Donald Trump

Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, will have to start raising prices later this month due to the high cost of tariffs, executives have warned in a clear signal that United States President Donald Trump’s trade war is filtering through to the US economy.

As a bellwether of US consumer health, Walmart’s explicit statement on Thursday is also a signpost for how the trade war is affecting companies as Walmart is noted for its ability to manage costs more aggressively than other companies to keep prices low.

Walmart’s shares fell 2.3 percent in morning trading after it also declined to provide a profit forecast for the second quarter, even as the company’s US comparable sales surpassed expectations in the first quarter.

Net sales rose 2.5 percent to $165.6bn, a hair shy of estimates, while same-store sales were up 4.5 percent. Walmart’s quarterly adjusted profit was 61 cents per share, ahead of the analyst consensus for 58 cents per share.

Many US companies have either slashed or pulled their full-year expectations in the wake of the trade war, as consumers stretch their budgets to buy everything from groceries to essentials at cheaper prices. But Walmart’s statement will resonate nationwide, as roughly 255 million people shop in its stores and online weekly around the world, and 90 percent of the US population lives within 10 miles of a Walmart.

US shoppers will start to see prices rise at the end of May and certainly in June, Walmart’s Chief Financial Officer John David Rainey said in a CNBC interview. On a post-earnings call with analysts, he said the retailer would also have to cut back on orders as it considers price elasticity.

As the largest importer of container goods in the US, Walmart is heavily exposed to tariffs, and even though the US and China reached a truce that lowered levies for imports on Chinese goods to 30 percent, that’s still a high cost to bear, executives said.

“We’re very pleased and appreciative of the progress that has been made by the administration to bring tariffs down … but let me emphasise we still think that’s too high,” Rainey said on the call, referring to the tariff cuts negotiated over the weekend.

“There are certain items, certain categories of merchandise that we’re dependent upon to import from other countries and the prices of those things are likely going to go up, and that’s not good for consumers,” he added.

Other retailers also said they would be boosting prices. German sandal maker Birkenstock on Thursday said it plans to raise prices globally to fully offset the impact of the US tariff of 10 percent on European Union-made goods.

US consumer sentiment ebbed for a fourth straight month in April, signaling watchful purchasing, while the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) contracted for the first time in three years during the first quarter, fanning worries of a recession.

Narrow margins

Walmart’s CEO Doug McMillon said the retailer would not be able to absorb all the tariffs’ costs because of narrow retail margins, but was committed to ensuring that tariff-related costs on general merchandise – which primarily come from China – do not drive food prices higher.

To mitigate the impact, Walmart is working with suppliers to substitute tariff-affected components, such as replacing aluminium with fibreglass, which is not subject to tariffs.

Despite these efforts, McMillon noted that adjusting costs is more challenging in cases where Walmart imports food items like bananas, avocados, coffee, and roses from countries such as Costa Rica, Peru, and Colombia.

Analysts said Walmart was better positioned than rivals, as its scale enables it to lean on its suppliers and squeeze out efficiencies to shield customers from tariffs, but only so much.

“There will likely be some demand destruction from tariffs; a complete wreck is unlikely,” said Brian Jacobsen, chief economist at Annex Wealth Management.

Walmart on Thursday kept its annual sales and profit forecast intact for fiscal 2026, but withheld second-quarter operating income growth and earnings per share forecasts, citing a “fluid operating environment … [which] makes the very near term exceedingly difficult to forecast at the level and speed at which tariffs could go up”.

The United States and China have surprisingly agreed to a dramatic de-escalation in their trade war.

Under the agreement, the world’s two largest economies have paused their respective tariffs for 90 days.

That breaks an impasse which has brought much of the commerce between the two nations to a halt.

Critics say the talks in Geneva did not appear to yield any meaningful concessions. The two sides aim to reach a broader deal, but this takes too long to negotiate.

Also in this episode, we examine whether the US-UK trade pact will deliver real benefits, or is it symbolism over substance?

Also, Senegal is capitalising on its energy wealth to change its fortunes.

Brussels is drawing up plans to use trade tariffs and capital controls to maintain financial pressure on Russia, even if Hungary decides to use its veto to block an extension of the European Union’s sanctions regime, which lapses in July of this year.

The European Commission has told ministers that a large part of the EU’s sanctions, which included freezing 200 billion euros ($224bn) of Russian assets, could be adapted to a new legal framework to bypass Budapest’s veto, according to the United Kingdom’s Financial Times newspaper.

Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, has repeatedly held up EU boycotts on Moscow as the central European country gets 85 percent of its natural gas from Russia. Orban’s nationalist government is also one of the most friendly to Moscow in all of Europe.

In any event, the EU’s recent proposals have emerged as Moscow and Kyiv hold their first direct peace talks since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Ukrainian and Russian representatives are convening today in Istanbul, Turkiye. However, Vladimir Putin will not travel to Istanbul for face-to-face talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Last weekend, European leaders held talks in Ukraine to put pressure on Russia to agree to a 30-day ceasefire in the run-up to the Istanbul talks. Ukraine agreed to it. Russia did not.

What sanctions does the EU currently have in place against Russia?

The EU adopted its 17th sanctions package against Moscow, designed to stifle Russia’s economy and force President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine, on Wednesday. This package has been signed off by Budapest and will be formally ratified by the European Commission next week.

Brussels has progressively expanded sanctions against Moscow since 2022, introducing import bans on Russian oil, a price cap on Russian fuel and the freezing of Russian central bank assets held in European financial institutions.

Vast swaths of Russia’s economy – from media organisations to aviation and telecommunications – are now under EU restrictions, in addition to trade bans and measures targeting oligarchs and politicians.

Under the 17th package, some 200 “shadow fleet” tankers have been sanctioned. These are ships with opaque ownership and no Western ties in terms of finance or insurance, allowing them to bypass financial sanctions.

The latest sanctions will also target Chinese and Turkish entities that the EU says are helping Russia to evade embargoes. New restrictions will be imposed on 30 companies involved in the trade of dual-use goods – products with potential military applications.

“Russia has found ways to circumvent the blockage imposed by Europe and the United States, so closing the tap would grab Russia by the throat,” France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noel Barrot, told BFM TV.

How effective are sanctions?

Alongside military support for Kyiv, sanctions have been the EU’s main response to Russia’s war on Ukraine. But sanctions have so far failed to stop the war. What’s more, due to high oil prices and elevated military spending, Russia’s economy has outperformed expectations since the start of 2022.

Barrot acknowledged on Wednesday that the impact of sanctions has been insufficient. “We will need to go further because the sanctions so far have not dissuaded Vladimir Putin from continuing his war of aggression … we must prepare to expand devastating sanctions that could suffocate, once and for all, Russia’s economy,” said Barrot.

What new measures are being proposed?

While the 17th round of sanctions was only agreed on Wednesday, EU ministers are already considering what more might be done to undermine Putin’s political clout if the war in Ukraine persists.

Capital controls, which would be aimed at restricting money flowing in and out of Russia, and trade measures such as tariffs, are two options that have been mentioned by the European Commission in recent weeks. Capital controls can take a variety of forms, including restrictions on foreign investment, limiting currency exchange or imposing taxes on the movement of capital.

The commission also aims to share proposals next month that would allow Brussels to implement a ban on new Russian gas spot market contracts – deals for immediate delivery and payment – with European companies in 2025, and a total phase-out by 2027.

Despite oil export restrictions, Russia still earns billions of euros from natural gas sales into the EU through liquefied natural gas (LNG) and TurkStream (a pipeline connecting Russia to southeastern Europe via the Black Sea). Banning spot market contracts would lower Moscow’s revenue from these sources.

