warn

May 13 (UPI) — A group of opposition lawmakers in Argentina filed an expansion of an impeachment request against President Javier Milei, warning of a “concrete and verifiable risk” that the country could become militarily involved in a potential U.S.-driven action against Cuba.

Under Argentina’s legislative system, an expansion of an impeachment request involves adding new facts, arguments or evidence to existing complaints against a public official, in this case the president, for evaluation by Congress’ Impeachment Committee.

The filing was submitted Monday by lawmakers from Unión por la Patria led by Congressman Juan Marino, although the news and details of its contents were publicly disclosed by the lawmakers Tuesday.

They expand on complaints already included in the impeachment proceedings facing the president in Argentina’s lower house of Congress.

According to local media outlets Clarín and Noticias Argentinas, the lawmakers contend a risk exists of Argentina providing “material collaboration” in a potential military aggression against Cuba in coordination with Washington.

“The matter of war and peace does not belong to the personal discretion of the president,” the opposition filing states, arguing that any troop deployment or military participation abroad requires congressional authorization under Argentina’s Constitution.

The lawmakers linked their concerns to recent remarks by Milei during an appearance at the Milken Institute, where he said Latin America must eliminate the “remnants of communism.”

“Today, the American dream extends from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego, and we hope it will soon also include our beloved Cuba and Venezuela,” Milei said during the event, according to videos circulated on social media.

The complaint also references the military operation known as “Lanza del Sur” — joint exercises between Argentine and U.S. forces — and Milei’s recent visit to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln during its passage through waters near Argentina.

The lawmakers also questioned Executive Decree 264/2026, sayingit could facilitate military cooperation and troop movements without sufficient parliamentary oversight.

In a video posted on X, Marino said a risk exists that Argentina could become one of Washington’s first allies to support a potential intervention in Cuba due to the political closeness between Milei and President Donald Trump.

“There is a risk that Milei could participate militarily in an invasion of Cuba,” Marino said. “He is publicly endorsing Trump’s wars, involving Argentina and carrying out military exercises with the United States without going through Congress.”

Milei already faces several impeachment requests in Congress over alleged misconduct in office. Among the most recent is a complaint filed over his public promotion of the $LIBRA cryptocurrency token, which collapsed after its launch and caused multimillion-dollar losses for investors.

The request filed this week was signed by Juan Marino, Pablo Todero, Lorena Pokoik, Sabrina Selva, Hilda Aguirre, Gabriela Pedrali and Jorge Araujo Hernández.

So far, the Argentine government has not publicly responded to the accusations.

SANTIAGO, Chile, May 8 (UPI) — An economic reform plan Chilean President José Antonio Kast announced to revive the country’s economy is drawing criticism over its potential short- and medium-term fiscal impact, as the International Monetary Fund lowered its growth projections for Chile.

The IMF’s World Economic Outlook report had estimated in mid-April that Chile’s gross domestic product would grow 2.4% in 2026 and 2.6% in 2027. However, the organization said this week it revised those projections to 2.2% this year and 2.5% in 2027 if external conditions and the country’s fiscal situation improve.

“Economic activity, driven by investment and exports in 2025, faces a period of heightened uncertainty,” the IMF said.

The report said higher copper production and prices support growth expectations, but warned of risks that include the crisis in the Middle East, rising oil prices and loss of domestic competitiveness tied to the sharp public spending cuts promoted by Kast.

The Chilean president’s plan includes proposals to reduce corporate taxes and cut bureaucracy in an effort to stimulate private investment. Congress is discussing tha proposal.

“Amid persistently high inequality, social discontent also remains a risk,” the IMF report said.

The IMF is not the only institution warning about the risks associated with the government’s National Reconstruction Plan.

Chile’s Autonomous Fiscal Council, an independent public agency tasked with monitoring the sustainability of fiscal policy, warned about the proposal’s possible impact on the country’s fiscal balance and public debt.

“The project commits fiscal spending with a high degree of certainty in the short term and reduces permanent revenue, while the positive effects depend on more uncertain future income associated with growth, which could lead to a deterioration in the fiscal balance if growth does not materialize at the estimated magnitude and speed,” the council said.

Jaime Bastías, director of the auditing school at Finis Terrae University, told UPI the IMF’s downgrade was “absolutely” expected because Chile’s central bank had already made a similar adjustment, while debate over financing the government’s proposal continues to intensify.

