told Al Jazeera.

After the imposition of US reciprocal tariffs in April and again in August, several countries and economic blocs, including the EU, UK, Japan, Cambodia and Indonesia, have struck trade deals with the US to reduce tariffs.

But those countries were forced to make concessions to get those deals done. EU countries, for example, had to agree to buy $750bn of US energy and reduce steel tariffs through quotas.

Singh pointed out that an “adverse Supreme Court ruling could bring into doubt the perceived benefit for concluding deals with the US”.

“Further, trade partners who are currently negotiating with the US will have to also adjust their negotiating objectives in light of the ruling and how the administration reacts to it,” he added.

Other countries including India and China are currently actively engaged in trade talks with the US. Trade talks with Canada were terminated by Trump in late October over what Trump described as a “fraudulent” advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about trade tariffs, which was being aired in Canada.

What happens if the judges rule against Trump?

Following Wednesday’s Supreme Court Hearing, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was at the court with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, told Fox News that he was “very optimistic” that the outcome of the case would be in the government’s favour.

“The solicitor general made a very powerful case for the need for the president to have the power,” he said and refused to discuss the Trump administration’s plan if the court ruled against the tariff policy.

However, Singh said if the Supreme Court does find these tariffs illegal, one immediate concern will be how tariffs collected so far will be refunded to businesses, if at all.

“Given the importance that the current US administration places on tariffs as a policy tool, we can expect that it would quickly identify other legal authorities and work to reinstate the tariffs,” he said.

Nass added: “The President has many other tariff powers, and will likely quickly recalibrate to maintain his deal-making efforts with partners,” she said, adding that there would still be very complicated work for importers on what to do with the tariffs already collected in 2025 under IEEPA.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Coney Barrett asked Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses contesting Trump’s tariffs, whether this process of paying money back would be “a complete mess”.

Katyal said the businesses he’s representing should be given a refund, but added that it is “very complicated”.

“So, a mess,” Coney Barrett stated.

“It’s difficult, absolutely, we don’t deny that,” Katyal said in response.

In an interview with US broadcaster CNN in September, trade lawyers said the court could decide who gets the refunds. Ted Murphy, an international trade lawyer at Sidley Austin, told CNN that the US government “could also try to get the court to approve an administrative refund process, where importers have to affirmatively request a refund”.

What tariffs has Trump imposed so far, and what has their effect been?

Trump has imposed tariffs of varying rates on imports from almost every country in the world, arguing that these levies will enrich the US and protect the domestic US market. The tariff rates range from as high as 50 percent on India and Syria to as low as 10 percent on the UK.

The US president has also imposed a 50 percent tariff on all copper imports, 50 percent on steel and aluminium imports from every country except the UK, 100 percent on patented drugs, 25 percent levies on cars and car parts manufactured abroad, and 25 percent on heavy-duty trucks.

According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, which analyses the US Treasury’s data, tariffs have brought in $223.9bn as of October 31. This is $142.2bn more than the same time last year.

In early July, Treasury Secretary Bessent said revenues from these tariffs could grow to $300bn by the end of 2025.

But in an August 7 report, the Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that “all 2025 US tariffs plus foreign retaliation lower real US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth by -0.5pp [percentage points] each over calendar years 2025 and 2026”.

Meanwhile, according to a Reuters news agency tracker, which follows how US companies are responding to Trump’s tariff threats, the first-quarter earnings season saw carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers take the worst hit from tariff threats. Levies on aluminium and electronics, such as semiconductors, also led to increased costs.

Reuters reported that as tariffs hit factory orders, big manufacturing companies around the world are also struggling.

In its latest World Economic Outlook report released last month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the effect of Trump’s tariffs on the global economy had been less extreme.

“To date, more protectionist trade measures have had a limited impact on economic activity and prices,” it said.

However, the IMF warned that the current resilience of the global economy may not last.

“Looking past apparent resilience resulting from trade-related distortions in some of the incoming data and whipsawing growth forecasts from wild swings in trade policies, the outlook for the global economy continues to point to dim prospects, both in the short and the long term,” it said.

US President Donald Trump labelled New York mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani ‘a communist’ and claimed New Yorkers would flee the city when he becomes mayor. In his election victory speech, Mamdani called Trump ‘a despot’ and said he had ‘betrayed the country’.

US Treasury accuses Pyongyang of stealing $3bn in digital assets to finance its nuclear weapons programme over three years.

North Korea has denounced the latest United States sanctions targeting cybercrimes that the US says help finance its nuclear weapons programme, accusing Washington of harbouring “wicked” hostility towards Pyongyang and promising unspecified countermeasures.

The statement on Thursday by a North Korean vice foreign minister came two days after the US Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on eight people and two firms, including North Korean bankers, for allegedly laundering money from cybercrime schemes.

The US Treasury accused North Korea of operating state-sponsored hacking schemes that have stolen more than $3bn in mostly digital assets over the past three years, an amount unmatched by any other foreign actor. The Treasury Department said the illicit funds helped finance the country’s nuclear weapons programme.

The department said North Korea relies on a network of banking representatives, financial institutions and shell companies in North Korea, China, Russia and elsewhere to launder funds obtained through IT worker fraud, cryptocurrency heists and sanctions evasion.

The sanctions were rolled out even as US President Donald Trump continues to express interest in reviving talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Their nuclear discussions during Trump’s first term collapsed in 2019 amid disagreements over trading relief from US-led sanctions on North Korea for steps to dismantle its nuclear programme.

“Now that the present US administration has clarified its stand to be hostile towards the DPRK to the last, we will also take proper measures to counter it with patience for any length of time,” the North Korean vice minister, Kim Un Chol, said in a statement.

He said US sanctions and pressure tactics will never change the “present strategic situation” between the countries or alter North Korea’s “thinking and viewpoint”.

Kim Jong Un has shunned any form of talks with Washington and Seoul since his fallout with Trump in 2019. He has since made Russia the focus of his foreign policy, sending thousands of soldiers, many of whom have died on the battlefield, and large amounts of military equipment for President Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine while pursuing an increasingly assertive strategy aimed at securing a larger role for North Korea in a united front against the US-led West.

In a recent speech, Kim Jong Un urged Washington to drop its demand for the North to surrender its nuclear weapons as a condition for resuming diplomacy. He ignored Trump’s proposal to meet while the US president was in South Korea last week for meetings with world leaders attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.