标签： North America

In a high-stakes legislative win for congressional Democrats, the Senate’s nonpartisan rule-keeper has struck down a provision that would have allocated $1 billion in taxpayer funds for security upgrades tied to former President Donald Trump’s controversial White House East Wing overhaul, which includes a planned $400 million ballroom. The ruling delivered a major early blow to Republican efforts to advance the spending provision through the budget reconciliation process, a procedural tool that allows budget-related bills to move forward with a simple majority and avoid the Senate filibuster. The provision was tucked into a larger omnibus spending package that would fund immigration agencies under the Department of Homeland Security.

The ruling came from Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, the respected procedural referee who has overseen Senate rules compliance since 2012. On Saturday, Democrats confirmed that MacDonough had deemed the security funding provision out of order, finding it violated the Byrd Rule — a longstanding Senate regulation that bars extraneous, non-budgetary provisions from being included in reconciliation legislation. MacDonough determined the funding covered activities that fall outside the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has oversight over the package, and failed to meet the Byrd Rule’s requirements for provisions included in reconciliation.

Republicans originally pushed for the taxpayer-funded security upgrades after a late April shooting at a Trump gala event that the former president attended. The incident prompted the Trump administration to accelerate timelines for the ballroom project, which was already underway after construction crews demolished the historic East Wing last October to clear space for the new facility, which Trump has billed as “the finest ballroom of its kind, anywhere in the world”.

Following the ruling, Trump has confirmed that private donors will cover the $400 million cost of the ballroom itself, but Republicans had sought to draw on public funds to cover Secret Service security upgrades for the renovated space. Democrats had forcefully pushed back against the public funding allocation, arguing that taxpayer money should not be used to fund a personal vanity project for the former president.

“Republicans tried to make taxpayers foot the bill for Trump’s billion-dollar ballroom. Senate Democrats fought back — and blew up their first attempt,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote in a post on social media platform X Saturday. “Now Republicans say they’re going back to the drawing board to try again. And Senate Democrats will be ready to stop them again. Americans don’t want a ballroom. They don’t need a ballroom. And they sure as hell should not be forced to pay for one.”

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, the ranking Democratic member of the committee overseeing the package, warned that Republicans are expected to revise the legislation to appease Trump and resubmit the provision, adding that Democrats are fully prepared to challenge any new attempt to include the funding.

Ryan Wrasse, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, pushed back on suggestions the maneuver was irregular, noting that revisions to provisions during reconciliation are common. “Redraft. Refine. Resubmit. None of this is abnormal during a Byrd process,” Wrasse wrote on X.

The ballroom project has sparked controversy from its inception, with preservation advocates pushing back aggressively against the demolition of the historic East Wing. The National Trust for Preservation filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to halt construction, arguing that the teardown and renovations violate federal law because they were carried out without formal congressional approval. While a federal appeals court ruled in April that construction could continue on both the underground and above-ground portions of the project, legal challenges remain ongoing.

The ballroom project is part of a broader slate of changes Trump has pushed for in Washington D.C. during his second term, rooted in his background as a real estate developer. The former president has already added gold decorative finishes to the Oval Office, replaced part of the White House Rose Garden with a patio modeled after the one at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, renamed multiple prominent D.C. institutions including the Kennedy Center and United States Institute of Peace to include his name, and unveiled plans for a 250-foot triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery.

Negotiations aimed at ending the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran have hit a major deadlock, after former President Donald Trump publicly rejected Tehran’s counter-offer to Washington’s initial peace framework, dismissing the proposal as completely unacceptable. The standoff has intensified tensions, with Trump issuing a stark time-sensitive warning to Iranian leadership ahead of a scheduled call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In a post published to his Truth Social platform over the weekend, Trump emphasized that the “clock is ticking” for Iran to adjust its position. “They better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” he wrote, adding, “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!” The harsh public warning came hours before Trump’s scheduled Sunday discussion with Netanyahu, a key US ally in the Middle East, to discuss the stalled negotiation process.

Iranian state media has pushed back against Trump’s criticism, framing Tehran’s proposal as a constructive, good-faith effort to reach a lasting ceasefire. Semi-official Iranian outlet Mehr News Agency reported Sunday that Washington had failed to offer any tangible concessions in its response to Tehran’s counter-proposal, warning that this lack of flexibility from the US side would cement the current impasse in talks. This is not the first public split between the two sides: earlier this week, Trump already claimed that the ceasefire that has held since early April was on “massive life support” after rejecting Tehran’s core demands, calling its counter-offer to US initial peace proposals “totally unacceptable” garbage.

Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei has pushed back against this characterization, defending Tehran’s proposal as both “responsible” and “generous”. According to semi-official Iranian news agency Tasnim, the counter-offer lays out several core non-negotiable demands for Tehran. First, it calls for an immediate full cessation of hostilities across all regional fronts — a stipulation that explicitly references ongoing Israeli military operations against the Iran-aligned militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon. The proposal also demands an end to the US naval blockade of Iranian ports, formal international guarantees that no further military attacks will be launched against Iranian territory, payment of compensation for damage sustained during the recent conflict, and formal recognition of Iran’s full sovereignty over the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz.

The conflict escalated into open military confrontation on February 28, when joint US-Israeli forces launched large-scale air strikes across Iranian territory. A fragile ceasefire designed to create space for diplomatic negotiations went into effect on April 8, and the truce has mostly held in the weeks since, with only sporadic exchanges of fire reported across front lines. Pakistan has stepped in to serve as a neutral mediator between Washington and Tehran throughout the negotiation process, but after weeks of talks, the two sides remain far apart on core sticking points.

In a notable shift of position announced Friday, Trump indicated that the US would be willing to accept a 20-year suspension of Iran’s nuclear program, a longstanding core point of contention between the two nations. The announcement confirmed a reported policy shift for the Trump administration, which had previously demanded a complete permanent end to Iran’s nuclear activities.

This is a developing breaking news story, and additional details are expected to be released as more information becomes available.

As Louisiana voters head to the polls Saturday for a pivotal Republican Senate primary, one of the last remaining Senate Republicans who broke with former President Donald Trump over the 2021 Capitol riot impeachment faces a make-or-break fight to keep his seat.

A controversial decision by Colorado Democratic Governor Jared Polis to cut short the prison sentence of former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters, a convicted 2020 election denier, has ignited fierce political backlash across party lines in the United States.

Peters, a Republican, made national headlines as one of the highest-profile figures prosecuted for efforts to cast doubt on the 2020 presidential election results. In August 2024, a jury found her guilty on seven felony counts connected to a 2021 breach of local election computer systems. The scheme allowed an unauthorized outsider to access sensitive voting equipment and voter records, carried out to support unproven claims that widespread voter fraud cost Donald Trump the 2020 election – a false conspiracy theory Trump has pushed repeatedly since his loss.

Polis announced the commutation Friday, confirming that Peters will be released on parole in June. The governor had previously characterized her original nine-year prison sentence as excessively harsh, and defended his decision in a detailed public Facebook post. He stressed that he was not issuing a full pardon and never considered one, acknowledging that Peters had clearly broken state law, violated public trust, lied to state election officials, and imposed significant financial costs on Mesa County through her illegal actions.

“It’s one of my bedrock beliefs that our laws should be applied fairly, and I simply do not believe that was what happened in this case,” Polis wrote. “For a first-time, non-violent offender, this sentence is simply disproportionate.”

But the move immediately drew harsh condemnation from most of Polis’ fellow Democrats, who argue the commutation undermines American democracy and the rule of law. Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, the state’s top election official, called the decision “an affront to our democracy,” with other leaders warning it could embolden future efforts to undermine public confidence in U.S. elections.

Senator John Hickenlooper, a Colorado Democrat, posted on X saying he strongly opposed the call to reduce Peters’ sentence, arguing it sends a dangerous message to bad actors seeking to erode election trust and does nothing to stop Trump’s ongoing illegal attacks on Colorado’s election system. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, also a Democrat, described the move as “truly mind-boggling,” adding that “this commutation decision is wrong and is an affront to the rule of law.” The criticism extended to other top congressional Democrats including Senator Michael Bennet, New York Representative Joe Morelle, and Colorado Representative Jason Crow, among others.

Unusually, the decision also drew anger from some Republicans. Matt Crane, executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association and a registered Republican, said he was “furious, disgusted, and deeply disappointed by the Governor’s decision.” He accused Polis of capitulating to extremist political factions and conspiracy movements that actively work to weaken trust in U.S. democratic institutions.

Not all Republicans condemned the move, however. Two high-profile conservative congressional Republicans – Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert – praised Polis’ action, calling it “great news” and a “long-overdue step toward justice” respectively. Former President Donald Trump, who had publicly pushed for Peters’ release for months, celebrated the announcement within minutes on social media with a simple, triumphant message: “FREE TINA!”

On Saturday, Peters released a statement through her attorney to the BBC, expressing public remorse for her actions. “I made mistakes, and for those I am sorry,” she said. “I have learned and grown during my time in prison and going forward I will make sure that my actions always follow the law, and I will avoid the mistakes of the past.”

The high-profile controversy comes as false 2020 election conspiracy theories continue to shape U.S. political discourse, with Trump again the leading Republican presidential candidate heading into the 2024 general election.