“The government’s plan can be an engine that helps us face the storm we are going through, but that is heavily conditioned on the state maintaining orderly public finances. The IMF says that if the proposed tax cuts are not offset through other channels, the country’s debt will grow too much, and that will create another problem,” Bastías warned.

Carlos Smith, a researcher at the Center for Business and Society Research at Universidad del Desarrollo, told UPI the IMF report shows that both external and domestic factors are likely to weaken household income and affect consumer spending.

“Consumption is one of the main drivers of Chile’s GDP. The IMF expects it to contract and that is already beginning to show, along with a very weak labor market. Chile is in a much weaker condition,” he said.

Smith said that although the IMF lowered its growth forecasts, the organization still appears optimistic about the long-term positive impact of the government’s proposed reforms.

“The impact will materialize more slowly than the finance minister expects. Therefore, the IMF is suggesting more efficient alternatives such as lower costs or more limited subsidies to create new jobs,” Smith said.

He added that while Ciles should adjust some aspects of the reform, he believes the plan is still moving in the right direction.

“I agree with the IMF that the proposal needs refinement and should focus on removing obstacles to investment projects without lowering the standards of our legislation or environmental protections. If that is achieved, I believe there is a possibility of reaching 3% growth by the end of the decade,” he said.

Bastías agreed, saying Chile could grow at 3% by 2030 if copper prices remain high, production increases and more private investment arrives.

“It is an optimistic scenario where we need to focus on stimulating those three factors. If that favorable future does not materialize, we will all pay the costs,” he said.

US President Donald Trump has said that all state permits for the 2026 recreational red snapper fishing season have been approved, a move he says will expand access for anglers across southeastern coastal states.

In a post shared on Truth Social on Friday, Trump described the decision as a “huge win” for fishermen in states including Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina.

“For years, our Great Fishermen have been punished with VERY short Federal fishing seasons despite RECORD HIGH fish populations and the States begging to oversee these permits,” he added.

The policy centres on coordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which regulates fisheries and sets quotas and seasons in federal waters.

Recreational red snapper fishing

For years, recreational red snapper fishing has been tightly controlled at the federal level, often limited to brief seasonal openings that critics say restrict access.

At its lowest point in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the red snapper spawning stock fell to about 11 percent of its historical level, prompting strict conservation measures under a long-term rebuilding plan set to run through 2044.

Several southeastern states have since pushed for more flexibility, seeking a greater role in setting fishing seasons and expanding the number of days anglers can fish.

Catch limits and size requirements would still apply, with anglers typically limited to one fish per day in the South Atlantic.

Supporters argue the changes better reflect what they describe as a recovering red snapper population and would improve access for recreational fishermen.

“State management and expansion of Gulf snapper season have been a major boon for our Gulf of America communities, allowing so many Floridians and visitors to enjoy the Red Snapper our waters have to offer,” said Governor Ron DeSantis in a release of November 2025.

“I was proud to announce that Florida anglers will soon be able to enjoy more Atlantic Red Snapper fishing as well. The Trump Administration has taken action to rein in the bureaucracy and return this power to the states, where it belongs,” he added.

A similar approach has already been rolled out in the Gulf of Mexico, where states have taken on a larger role in managing recreational red snapper seasons.

But Ocean Conservancy, a US-based ocean conservation nonprofit, says there are growing warning signs under that system, including what it describes as a decline in the average size of fish and reports from anglers who say they must travel farther to catch a keeper.

The group also notes that recent Gulf Council meetings have included public testimony from fishermen raising concerns about a downturn in the stock.

The group says the Gulf population is about 10 times larger, meaning management approaches that appear sustainable there may not translate to smaller, more vulnerable stocks.

Concerns over overfishing risks

Marine scientists and conservation groups warn that loosening federal oversight could increase the risk of overfishing, particularly if monitoring and enforcement vary across states.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, regulators must set annual catch limits to prevent overfishing, but critics say longer fishing seasons could undermine those safeguards.

“These exempted fishing permits are an end run around sustainable management,” said Meredith Moore of Ocean Conservancy in a release shared with Al Jazeera.

“Just last year, NOAA’s own analysis showed a two-day season was needed to prevent overfishing. There is no doubt that allowing months-long seasons will lead to overfishing, while unproven data collection means we may not realise the damage until it is done.”

Others warn the impact could be felt beyond stock levels, affecting the long-term future of the fishery.