Brussels may also propose tariffs on enriched uranium as part of its effort to cut EU reliance on Russian fuels.

According to The Financial Times, the EU insists that these measures would not amount to sanctions and therefore would not need the unanimous backing of all 27 EU countries, which is normally required to extend sanctions.

“I think the EU cooked up these potential punishments to try and get Russia to agree to the 30-day ceasefire … it was the stick they were brandishing,” said an analyst familiar with the matter who asked not to be named.

Will the US impose more sanctions?

It may. On May 1, Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said he had the commitment of 72 colleagues for a bill that would enact “bone-crushing” sanctions on Russia.

Graham, a close ally of President Donald Trump, is spearheading a draft bill that seeks to impose a 500 percent tariff on imports from countries that buy Russian oil and fossil fuels.

Trump himself, who seemingly welcomes the possibility of a rapprochement with Russia, said in March that he was “considering” imposing sanctions and tariffs on Russia until a peace agreement is reached with Ukraine.

Could such measures force Putin to the negotiating table?

“Most Russian people want life to return to normal and business owners are getting tired of war-related costs,” the anonymous analyst told Al Jazeera. “There is a growing sense of unease.”

She said she doubted whether the EU’s touted measures would bring Putin any closer to signing a peace agreement, however. “Only because sanctions haven’t been able to do that,” she said, “and there’s already a maze of them.”

According to Castellum.AI, a global risk platform, Russia has been slapped with 21,692 sanctions since the start of the war – the majority of them against individuals.

“On past performance, it’s hard to see how even more sanctions and additional punishments will stop the fighting,” the analyst said.

She estimated a 60 percent chance that Russia and Ukraine would still be at war by the end of this year.

The Trump administration says it has accepted an airplane worth an estimated $400 million from the state of Qatar. While Trump is president, the White House says it would be used as the new Air Force One, then it would go to Trump’s presidential library after his term ends.

The aircraft would become the most expensive gift from a foreign government ever to a US elected official, ABC News reported. But some members of Congress say accepting it would be unconstitutional.

When asked about the potential gift at a May 12 executive order signing, Trump blamed Boeing’s lack of progress in building a new Air Force One. He said he would be “stupid” to refuse a free airplane, and said he won’t use it after he leaves office. “It’s not a gift to me, it’s a gift to the Department of Defense,” he said.

What do experts say?

Legal experts told PolitiFact they believe accepting the gift would violate the US Constitution’s emoluments clause, which reads, “No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

The emoluments clause was designed “to prevent foreign nations from gaining improper influence” over US leaders, said David Forte, Cleveland State University emeritus law professor.

Experts differed on whether accepting the plane would be an impeachable offense.

Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor, said that if Trump accepts the gift, it could be an impeachable deed, because it would amount to “a fully corrupt act.”

Forte, however, said the gift wouldn’t necessarily amount to a bribe or an impeachable offense, but it “is a form of influence buying designed to gain the gratitude of the recipient by playing to his vanity.”

Is this the first time Trump is facing such accusations?

During Trump’s first term, Congressional Democrats, private individuals and attorneys general from Maryland and Washington, DC, filed lawsuits against Trump stemming from the emoluments clause.

However, many of the cases were dismissed on procedural grounds, and the US Supreme Court did not rule on the transactions’ underlying constitutionality.

Trump’s possible acceptance of the aircraft is different, said Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri emeritus law professor.

In his first term, Trump said payments were made to his businesses. This time, there would be no connection to Trump’s businesses. It would be a gift offered for free with no promise of payment from the president or the US Treasury, Bowman said.

NBC News, citing an anonymous senior Justice Department official, reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi approved a memo prepared by the agency’s Office of Legal Counsel that deemed it was legal for the Defense Department to accept the gift. Bondi has previously lobbied on behalf of the state of Qatar.

Trump, on his part, has thanked Qatar for the jet.

“If we can get a 747 as a contribution to our Defense Department, during a couple of years whole they’re [Boeing is] building the other one, I think that’s a very nice gesture [from Qatar],” he said on May 12.

Can the emoluments clause be enforced against Trump?

Legal experts said it’s unlikely that Congress, controlled by Republicans, will stop Trump from accepting the gift.

Meghan Faulkner, communications director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, DC, said that since it appears the Justice Department has signed off on receiving the gift, it “could make it harder to hold him accountable”.

Bowman said the Justice Department, according to longstanding policy, wouldn’t prosecute a sitting president.

Faulkner said Trump stands to benefit again after running out the clock on emoluments challenges during his first term. “Enforcing the Emoluments Clause in the courts would face similar challenges (in his second term), including the challenge of finding a plaintiff who has standing to challenge the violations,” she said.

It was one of US President Donald Trump’s most ambitious executive orders, and it came just hours after he took office for his second term: ending the United States’ decades-long policy of birthright citizenship.

And just three days after Trump issued the order, a federal judge in Washington state blocked the decree from going into effect. In the months that followed, two other federal judges joined in issuing nationwide injunctions.

On Thursday, the issue will reach the US Supreme Court, with the 6-3 conservative dominated bench set to hear oral arguments in the case. What the court decides could be transformative.

Proponents have long argued that the practice of granting citizenship to all those born on US soil is woven into the national fabric.

American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony Romero did not mince words in January, when he called Trump’s order a “reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values”, destined to create a “permanent subclass of people born in the US who are denied full rights as Americans”.

Meanwhile, a smaller but vocal contingency, empowered by Trump, has maintained that the practice is based on faulty constitutional interpretation and serves as an incentive for undocumented migration. The Trump administration has called it “birth tourism”.

Here’s what to expect from Thursday’s hearing:

What time will it start?

The hearing will start at 9am local (14:00 GMT).

What is at stake?

The most fundamental question that could be answered by the top court is whether birthright citizenship will be allowed to continue.

Proponents point to the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”.

A subsequent 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v Wong Kim Ark, interpreted the language as applying to all immigrants, creating a precedent that has since stood.

Some studies estimate that about 150,000 immigrant infants are born with citizenship every year under the policy.

The Trump administration, in contrast, has embraced the theory that babies born to noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US, and therefore are not constitutionally guaranteed citizenship.
Speaking to reporters in April, Trump described a scenario of “tourists coming in and touching a piece of sand and then all of a sudden, there’s citizenship”. He has embraced the theory that the 14th Amendment was meant to apply only to former slaves, and not newly arriving immigrants

At the time, Trump predicted it would be “easy” to win the case based on that logic.

Could the outcome be more complicated?

Yes. The Trump administration has taken a strategically unique tack in the case.

In their emergency filing to the Supreme Court, they have focused on the actions of the three judges who blocked Trump’s order from going into effect nationwide.

They argue the orders extend beyond the judges’ authorities and should only apply to the plaintiffs or jurisdictions directly connected to Trump’s executive order.

Theoretically, the Supreme Court could rule on whether the judges can issue nationwide injunctions, without ruling on whether birthright citizenship is, in fact, protected by the Constitution.

For example, if the justices rule that the lower judges exceeded their power, but do not make a determination on the constitutional merits of birthright citizenship, the executive order would only be blocked in the 22 states that successfully challenged Trump’s order.

Attorneys General in those states had challenged the order in a joint lawsuit, with a federal judge in Massachusetts ruling in their favour in February.

Birthright citizenship would effectively be banned in 28 other states unless they also successfully challenge the order or until the Supreme Court makes a future ruling.