Tensions between the United States and Cuba have spiked dramatically in recent days, after multiple anonymous U.S. Department of Justice sources confirmed that federal authorities are moving forward with a planned criminal indictment of 94-year-old former Cuban leader Raúl Castro, connected to the 1996 downing of two U.S.-linked aircraft that left four people dead. The expected charges, which require formal approval from a federal grand jury before they can be unsealed, come at a uniquely sensitive moment: just one day before the first reports of the indictment plan emerged, CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Havana to hold rare direct talks with senior Cuban security officials.

Raúl Castro, who retired from the top post of Cuba’s Communist Party in 2011 after leading the island nation for 15 years, closed out six decades of uninterrupted rule by the Castro family when he stepped down. He assumed the presidency in 2006 after his older brother, longtime leader Fidel Castro, resigned due to poor health, and previously served as Cuba’s armed forces minister at the time of the 1996 incident.

The case that forms the core of the potential indictment dates back 30 years, to February 24, 1996, when Cuban military forces shot down two small civilian planes operated by Brothers to the Rescue, a Miami-based Cuban exile group with a stated mission of rescuing migrants crossing the Straits of Florida and an open anti-Castro political agenda. The group had repeatedly dropped anti-government leaflets in Cuban airspace prior to the incident, and Havana maintained at the time that the aircraft had violated Cuban national airspace. However, an investigation by the International Civil Aviation Organization concluded the shootdown occurred in international waters. All four people on board the two planes were killed in the attack.

According to unnamed DoJ officials, the public indictment could be released as early as next Wednesday. When asked about the reports during a press gaggle on Air Force One Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump declined to comment on the details of the ongoing investigation, saying he would leave all statements to the Department of Justice. He did not hold back from broader criticism of the Cuban government, however, telling reporters: “But [Cubans] need help, as you know. And you talk about a declining country. They are really a nation, a country in decline.”

The planned indictment is the latest escalation in a sustained U.S. pressure campaign against Havana that already includes a full oil embargo, sweeping economic sanctions, and open political rhetoric calling for regime change on the island. Trump’s oil blockade has already pushed Cuba to the brink of an energy crisis: just this week, the island’s energy minister publicly acknowledged that the country has effectively exhausted its supplies of fuel oil, leaving essential services and civilian livelihoods at risk. Expectant mothers across Cuba are already reporting severe struggles accessing basic care and supplies amid the ongoing fuel shortages.

The move to reactivate the investigation into the 1996 shootdown gained momentum earlier this year, when Florida’s attorney general announced the state would reopen its own probe into Raúl Castro’s alleged role in the incident. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis echoed that momentum Friday, praising the planned federal charges as “long overdue.”

Cuba has not yet issued an official formal response to the reports of the impending indictment, but Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez made clear Friday that Havana would not back down to U.S. pressure. “Despite the [US] embargo, sanctions and threats of the use of force, Cuba continues on a path of sovereignty towards its socialist development,” Rodriguez said, per Reuters.

Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, who leads the Department of Justice, has also declined to confirm the reports, telling Fox News: “If and when there’s a time to talk about about that, we will, obviously.” Under U.S. federal procedure, prosecutors must first present evidence of probable cause to a grand jury composed of ordinary citizens before any formal charges can be filed.

Ratcliffe’s visit to Havana Thursday, which included a meeting with his Cuban counterpart at the Cuban interior ministry, was notable for the attendance of Raúl Rodríguez Castro, the grandson of the former Cuban leader. A CIA official told CBS, the BBC’s U.S. partner, that Washington was open to talks on economic and security cooperation, “but only if Cuba makes fundamental changes” to its governing system. The Cuban government’s official readout of the meeting framed it as an effort to improve bilateral dialogue, and reiterated that Havana does not pose a threat to U.S. national security. The talks also followed a renewed U.S. offer of $100 million in humanitarian aid to help mitigate the harm caused by the American oil blockade.

The heightened focus on Cuba comes on the heels of a dramatic U.S. action in the region: in January, American authorities indicted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, and removed him from power in a rapid overnight military operation. Analysts have warned that a similar move to target Raúl Castro could trigger severe consequences for the United States, even as the indictment is widely seen as part of a broader pressure strategy.

William LeoGrande, a professor of Latin American politics at American University in Washington and author of *Back Channel to Cuba: The Hidden History of Negotiations between Washington and Havana*, described the impending indictment as “one more element of the pressure campaign” that Trump has sustained since returning to office. He warned that further destabilization of the Cuban government could backfire spectacularly on Washington. “If the Cuban economy and social order collapses, it would actually be a disaster for the United States, because it’s likely to touch off a mass migration crisis,” LeoGrande explained. The professor added that the move appears to be a deliberate warning: “It looks like the US is sending a warning to Raúl Castro that he should use his influence to get the government to make concessions. Or else the US military may be coming for him, just like it came for President Maduro in Venezuela.”