“Overfishing means sacrificing the chance to teach the next generation to fish in order to fill coolers this season,” added JP Brooker, the group’s Florida conservation director.

“Red snapper is a favourite of Floridians and out-of-state anglers. No one likes short fishing seasons, but if we don’t follow the science and let these fish recover, we could soon lose this cherished fishing season for good,” he added.

Ocean Conservancy estimates highlight the scale of concern. Federal regulators have set the South Atlantic recreational catch limit at 22,797 fish, yet a recent two-day season in Florida alone landed 24,885 fish.

The group estimates that catches could reach 485,000 fish over a 39-day season, more than 20 times the annual limit and potentially in breach of federal law.

UN experts said Wednesday that reconstruction in the Gaza Strip cannot succeed without ending Israel’s occupation and ensuring rebuilding efforts are rooted in human rights and Palestinian self-determination, Anadolu reports.

“The occupation must end, and the dispossession and discrimination against Palestinians must stop if rebuilding is to have any real chance of success,” the experts said in a statement.

Citing the Gaza Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment, they said more than 371,000 housing units have been destroyed or damaged, 1.9 million people displaced, and over 60% of the population remains homeless, with reconstruction needs estimated at more than $71 billion.

“The data confirms a pattern of structural discrimination that reconstruction efforts must urgently correct rather than reproduce,” they said, warning that women, persons with disabilities and older people face disproportionate hardship.

The experts said reconstruction must be inclusive, participatory, transparent and accountable, with Palestinians shaping decisions in line with their right to self-determination under international law.

READ: Former US official accuses Israel of genocide in Gaza, says Washington is complicit

They raised questions about governance of the process, saying the assessment does not address who would oversee reconstruction or whether the proposed “Board of Peace” by US President Donald Trump is consistent with international law.

The experts are also concerned that the assessment does not sufficiently embed human rights principles, warning that an emphasis on financial needs and infrastructure could reduce housing to mere shelter provision rather than ensuring dignity, security and long-term sustainability.

They said reconstruction could become “a race for profits” without safeguards protecting vulnerable groups.

“Reconstruction is not only about rebuilding structures – it is about restoring rights, dignity and equality,” they said.

They urged states and donors to place human rights at the center of Gaza’s reconstruction, warning failure to do so “risks entrenching injustice and prolonging the suffering of Palestinians for generations.”

READ: Israeli court extends detention of Gaza hospital director Abu Safiya ‘without charges’

The future of the National Science Foundation is in question after a slew of scientists who serve on the National Science Board, an independent body that promotes the progress of American science and provides advice to the U.S. president and Congress, were abruptly dismissed from their positions Friday by the White House.

All 22 current members of the board, which establishes policies for the National Science Foundation, were terminated, according to Yolanda Gil, a research professor of computer science and spatial sciences and principal scientist at USC Information Sciences Institute, who has served on the board since 2024.

Many of them received a curt email from President Trump’s presidential personnel office.

“On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I’m writing to inform you that your position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated, effective immediately,” read an email reviewed by the L.A. Times. “Thank you for your service.”

After receiving an email Friday afternoon, Keivan Stassun, a professor of physics and astronomy at Vanderbilt University and director of the Vanderbilt Initiative in Data-intensive Astrophysics, said he reached out to fellow board members. Every member he heard back from — about a third of the board — reported receiving the same termination notice.

For Stassun, a board member since 2022, the termination represented “a wholesale evisceration of American leadership in science and technology globally.”

The White House has not given any reason for dismissing the board members or provided any information on when, or even whether, they will be replaced. A media representative for the NSF directed all questions to the White House. The White House did not respond to questions from The Times.

The National Science Foundation was created more than 75 years ago as an independent federal agency when President Truman signed the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 to boost U.S. science for national security and international competition during the Cold War.

“The establishment of the National Science Foundation is a major landmark in the history of science in the United States,” Truman said back then. “We have come to know that our ability to survive and grow as a nation depends to a very large degree upon our scientific progress. Moreover, it is not enough simply to keep abreast of the rest of the world in scientific matters. We must maintain our leadership.”

The agency, which has a budget of over $9 billion, supports fundamental research and education across all non-medical fields of science and engineering.

“The genesis of it was to recognize that the world was increasingly being won or lost on the basis of scientific and technological capability,” Stassun said. “The National Science Foundation is the singular agency within our government that has as its focus making sure that we stay ahead in basic science, technological developments, training the next generation of scientists and engineers.“

After Trump’s dismissal of the board’s experts, Stassun said, the Trump administration could potentially run the agency directly through the Office of Management and Budget.