The possibility has split legal scholars, with some arguing it is unlikely the Supreme Court would make the narrower decision on the scope of the lower judges’ power without also ruling on the underlying constitutional merits of birthright citizenship.

Could the ruling extend beyond birthright citizenship?

Yes. If the justices do decide to only address the scope of the lower judges’ power, the implications could extend far beyond the birthright citizenship question.

It would also apply to several other Trump executive orders that have been blocked by a federal judge’s national injunction, also called “universal injunctions”. Those include several Trump executive orders seeking to unilaterally transform the federal government, the military, and how funding is disbursed to states, to name a few.

In a written filing in the birthright citizenship case, the Department of Justice pointed to the wider implications, saying the need for the Supreme Court’s “intervention has become urgent as universal injunctions have reached tsunami levels”.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the Maryland case that successfully challenged Trump’s birthright order said doing away with national injunctions would create different tiers of rights depending on an individual’s geographical location.

“An infant would be a United States citizen and full member of society if born in New Jersey, but a deportable noncitizen if born in Tennessee,” they wrote in a court filing.

Johannesburg, South Africa – On a chilly Sunday evening in Johannesburg, OR Tambo International Airport was filled with tourists and travellers entering and exiting South Africa’s busiest airport.

On one side of the international departures hall, a few dozen people queued – their trollies piled with luggage, travel pillows and children’s blankets – as they waited to board a charter flight to Washington Dulles International Airport in the United States.

Dressed casually and comfortably for the 13-hour journey that would follow, the group – most young, all white – talked among themselves while avoiding onlookers. Although they blended into the bustling terminal around them, these weren’t ordinary travellers. They were Afrikaners leaving South Africa to be refugees in Donald Trump’s America.

When Charl Kleinhaus first applied for refugee resettlement in the US earlier this year, he told officials he had been threatened and that people attempted to claim his property.

The 46-year-old, who claimed to own a farm in Limpopo, South Africa’s northernmost province, was not required to present proof of these threats or provide details regarding when the alleged incidents occurred.

On Sunday, he joined dozens of others accepted by the Trump administration as part of a pilot programme granting asylum to people from the Afrikaner community – descendants of mainly Dutch colonisers that led the brutal apartheid regime for nearly five decades.

The Trump administration claims white people face discrimination in South Africa – a country where they make up some 7 percent of the population but own more than 70 percent of the land and occupy the majority of top management positions.

“I want you all to know that you are really welcome here and that we respect what you have had to deal with these last few years,” US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau told Kleinhaus and the others when they landed at the Dulles International in Virginia.

“We respect the long tradition of your people and what you have accomplished over the years,” he said on Monday.

Speaking to a journalist at the airport, Kleinhaus said he never expected “this land expropriation thing to go so far” in South Africa.

He was referring to the recently passed Expropriation Act, which allows the South African government to, in exceptional circumstances, take land for public use without compensation. Pretoria says the measure is aimed at redressing apartheid injustices, as Black South Africans who make up more than 80 percent of the population still own just 4 percent of the land.

South African officials say the law has not resulted in any land grabs. There is also no record of Kleinhaus’s property being expropriated.

Kleinhaus was unaffected by any threats and the government was unaware of anyone who might have threatened his property, Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni told Al Jazeera.

“The people of South Africa have not been affected by the expropriation of land. There’s no evidence. None of them are affected by any farm murders either,” the minister emphasised.

Discredited ‘genocide’ claims

In February, when Trump signed an executive order granting refugee status to Afrikaners, he cited widely discredited claims that their land was being seized and that they were being brutally killed in South Africa.

On Monday, Trump again claimed that Afrikaners were victims of a “genocide” – an accusation South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and other experts maintain is based on lies.

“Farmers are being killed,” Trump told reporters. “White farmers are being brutally killed, and the land is being confiscated in South Africa.”

Ramaphosa has also debunked claims that the group who left this week faced any persecution at home.

“They are leaving because they do not wish to embrace the democratic transformation unfolding in South Africa,” he said.

For 60-year-old Sam Busa, watching Kleinhaus and the 48 other South Africans leave to be resettled in the US was a hopeful moment.

Busa, who has also applied for asylum, is waiting in anticipation for an interview that would qualify her for resettlement. She has begun selling excess household items in anticipation of her new life in the US.

The semi-retired businesswoman has been at the forefront of efforts – through a website called Amerikaners – encouraging Afrikaners to take an interest in the US offer to grant refugee status on the grounds that they face racial persecution in South Africa.

When asked how she has experienced persecution because of her race, Busa recounted an incident where she was held at gunpoint at her home in Johannesburg – the commercial capital of South Africa and one of the most dangerous cities in the world.

She later moved to KwaZulu-Natal on the country’s east coast, where she ran a business that provided services to the government.

When asked whether she believed she was targeted because of her race or if she was simply a victim of common crime, Busa asserted it did not matter.

She didn’t feel safe, she said. “I am not overly sensitive. When I watch Julius Malema singing about killing the Boer, it is extremely terrifying.”

Malema, the far-left leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) political party, often sings a famous anti-apartheid song, Kill the Boer (Boer meaning farmer in Afrikaans), which the courts have ruled is not hate speech or an incitement to violence.

‘Persecution’

For Busa, much like Kleinhaus, new legislation passed to bolster racial transformation, which includes having specific hiring targets for employment equity, has been “the straw that broke the camel’s back”.

“Expropriation without compensation is a huge issue, along with the amendment to employment equity,” she said, restating her belief that white people don’t have a future in South Africa.

“It’s coming hard and fast, and it’s becoming clear to [white] South Africans that we struggle with fears of home invasion. I don’t live on a farm, but there are massive fears because of the constant threat of crime. It has become clear to white South Africans; it’s not disguised,” she claimed.

The narrative of fear is prevalent among those engaged in the refugee programme despite the fact that several experts have debunked the assertion that they were victims of racially motivated attacks and not common crime.

South Africa sees about 19,000 murders a year. According to data from the police, most victims of rural crime are Black, with evidence showing that white farmers are not disproportionately being killed.

Meanwhile, many participants in the US’s Afrikaner refugee resettlement programme do not even live on farms; many are urban dwellers, according to Minister Ntshavheni.

Katia Beedan, who lives in Cape Town, is also anticipating resettlement in the US. She told Al Jazeera that refugee hopefuls do not have to prove racial persecution but simply articulate it.

“For me, it’s racial persecution and political persecution,” she said about her reasons for wanting to leave South Africa.

The copywriter-turned-life coach pointed to racial transformation laws targeting employment equity and land expropriation, which she believes the government is “overwhelming us with”, as a key reason for her desire to flee.

However, many other South Africans see sections of the Afrikaner community – including their right-wing lobby groups like AfriForum that first pushed the false narrative of a “white genocide” – as struggling to exist equally in a country where they were once considered superior because of their race.

“I think AfriForum is struggling with the reality of being ordinary,” social justice activist and South Africa’s former public protector, Thuli Madonsela, told local TV channel, Newzroom Afrika, in March.

“The new South Africa requires all of us to be ordinary, whereas colonialism and apartheid made white people special people.

“I think some white people … [are] seeking to reverse the wheel and find reason to be special again. They seem to have found an ally in the American president,” she said.

‘Absurd and ridiculous’

In February, as Trump expedited efforts to resettle Afrikaners in the US, he was closing off his country’s refugee programme to other asylum seekers from war-torn and famine-stricken parts of the world.

For Loren Landau from the African Centre for Migration and Society at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, the Afrikaner refugee relocation is “absurd and ridiculous”.