“What it means is that there won’t be any practical impediments to the administration essentially enacting their own budget and priorities and ignoring Congress’ directives or congressional law,” Stassun said.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San José, the ranking Democrat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, dubbed the terminations just “the latest stupid move made by a president who continues to harm science and American innovation.”

The board, Lofgren noted in a statement, is apolitical and advises the president on the future of NSF.

“It unfortunately is no surprise a president who has attacked NSF from day one would seek to destroy the board that helps guide the foundation,” Lofgren added. “Will the president fill the NSB with MAGA loyalists who won’t stand up to him as he hands over our leadership in science to our adversaries? A real bozo the clown move.”

The National Science Board is typically made up of 25 scientists and engineers from universities and industry across the nation. Appointed by the U.S. president, they traditionally serve six-year terms.

Some of the board positions were vacant. The key position of NSF director has been unfilled ever since Sethuraman Panchanathan, a computer scientist and academic administrator, resigned in April 2025.

“Given that the NSF director position has been vacant for a year, and that the NSB’s main role is governing NSF, the agency is left in a very precarious position,” Gil told The Times in an email. “I think this is one more indication of the sweeping changes that the administration is planning for the National Science Foundation.”

Over the last two years, Gil said, the White House has proposed drastic reductions in the NSF budget — a troubling sign, she argued, that basic research in science and engineering and training students are not high priorities for the current administration.

In the last few months, Gil added, the agency had significant reductions of personnel, which she said “jeopardizes the peer review process that the agency is best known for and gives more decision power to program directors.”

In March, Trump nominated James O’Neill, a venture capitalist and biotech investor who served as former deputy secretary of Health and Human Services, to lead the foundation. O’Neill has yet to appear before Congress for a hearing, but Trump’s nomination received a storm of criticism from scientists.

“O’Neill would be the first head of NSF who wasn’t a scientist or engineer,” Dr. Julian Reyes, chief of staff of the Union of Concerned Scientists, wrote in a blog post. “If O’Neill is confirmed as NSF’s director, the Trump administration will further tighten its control over an agency created by Congress to be independent in its work to advance science.”

Traditionally, Gil said, NSF directors have had a solid research career and strong familiarity with NSF processes. O’Neill’s background in finance and investments, she suggested, “may be an indication that the administration has a different idea of how to run a science agency like NSF.”

Already, the Trump administration has purged a raft of scientific advisory boards that provided the federal government with expert guidance. Last year, dozens of experts who provided independent evaluations for biomedical research were dismissed from National Institute of Health science review boards. All 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which provides federal recommendation on vaccines, were also removed.

In that context, Stassun said he was not surprised when he got the termination letter Friday. “At some point,” he figured, “they would come for the National Science Board, too.”

Going forward, Stassun said he expected the Trump administration to pursue a narrower agenda, from investments in artificial intelligence to building a fleet of Antarctic vessels.

“What we’re likely to see is a collapse of what has historically been a broad investment in American science and technology capabilities,” he said. “The most transformative discoveries are transformative because you can’t predict them in advance, so we invest foundationally in scientists and engineers to do basic science and engineering research.”

One of the board’s chief priorities since he joined in 2022, Stassun said, had been the idea of “talent being the treasure” — developing the best and brightest future leaders and discoverers to ensure a future for American leadership in scientific and technological innovation.

For the board, that meant investing in early science education and strong training for scientists and engineers at all educational levels and in all sectors.

“Discoveries and inventions don’t make themselves, Stassun said. “People do those things. I think there’s a kind of attitude in the current administration that such a worldview is sort of too soft or meek.”

The Trump administration’s interests and priorities, Stassun said, seemed quite different.

“They see the future in, or at least their interest is in, big data centers … not in addition to, but in place of, training human minds to be leading the way,” Stassun said. “It’s a dead end or a bridge to nowhere.”

Even the pioneers of AI will tell you, Stassun said, in many cases, what AI does very well is rapidly synthesizing, consolidating or repackaging existing information. A large language model can only tell you, perhaps very quickly and effectively, what’s already been said.

“Discovery and invention remain the purview of the human mind and creative human genius,” Stassun said. “So, yeah, I think it really does say something pretty foundational to choose to invest only in the one and not the other.”