“They have not been welcomed as tourists or work permit holders, but as refugees. The idea of a refugee system is to protect those who cannot be safeguarded by their own states and who fear persecution or violence because of who they are or their membership in a social group. Can Afrikaners make that case?” he asked.

Although “there are people in South Africa who discriminate against them,” and Afrikaners now “have less privilege and protection than during the apartheid era”, it cannot be said that this is indicative of state policy, he said, adding that many different people are robbed, killed, and face discrimination in South Africa.

“Are they [Afrikaners] specially victimised because of who they are? Absolutely not!” Landau added.

He said all statistics on land ownership, income, and education levels indicate that South Africa’s white population far outstrips others: “They are still by far in the top strata of South African society. No one is taking their land. No one is taking their cars.”

Even fringe groups that may have called for land grabs have done little to enact their threats, observers note.

However, for Busa, that doesn’t matter. “I fear for my children. You never know when the EFF decides they want you dead. It’s not a country I want to live in,” she said. The EFF has said those who decide to leave South Africa should have their citizenship revoked.

Confronted with the implications of this situation, the government is considering whether those who exit as refugees could easily return to the country. Ramaphosa is expected to discuss the ongoing matter with Trump at a meeting in the US next week.

Meanwhile, for the Afrikaners now in the US, most will settle in Texas, with others in New York, Idaho, Iowa and North Carolina, while the government helps them find work and accommodation.

They will hold refugee status for one year, after which they can apply for a US green card to make them permanent residents. At the same time, the Afrikaner resettlement programme remains open to others who want to apply.

When Kleinhaus and his group arrived in the US on Monday, they had smiles on their faces as they met officials and waved US flags.

Yet, for South Africa’s president, their resettlement in the US marks “a sad moment for them” – and something he believes may not last.

“As South Africans, we are resilient. We don’t run away from our problems,” he said at an agricultural exhibition in Free State province on Monday.

“If you look at all national groups in our country, Black and white, they’ve stayed in this country because it’s our country.

“I can bet you that they [the Afrikaners who left] will be back soon because there is no country like South Africa.”

May 15 (UPI) — A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration unconstitutionally retaliated against the American Bar Association when it abruptly canceled millions in grants awarded to the world’s largest association of lawyers and legal professionals.

Judge Christopher Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction against the cancelation of the five grants and ordered the Justice Department to fully pay out the $3.2 million previously allocated to the ABA. The grants were intended to train lawyers and judges who work with survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

“The ABA has made a strong showing that Defendants terminated its grants to retaliate against it for engaging in protected speech,” the President Barack Obama-appointed judge wrote in his ruling.

The Trump administration has been accused of retaliating against President Donald Trump‘s perceived political opponents, including law firms associated with Democrats and judges who have ruled against his policies.

The ABA is among those who have described such attacks as threats to the judiciary, and in February, it joined a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s freeze of international development grants to the U.S. Agency for international Development.

In April, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum calling out ABA over its lawsuit against the government and support for “activist causes,” essentially severing the Justice Department’s interactions with the organization. The department then canceled the grants the next day

The organization filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration on April 23, accusing it of unlawful retaliation for exercising its First Amendment right to petition the courts.

“This lawsuit is necessitated by DOJ’s undisguised efforts to retaliate against the ABA for taking positions that the current Administration disfavors,” the lawsuit filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of ABA stated.

In his ruling Wednesday, Cooper said the government does not have any “meaningful” arguments to contest ABA’s claims, stating it points to deficiencies in the organization’s performance of its grant obligations while conceding that similar grants administered to other organizations remain in place.

“The government claims that it had a non-retaliatory motive for terminating the grants: They no longer aligned with DOJ’s priorities. But the government has not identified any non-retaliatory DOJ priorities, much less explained why they were suddenly deemed inconsistent with the goals of the affected grants,” he said, adding that similar grants to other organizations continue without the government explaining why those are still being maintained.

“The government’s different treatment of other grantees suggests this justification is pretextual.”

Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman celebrated the ruling in a statement, saying it is “welcome news” for survivors of domestic and sexual violence and for their families.

“For decades, the American Bar Association has provided critical training to lawyers to enable the provision of essential legal services to survivors. The court recognized today that the ABA is being unconstitutionally targeted by the Department of Justice because of their longstanding and unchanged stance on the importance of the rule of law and our Constitution,” Perryman said.

Pretoria says the visit is to ‘reset’ ties with Washington, after the US welcomed dozens of white Afrikaners as refugees.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa will meet United States President Donald Trump at the White House next week in an attempt to “reset” ties between the two countries, Pretoria has said.

The reported visit comes after the US welcomed dozens of white Afrikaners as refugees this week, following widely discredited allegations made by Trump that “genocide” is being committed against white farmers in the majority-Black country.

“President Ramaphosa will meet with President Donald Trump at the White House in Washington, DC to discuss bilateral, regional and global issues of interest,” South Africa’s presidency said in a statement on Wednesday.

“The president’s visit to the US provides a platform to reset the strategic relationship between the two countries,” it added, saying the trip will take place from Monday to Thursday and the two leaders will meet on Wednesday.

The White House had no immediate comment on the meeting, which would be Trump’s first with the leader of an African nation since he returned to office in January.

Relations between Pretoria and Washington have soured significantly since Trump returned to the White House.

Trump has criticised Ramaphosa’s government on multiple fronts. In February, he issued an executive order cutting all US funding to South Africa, citing disapproval of its land reform policy and its genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against US ally Israel.

‘Wrong end of the stick’

Trump’s order also offered to take in and resettle people from the minority Afrikaner community, whom he alleges are being persecuted and killed because of their race – claims that have been disproven by experts and South Africa’s government.

Afrikaners are descendants of mainly Dutch colonisers who led the apartheid regime for nearly five decades.

Pretoria maintains there is no evidence of persecution of white people in the country and Ramaphosa has said the US government “has got the wrong end of the stick”, as South Africa suffers overall with the problem of violent crime, regardless of race.

The US’s criticism also appears to focus on South Africa’s affirmative action laws that advance opportunities for the majority-Black population, who were oppressed and disenfranchised under apartheid.

A new land expropriation law gives the government power to take land in the public interest without compensation in exceptional circumstances. Although Pretoria says the law is not a confiscation tool and refers to unused land that can be redistributed for the public good, some Afrikaner groups say it could allow their land to be redistributed to some of the country’s Black majority.

According to data, white people, who make up about 7 percent of South Africa’s population, own more than 70 percent of the land and occupy most top management positions in the country.

Ramaphosa has spoken repeatedly of his desire to engage with Trump diplomatically and improve the relationship between the two countries.

The US is South Africa’s second-largest bilateral trading partner after China.

ADVERTISEMENT

Boeing has secured a historic deal with Qatar Airways, as part of US President Donald Trump’s regional trade drive. Shares in the largest US aerospace manufacturer rose 2% to a 52-week high on Wednesday following the announcement.

During Trump’s visit to Qatar, the White House revealed that the US president had reached agreements totalling $243.5 billion (€209 bn) with the Gulf state. “The landmark deals celebrated today will drive innovation and prosperity for generations, bolster American manufacturing and technological leadership, and put America on the path to a new Golden Age,” stated the White House.

The deals include a $96bn (€85.8 bn) Boeing aircraft order from Qatar Airways, a record order for the US’s largest exporter.

Following a $600bn (€535bn) investment plan made with Saudi Arabia earlier this week, the US-Qatar agreements further strengthen Washington’s ties with the wealthy Gulf nations. President Trump is set to visit the United Arab Emirates (UAE) later today, with speculation that further Boeing deals may be signed with Emirates, Qatar Airways’ larger regional competitor.

Largest ever Boeing order

Boeing announced that Qatar Airways would purchase 130 787 Dreamliners and 30 777X aircraft, calling the order “a record as the largest widebody order for Boeing, the largest order for 787 Dreamliners, and Qatar Airways’ largest-ever order.” The company claims the deal will support nearly 400,000 jobs in the US. President Trump attended the signing ceremony.

“After two consecutive years of record-breaking commercial performance, and with this historic Boeing aircraft order, we’re not simply chasing scale — we’re building strength that will allow us to continue delivering unmatched products and customer experiences,” said Qatar Airways CEO Engr. Badr Mohammed Al-Meer.

“We thank our Boeing partners for answering the call and look forward to a future of continued smart growth together. Our team is excited to build 787s and 777s for Qatar Airways into the next decade, as they connect more people and businesses around the world with unmatched efficiency and comfort.”

The deal is a major win for Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg, who accompanied Trump on the Middle East trip. On Tuesday, Boeing also secured a $4.8bn (€4.3 bn) agreement for 737-8 MAX jets with AviLease, a Saudi Arabia-based aircraft lessor.

Boeing’s 737 MAX passenger airliner had been grounded between 2019 and 2020, and again in 2024, due to ongoing safety and production concerns. The company has remained unprofitable since 2018, with its shares falling to a multi-year low in early April following Trump’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs.

Trump’s efforts to reduce reliance on China’s businesses

China halted orders from Boeing in late April in response to Trump’s tariffs. During an interview with CNBC last month, Ortberg indicated that aircraft initially built for Chinese buyers may be redirected to other customers later this year.

On Tuesday, Trump also finalised an $80bn (€71 bn) artificial intelligence investment plan with Saudi Arabia, which helped fuel rallies in Nvidia and other major tech stocks. Previously, US semiconductor shares had come under pressure amid the escalating US-China trade tensions.

The Trump administration rescinded the AI diffusion rule introduced by former President Joe Biden, which would have taken effect today. However, the Department of Justice said it would rewrite the export curbs on AI chip exports to China. On Wednesday, China’s Ministry of Commerce announced a 90-day suspension on export restrictions targeting 28 US companies, including rare earths and other critical materials, as part of a bilateral agreement reached after trade talks over the weekend.

Washington, DC – A federal judge has ordered Georgetown University scholar Badar Khan Suri released from immigration detention, in the latest victory for US visa holders targeted by the administration of President Donald Trump for pro-Palestine stances or advocacy.

The ruling on Wednesday by US District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles comes shortly after two other prominent students targeted for deportation, Columbia University Student Mohsen Mahdawi and Tufts University PhD student Rumeysa Ozturk, were ordered released from detention as their deportation cases move forward.

Speaking at a news conference following the hearing at the federal court in Arlington, Virginia, Khan Suri’s wife, Mapheze Saleh, thanked supporters who demonstrated outside of the facility.

“I thank everyone who came out to support the cause of a truth-telling, speaking up and standing for Palestinian rights,” said Saleh, who is Palestinian American.

As with similar cases where visa holders have been targeted for deportation related to their pro-Palestine views and advocacy, lawyers for Suri Khan – who has Indian citizenship and a US student visa – argued ICE agents unlawfully detained him outside his Virginia home in March for speech that should have been constitutionally protected.

The Trump administration has taken the broad position that those constitutional protections do not apply to temporary visa holders or even US permanent residents. The question will likely eventually be decided by the US Supreme Court.

The administration has further relied on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to justify its actions. An obscure provision of the law allows the US secretary of state to deport any non-citizen deemed to have “potentially serious adverse foreign consequences”.

In a separate ruling related to Columbia University Student Mahmoud Kahlil in April, a federal judge adopted a broad interpretation of the provision, saying Kahlil was deportable based on Rubio’s claims he took part in “anti-Semitic” protests. That came despite the top US diplomat providing no further evidence.

Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security had previously claimed in a post on X that Khan Suri was “spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media”.

It added he “was married to the daughter of a senior advisor for to Hamas terrorist group”.

But speaking to reporters, Nermeen Arastu, one of the lawyers representing Khan Suri, noted that evidence backing up those claims has not been presented by government lawyers in court.

Arastu, who is also an associate professor of law at the CUNY School of Law, said it was notable that “the court today also pointed out that the government is kind of throwing around accusations in social media, but not presenting them in the formal courtroom setting”.

“And tied that to this due process concept that’s so important here to understand – that at the very basic level, you have a right to understand the allegations that are being brought against you,” she said.

‘Badge of honour’

Critics have further accused the Trump administration of targeting Khan Suri based on his familial ties. His wife is the daughter of Ahmed Yousef, a former adviser to assassinated Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh who left his position with the armed group more than a decade ago.

“He should have never been arrested and jailed for his constitutionally protected speech just because the government disagrees with him,” ACLU of Virginia senior immigrants’ rights lawyer Sophia Gregg, told reporters on Wednesday.

“He should have never been punished for his relationship with his wife or his father-in-law,” she said.

Like in the cases of Ozturk and Mahdawi, Khan Suri’s cases will proceed despite his release. He faces two separate legal proceedings, one in immigration court in the one challenging his arrest and detention in Virginia.

He remained in detention in Texas when the ruling was issued on Wednesday, his lawyers said, adding they were expecting him to be released shortly.

Saleh said at the court that she had recently spoken to her husband from the detention centre in Texas, where he was held.

“He told me if my suffering in the detention centre is because I married a Palestinian and because I spoke out against the genocide in Gaza, then I should wear it as a badge of honour,” she said.

State-owned airline Qatar Airways has signed an agreement to buy 210 aircraft from United States manufacturer Boeing, coinciding with President Donald Trump’s visit to Qatar as part of his tour of the Gulf region.

Trump and Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, witnessed the signing ceremony in Doha on Wednesday. The White House said that the deal for the Boeing 777X and 787 planes with GE Aerospace engines was worth $96bn.

Trump said Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg, who signed the deal with Qatar Airways CEO Badr Mohammed Al Meer next to Trump and the emir, told him: “It’s the largest order of jets in the history of Boeing. That’s good.”

Trump had initially said that the deal was worth more than $200bn and was for 160 planes, before the White House issued updated numbers after his comments.

The White House also said that agreements signed by the US and Qatar would “generate an economic exchange worth at least $1.2 trillion”.

“This is a critical next step for Qatar Airways on our path as we invest in the cleanest, youngest and most efficient fleet in global aviation,” Qatar Airways Group CEO Badr Mohammed Al-Meer said in a statement.

“After two consecutive years of record-breaking commercial performance and with this historic Boeing aircraft order – we’re not simply chasing scale; we’re building strength that will allow us to continue to deliver our unmatched products and customer experiences.”

The sale is also a boost for Boeing and its biggest engine supplier at a time when large versions of rival Airbus’ A350, powered by Rolls-Royce engines, have struggled with maintenance problems from operating in the world’s hottest climates, including the Gulf region.

Boeing shares rose 0.9 percent in New York, while GE Aerospace stock edged up 0.1 percent.

For the 787s, Qatar opted for GE Aerospace’s GEnx engines rather than Rolls-Royce’s Trent 1000, according to the administration. GE Aerospace’s GE9X is the only engine option for the 777X.

It is the largest widebody engine deal for GE Aerospace, the company’s CEO Larry Culp said in a statement.

Faisal al-Mudahka, editor-in-chief of the Gulf Times, said the Qatar Airways purchase of Boeing aircraft is a “win-win”.

As one of the world’s top airlines with a growing market, Qatar Airways has more demand than supply at the moment and will need the fleet, he said.

“I think Donald Trump and Qatar know how to package things to make political gains and economic gains.”

Trump’s Qatar visit is the second destination of his Gulf tour, after an initial stop in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where he made a surprise announcement about lifting sanctions on Syria and then met the country’s president, Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Trump is to land on a third and final stop in the United Arab Emirates on Thursday for a one-day visit.

No mention of Gaza

The Qatari emir said the two leaders had a “great” few hours of discussion covering a range of issues. “I think after signing these documents, we are going to another level of relations,” he said.

Trump thanked the emir and said it had been a “very interesting couple of hours” discussing topics including the Russia-Ukraine war, Iran and trade relations.

However, Israel’s war on Gaza was not mentioned by either leader.

Omar Rahman, a fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, said the fact that Gaza wasn’t mentioned led him to believe the discussion is “ongoing”.

“When it comes to Gaza, you have the Israelis there as well. On the issue of a ceasefire, Trump can put pressure on the Israelis, … but you still have the Israelis there making decisions. This is going to be a little bit more difficult to work out,” he told Al Jazeera.

US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who was also in Doha, said “we’re making progress” in response to a question by Al Jazeera Diplomatic Editor James Bays on whether discussions on Gaza were ongoing.

“His tone was pretty telling. He was very positive,” Bays said. “When I asked him whether that was regarding aid deliveries or a ceasefire, he said, ‘We’re making progress on all fronts.’”

“He said he hopes there would be a positive announcement ‘soon’, but we have no indication of what that might mean,” Bays added.

May 14 (UPI) — For a third straight day, the United States on Wednesday issued sanctions targeting Iran as the Trump administration attempts to negotiate a new nuclear arms deal with the Middle Eastern country.

The punitive measures imposed by the Treasury Department are secondary sanctions, meaning those aimed and punishing third parties for dealing with previously designated entities, individuals and countries.

The sanctions target six individuals and 12 entities in China and Iran accused of aiding Tehran source the manufacturing of critical materials used in the Islamic state’s ballistic missile program, specifically carbon fiber materials used in the construction of intercontinental rockets.

The State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce explained in a statement that Iran is “heavily reliant on China to conduct its malign activities in the Middle East.”

The targets work with the U.S.-sanctioned elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

“The United States cannot allow Iran to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement.

“The Iranian regime’s relentless and irresponsible pursuit of advanced ballistic missile capabilities, including its efforts to indigenize its production capacity, represents an unacceptable threat to the United States and the stability of the region.”

The sanctions are the third batch of Iran-targeted punitive measures that the Trump administration has imposed this week as it engages in negotiations with Iran on a new agreement aimed at preventing Tehran from securing a nuclear weapon — a goal long held by President Donald Trump.

In 2018, during his first term in the White House, Trump slapped sanctions on Iran and unilaterally pulled the United States from a landmark Obama-era multinational accord, calling it “defective at its core.”

He pursued a so-called maximum pressure campaign of sanctions and other punitive measures, but failed to coerce Iran back to the negotiating table, and it instead advanced its nuclear weapons capability to the point the U.S. government estimated in 2022 that it would need just a week to produce enough weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon.

In February, Trump reinstated his maximum pressure policy, which includes the recent batches of further sanctions.

The United States and Iran have had four recent negotiations on a new deal, but there does not appear to be a fifth round scheduled yet.

Trump administration officials have said a deal would see Iran dismantle its three enrichment facilities, but Iranian officials have said it will not stop enriching uranium but would be open to restrictions.

Trump is in the Middle East this week for a four-day trip, and has repeatedly voiced optimism that a deal can be made.

“I have a feeling it’s going to work out. I think it’s going to work. It’s got to work out, one way or the other we know it’s going to work out,” Trump said during a press conference Wednesday in Doha, Qatar.

Later to reporters aboard Air Force One, he was more direct with his threats against Iran.

“One way or the other. It’s very simple. It’s going to happen one way or the other. They can’t have a nuclear weapon. So, we will either do it friendly, or we will do it very unfriendly, and that won’t be pleasant,” he said.

The Trump administration has said it has sanctioned more than 250 people, entities and vessels related to Iran and its proxies since February.

Two-year-old Maikelys Espinoza Bernal was reunited with her mother in Venezuela following calls for her return.

A Venezuelan toddler who was separated from her parents after they crossed the United States-Mexico border together has been returned to Venezuela, to where her mother was deported in April.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro thanked the administration of United States President Donald Trump for the return on Wednesday of two-year-old Maikelys Espinoza Bernal to her mother, Yorely Bernal.

“We must be thankful for all the efforts, for [Trump special envoy] Rich Grenell for his efforts … and thank Donald Trump, too,” Maduro said, calling the child’s return “an act of justice”.

Both of the toddler’s parents were accused by the Trump administration of involvement with the Tren de Aragua gang, a claim for which the government has offered no evidence and is firmly denied by family members.

The child’s father, 25-year-old Maiker Espinoza, was among at least 137 Venezuelans sent to a prison in El Salvador in March.

Venezuelan officials had sought the return of Maikelys, and footage shown on state television showed First Lady Cilia Flores holding Maikelys after she arrived at an international airport near the capital of Caracas.

The child was reunited with her mother and grandmother in an event at the presidential palace attended by Maduro, who has voiced occasional criticism of Trump’s deportation push but reached an agreement in March to receive Venezuelans deported from the US.

The Trump administration has invoked sometimes vague and unsubstantiated claims of Tren de Aragua membership to send Venezuelan migrants to CECOT, a maximum security prison in El Salvador, notorious for abusive conditions, without due process under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.

The toddler’s father, 25-year-old Maiker Espinoza, has been accused by the Trump administration, without evidence, of being a “lieutenant” in Tren de Aragua who oversees “homicides, drug sales, kidnappings, extortion, sex trafficking and operates a torture house”.

“At no time has my son been involved with them,” his mother, Maria Escalona, told the news agency Reuters this month, of claims that her son is a member of Tren de Aragua. “I think this is political – they are using the case of my son to cover up the horror that is being committed against all these innocents.”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also accused Yorely Bernal of recruiting young women for narcotics smuggling and sex work, but has not provided any evidence for those claims and deported her to Venezuela in April.

The Trump administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used wartime law that grants the president powers to expeditiously expel people from the country without usual protections, under the pretext that irregular migration to the US constitutes a foreign “invasion”.

A report by the US intelligence community found no evidence for public claims by the Trump administration that Tren de Aragua was coordinating activities with the Maduro government as part of a clandestine attack on the United States.

On Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard fired two top members of the intelligence body that authored that assessment.

Qatar’s role as a global mediator and a massive purchase of Boeing airliners were prime areas of focus in official talks between US President Donald Trump and Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.

Iran’s president says his nation will not be intimidated by threats as Trump accuses Tehran of carrying out proxy wars.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian said his country would not “bow to any bully” in response to United States President Donald Trump’s criticism of Tehran during his ongoing three-day Gulf tour.

“He [Trump] thinks he can come here, chant slogans, and scare us. For us, martyrdom is far sweeter than dying in bed. You came to frighten us? We will not bow to any bully,” he said on Wednesday in comments broadcast live on state TV.

Earlier in the day, during the GCC summit in Riyadh, Trump said that while he wanted to make a deal with Iran, the country “must stop sponsoring terror, halt its bloody proxy wars, and permanently and verifiably cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons”.

Washington and Tehran have held four meetings that were mediated by Oman to help reach a deal over the latter’s nuclear programme.

While attending a state dinner in the Qatari capital in Doha on Wednesday, Trump repeated his publicly stated desire for a peaceful resolution to Iran’s nuclear programme and suggested the ball is in Tehran’s court.

“It’s a perilous situation, and we want to do the right thing,” Trump said. “We want to do something that’s going to save maybe millions of lives. Because things like that get started, and they get out of control.”

On Tuesday, Trump said that he wanted “to make a deal with Iran”, but “if Iran’s leadership rejects this olive branch … we will have no choice but to inflict massive maximum pressure”. He added that he would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Successive US administrations have sought to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. A sustained effort by world powers during the Barack Obama administration culminated in a 2015 agreement called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

But when Trump succeeded Obama as US president, he unilaterally withdrew the US from the nuclear agreement in 2018, causing the deal to crumble.

Despite ongoing talks, the Trump administration has continued to impose sanctions on Iran.

On Wednesday, the US issued sanctions targeting Iran for efforts to domestically manufacture components for ballistic missiles, the US Department of the Treasury said.

The sanctions target six individuals and 12 entities for what the Treasury Department said was “their involvement in efforts to help the Iranian regime domestically source the manufacturing of critical materials needed for Tehran’s ballistic missile program”.

May 14 (UPI) — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. defended proposed 2026 budget reductions during separate House and Senate committee budget hearings on Wednesday.

Kennedy started the morning by fielding questions from members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.

Chairman Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., opened the hearing by acknowledging President Donald Trump‘s efforts to enforce the border and its effect on community health and safety.

“The president’s success in securing our border directly benefits public health by reducing the incoming flow of illicit drugs, like fentanyl, which has fallen by 54% since this time last year,” Aderholt said. “That’s no small thing.”

He also commended the Trump administration for reducing the number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border and said he wants to hear Kennedy’s ideas for reforming the Department of Health and Human Services and its sub-agencies.

‘Disastrous’ program funding reductions

Ranking Member Rep. Rose DeLauro, D-Conn., was less conciliatory and referred to the Trump administration’s budget request for the Department of Health and Human Services as “disastrous.”

DeLauro said the proposed budget would reduce funding for health programs by $33 billion.

The proposed HHS budget for the 2026 fiscal year is $93.8 billion, which is a 26.2% reduction from the current budget and includes funding reductions across most programs.

“I view it as a disgrace,” DeLauro said. “Under your budget proposal, Americans would die needless and preventable deaths.”

DeLauro cited funding cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and accused Kennedy and the Department of Government Efficiency Director Elon Musk of “eliminating entire divisions without consideration for what is being lost.”

The cuts “affect families and communities” and “are dangerous,” DeLauro said.

Kennedy said his goal is to make America healthy again by focusing on the “chronic disease epidemic.”

HHS also seeks to deliver more effective and efficient services for Americans who rely on Medicaid, Medicare and other programs while reducing costs for taxpayers, Kennedy said.

During the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee budget hearing Wednesday afternoon, Kennedy said states and localities can do a better job of responding to disasters at the state and local levels than the federal government.

He cited Florida’s success in handling hurricanes Helene and Milton last year, with no lives lost there, as an example and said the federal government should focus on national disasters.

Drug prices and healthcare as a human right

Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., asked Kennedy if he is willing to work to make drug prices in the United States the lowest in the world, to which Kennedy said he is.

Sanders then asked Kennedy if healthcare is a “human right.”

Kennedy said healthcare is not part of the rights enumerated in the Constitution and called it more of a philosophical matter.

Sanders responded by saying “every other country guarantees healthcare” as a right and said Americans don’t want the choice to be uninsured or not have the ability to see a doctor.

Kennedy said “Obamacare” is not working and he and President Trump want to enable everyone to be insured and have access to quality healthcare.

Sanders then cited proposed cuts to programs that serve middle-class and poor Americans and claimed they would end healthcare coverage for 13 million Americans.

Kennedy said the cuts only are for waste and denied they would affect coverage for Americans.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., followed Sanders and cited examples of wasteful programs that the proposed budget would eliminate.

They include a recent study on the effects of cocaine on lab rats and another study that showed about half of biological males who medically transition to female believe they can get pregnant, the senator said.

Gain-of-function research and COVID-19

Paul also said bipartisan support exists for better controlling gain-of-function research on Ebola, avian flu and other infectious diseases and the potential dangers they pose to Americans.

The senator cited a research study that would put Ebola in an aerosol as a potential biological weapon, which he said could be potentially very dangerous to the general public.

Paul asked Kennedy if HHS would be transparent in gain-of-function research regulations and protect Americans from potentially deadly outbreaks.

Kennedy said HHS would be “absolutely transparent” in regulating gain-of-function research and “bring the public in on the debate.”

He also said National Institutes of Health research “almost certainly” caused the COVID-19 pandemic through gain-of-function research.

Lack of access to critical care

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said she opposes staffing reductions at the NIH and cited a constituent with stage-four cancer who recently was told her treatment would be delayed by four weeks due to staffing shortages.

Kennedy offered to intervene on that person’s behalf and ensure she receives needed care right away.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., accused Kennedy of “hiding information” from the American people and asked if he believes lead poisoning is a problem.

Kennedy said he thinks it’s a very serious problem, but Baldwin said “the entire lead-poisoning program staff has been fired.”

She asked if Kennedy intends to eliminate the program that helps communities address lead poisoning, which he said will not happen.

She also said HHS has provided about $1 billion less in Head Start program funding and asked why there are funding delays.

“There should not be any delays,” Kennedy said. “The funding is there.”

He suggested staffers who want to make the Trump administration look bad are slowing down disbursements for Head Start and similar programs.

The House and Senate hearings were held before a vote on a proposed 2026 federal government budget measure that Trump has referred to as “one big, beautiful bill.”

Protesters arrested for disrupting hearing

While the Senate hearing was underway, Ben & Jerry’s co-owner and co-founder Ben Cohen and six others were arrested for disrupting the hearing, Axios reported.

Cohen and the others were protesting the United States’ support of Israel in its war with Hamas in Gaza.

The protesters yelled, “RFK kills people with hate!” before Capitol Police escorted them from the room.

They were arrested and charged with crowding, obstructing proceedings or incommoding.

Some protesters also were charged with assaulting a police officer or resisting arrest, but Cohen was not among those so charged.

Qatari prime minister states that the UN should be allowed to resume aid distribution inside Gaza.

Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani has said that a series of recent Israeli attacks on Gaza show that Israel is not interested in ending the war.

In an interview with the US news outlet CNN on Wednesday, Al Thani said that he had hoped that the release of a US-Israeli soldier named Edan Alexander from captivity in Gaza would be a “breakthrough that will help bring back the talks on track” but that Israel had instead opted to step up strikes on the Strip.

“Unfortunately, Israel’s reaction to this was [bombing] the next day, while sending the delegation,” he said.

Al Thani also stated that a US-backed plan for distributing aid in Gaza through a newly created group is unnecessary. Humanitarian and United Nations aid groups have said that they already have the means of delivering aid to Gaza but are being blocked from doing so by Israel.

Israel has completely cut off Gaza’s access to food, water, fuel, and humanitarian aid since March 2, prompting global monitors of extreme hunger to warn of possible famine and allegations of the use of starvation as a weapon of war by human rights groups.

Israel has claimed, with little evidence, that members of the armed Palestinian group Hamas are stealing large portions of aid entering the Strip, and have pushed for the exclusion of UN organisations, long viewed with ire by Israeli authorities, from aid distribution.

A newly created body with US backing called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation said on Wednesday that it would begin operations in Gaza by the end of May, and that it has asked Israel to allow increased levels of aid into the Strip.

Critics have said that the new organisation fulfils an Israeli goal of sidelining the UN and independent international organisations from aid distribution in Gaza.

“GHF emphasizes that a successful humanitarian response must eventually include the entire civilian population in Gaza,” the foundation’s executive director, Jake Wood, wrote in a letter to the Israeli government.

“GHF respectfully requests that the [Israeli military] identify and deconflict sufficient locations in northern Gaza capable of hosting GHF-operated secure distribution sites that can be made operational within 30 days,” he added.

A recent report by the Observer, a UK-based news outlet, notes that a GHF fundraising document appears to mirror claims about the problems of humanitarian assistance in Gaza that do not include the actions of the Israeli government itself and instead blame a “collapse” of “traditional humanitarian channels” due to aid diversion and combat operations.

Thousands of aid trucks have been bottlenecked outside of Gaza amid Israel’s blockade for weeks, with UN officials stressing that they are ready and capable of resuming aid distribution in the Strip, if Israel will lift the siege.

Donald Trump isn’t visiting Israel during his Middle East tour because he knows Netanyahu is bluffing and has nothing to offer him, says Israeli political analyst Akiva Eldar. He believes Trump’s snub marks the end of an era in US-Israel relations. #AJOPINION

On Monday, the United States and China reached an agreement to slash sky-high tariffs for 90 days. Though both sides claimed they could withstand a long trade war, they reached a truce quicker than many analysts expected.

The breakthrough marked a dramatic ratcheting down of trade tensions following the tariff war launched by US President Donald Trump during his “liberation day” announcement on April 2.

Trump initially unveiled so-called reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries before pausing them just one week later. China, however, did not get off the hook and Beijing soon retaliated with tariffs of its own.

Tit-for-tat exchanges quickly snowballed into eye-watering sums. By April 11, tariffs on Chinese goods entering the US had reached 145 percent and levies on US products going to China had swelled to 125 percent.

Tensions were already at boiling point last weekend when US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and He Lifeng, China’s vice-premier, agreed a ceasefire that would slash respective tariffs by 115 percentage points for three months.

US duties on Chinese products will now fall to 30 percent, while China’s tariffs on US goods will drop to 10 percent. Stock Markets rallied on the news, with the Nasdaq Composite climbing 4.3 percent on Monday and gaining 20 percent over its April low.

But one key question has significant implications for trade talks to come: Did Washington or Beijing flinch first?

What did the two countries say?

The tariff suspension, which was sharper than analysts expected, came after two days of trade talks in Geneva, Switzerland. On Monday, the US and China released a joint statement announcing the deal.

The two countries acknowledged the importance of their “bilateral economic and trade relationship” as well as the importance of a “sustainable, long-term, and mutually beneficial economic and trade relationship”.

The US and China agreed to establish a mechanism to continue discussing trade relations. China also agreed to “suspend or cancel” non-tariff measures against the US, but did not provide any details.

Speaking to reporters in Geneva last weekend, China’s Vice Premier He described the talks as “candid, in-depth and constructive”.

For his part, US Treasury Secretary Bessent told Bloomberg Television on Monday that “both sides agree we do not want a generalised decoupling.”

“The US is going to do a strategic decoupling in terms of the items that we discovered during COVID were of national security interests – whether it’s semiconductors, medicine, steel,” Bessent said.

After the talks concluded, Trump praised negotiations as a “great trade deal”, adding “we’re not looking to hurt China.” He then claimed a personal win, saying he had engineered a “total reset” with Beijing.

Elsewhere, Hu Xijin, former editor of the Chinese state-run Global Times publication, said on social media that the deal was “a great victory for China”.

What are the terms of the pause?

After the tariff pause had been announced, Bessent said it’s “implausible” that reciprocal tariffs on China will fall below 10 percent. However, he said the April 2 level – set by President Trump at 34 percent – “would be a ceiling”.

He also said “we could see some amount of the fentanyl tariffs… come off.” Earlier this year, Trump put a 20 percent tariff on China, accusing it of not doing enough to stop the flow of fentanyl, a highly addictive and deadly opioid, into the US.

For now, Chinese goods will continue face a 30 percent tariff. In addition, specific products from China, such as electric vehicles, steel and aluminium, are subject to even higher, separate tariffs imposed in recent years.

On Monday, the White House also issued an executive order lowering duties on low-value packages – items costing up to $800 – from China from 120 to 54 percent.

And while a minimum $100 fee on packages from e-commerce sites Temu and Shein will remain in place, the increase to $200 planned for June 1 was dropped.

On the flip side, Beijing pledged to suspend non-tariff forms of retaliation imposed since April 2, such as export restrictions on critical minerals that US manufacturers use in high-tech equipment and clean energy technology.

Notably, the deal does not include concessions from Beijing on several US sticking points, like its huge trade surplus with the US or its exchange rate policy, China is accused of keeping its renminbi artificially low in order to boost export sales.

Tariff suspensions will be in place for 90 days. They will be subject to reviews based on broad negotiations in the coming weeks and months.

Who conceded more ground?

The speed with which the US and China unwound their tariffs, taking many analysts by surprise, suggests the trade war was inflicting pain on both sides.

The tariffs were threatening job losses for Chinese factory workers and higher inflation and empty shelves for American consumers.

But for Piergiuseppe Fortunato, an adjunct professor of economics at the University of Neuchatel in Switzerland, it is clear who wanted the deal more badly.

“First of all, America made more concessions than China. Second, America’s economy, which is unsteady at the moment, is more reliant on China’s than the other way around.”

In April, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that the US economy was facing an increased risk of recession as Trump’s trade war – and the accompanying increase in consumer prices – could unleash a “significant slowdown”.

Fortunato told Al Jazeera that “Beijing is not in such a precarious position. Take, for example, its latest export figures.”

China’s exports grew sharply in April. The strong performance, an 8.2 percent increase from the year before, came as Chinese firms diverted trade flows to Southeast Asia, Europe and other destinations.

“I think that Washington overplayed its hand with Beijing,” says Fortunato.

“The White House overestimated the importance of the US market, and underestimated China’s success in diversifying its exports away from the US since the first Trump trade war” in 2018.

What will happen next?

“It could take a long time to reach a detailed agreement, if one is even possible,” notes Fortunato.

In 2018, the US backed away from a potential trade deal following talks with Beijing. The next 18 months saw tariff exchanges before a Phase One deal was signed in January 2020.

However, China did not meet all the terms of that purchase agreement. It fell some 43 percent short of the $200bn worth of goods it agreed to buy from the US by 2021.

Then, the US trade deficit with China jumped up during the COVID-19 pandemic, setting the stage for the current trade war.

Earlier this week, Bessent once again hinted that Washington might be looking for the type of “purchase agreements” that characterised the Phase One deal.

“The US has made noises that it may be going for more purchase agreements. But the American economy took a hit last time from similar arrangements,” says Fortunato.

During Trump’s first trade war with China, the US-China Business Council estimated that 245,000 US jobs were lost.

As the scope of tariffs is greater today, even after last weekend’s announcement, it’s fair to assume that even more jobs will be shed.

In the future, Fortunato suspects the US will “land at an average tariff rate of 15-20 percent, and even higher for China. That’s five times greater than what it was in January… a massive change.”

After a signing trade and defence deals with the Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, US President Donald Trump told media in Doha that the two had also discussed the Russia-Ukraine war and Iran’s nuclear programme.