Timeline

A government spokesperson has laid out how Israel will implement the first phase of US President Donald Trump’s peace plan in Gaza, saying it will start after today’s Israeli government cabinet meeting.

Nasscom says the one-day deadline could have ‘ripple effects’ on the US innovation ecosystem, and global job markets.

India’s leading trade body says the one-day timeline for implementing a new $100,000 annual fee on H-1B worker visas in the United States was a matter of “concern”.

Nasscom, representing India’s $283bn IT and business process outsourcing industry, on Saturday said the policy’s abrupt rollout would affect Indian nationals and disrupt continuity of ongoing onshore projects for the country’s technology services firms.

“A one-day deadline creates considerable uncertainty for businesses, professionals, and students across the world,” Nasscom said in a statement, a day after US President Donald Trump announced the fee, which comes into force from Sunday.

H-1B visas allow companies to sponsor foreign workers with specialised skills – such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers – to work in the US, initially for three years, but extendable to six years.

India was the largest beneficiary of H-1B visas last year, accounting for 71 percent of approved beneficiaries.

.@RNamb @sangeetagupta29 @doshikavita @shivendra_1969 @nasscomgtd pic.twitter.com/bSfCjDutjs

— nasscom (@nasscom) September 20, 2025

The new H-1B measure, which will likely face legal challenges, was announced alongside the introduction of a $1m “gold card” US residency programme.

Nasscom said the new policy could have “ripple effects” on the US innovation ecosystem and global job markets, pointing out that for companies, “additional cost will require adjustments”.

Nasscom added that policy changes of this scale were best “introduced with adequate transition periods, allowing organisations and individuals to plan effectively and minimize disruption”.

US officials on Friday said the change to the H-1B programme would ensure that companies would only sponsor workers with the most rarefied skill sets. However, such a prohibitive fee will likely vastly transform the H-1B system, which was created in 1990 and awards 85,000 visas per year on a lottery system.

Supporters of the H-1B programme say it brings the best and brightest to work in the US, creating an edge against foreign competitors. Critics have long charged that companies have abused the programme, using it to pay lower wages and to impose fewer labour protections.

Tech entrepreneurs – including Trump’s former ally Elon Musk – have warned against targeting H-1B visas, saying that the US does not have enough homegrown talent to fill important tech sector job vacancies.

However, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said: “All the big companies are on board.”

Geographically, California has the highest number of H-1B workers, according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Some analysts suggested the fee may force companies to move some high-value work overseas, hampering the US’s position in the high-stakes artificial intelligence race with China, which at 11.7 percent of total H-1B visas ranks a distant second, according to government data.

Following the White House’s announcement, major US tech firms Microsoft, JPMorgan and Amazon advised employees holding H-1B visas to remain in the US, according to internal emails reviewed by the Reuters news agency.

The new fee marks the Trump administration’s most high-profile attempt to overhaul the country’s temporary employment visa system. Since taking office in January, he has launched a broad crackdown on immigration, including efforts to limit certain forms of undocumented immigration.

Meanwhile, South Korea’s foreign ministry on Saturday said its officials would “comprehensively assess the impact of these measures on the advancement of [South Korean] companies and professional talents into the US market and engage in necessary communication with the US”.

Hundreds of South Koreans were detained during a US immigration raid on a Hyundai-LG battery factory site in the state of Georgia this month.

From the outside looking in, Gov. Gavin Newsom unofficially announced he was running for president on Thursday, March 30, 2023, the day he transferred $10 million from his state campaign funds to launch his PAC, Campaign for Democracy, along with a nationwide tour. Newsom unofficially suspended his campaign a month later, on April 25, the day President Biden announced he was seeking reelection.

This timeline is important when it comes to talking about Kamala Harris. Newsom, like Harris, has been in the wings for years as part of the next generation of Democratic national leaders — and, like Harris, he was ready for the spotlight when Biden decided to stick around instead.

The title of Harris’ upcoming book, “107 Days,” is in reference to the amount of time she had to launch a campaign, write policy, secure the nomination and fundraise after Biden bowed out in the summer of 2024. An excerpt from the memoir titled “The Constant Battle” was published this week in the Atlantic. In it, Harris suggests some of the foes she was battling during her time in the White House were Biden loyalists who did not want to see her succeed as vice president.

It’s a rather scathing critique given the stakes of the 2024 election. The excerpt in its entirety is an uncomfortable glimpse into one of the most chaotic moments in American politics. Unsurprisingly there have already been reports of pushback from former Biden aides with one being quoted as saying: “No one wants to hear your pity party.”

Which is why it is important to remember the timeline.

In March 2020, while campaigning in Detroit, a 77-year-old Biden stood next to Harris, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and told his party that he viewed himself “as a bridge, not as anything else,” adding: “There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country.” Recognizing his age was a concern for voters back then, the message Biden sent that day suggested he was running for only one term.

And then more than three years later, Biden changed his mind and his message. In doing so, he did not just go back on a campaign promise, he prevented the future of his party — like Newsom, Whitmer, Booker and Harris — from making a case for themselves in a normal primary.

That’s why the book is called “107 Days.” That’s how much time he gave his would-be successor to win the presidency.

Biden was a tremendous public servant whose leadership steered this nation out of a dark time. He also was conspicuously old when he ran for president and considered a short-timer. The first woman to be elected vice president didn’t decide to run for the top job at the last minute. But Biden went back on his word in 2023 and drained all the energy out of his party. It was only after the disastrous debate performance of June 2024 that the whispers inside the Beltway about his ability to win finally became screams.

“Joe was already polling badly on the age issue, with roughly 75 percent of voters saying he was too old to be an effective president,” Harris writes. “Then he started taking on water for his perceived blank check to Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza.”

That’s not slander against Biden; that’s the timeline. It may not be what some progressives want to read, but that does not mean the message or messenger is wrong.

Legend has it James Carville, key strategist for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential run, once went to a white board at the campaign’s headquarters in Arkansas and wrote three key messaging points for staffers. The catchiness and humor of one, “the economy, stupid,” elevated it above the other two: “change vs. more of the same” and “don’t forget health care.” Clinton’s victory would later cement “the economy, stupid” as one of the Democratic Party’s most enduring political quips — which is really too bad.

Because the whole point of Carville going to the white board in the first place wasn’t to come up with a memorable zinger, it was to remind staffers to stay on the course. The Democrats’ 2024 chances were endangered the day Biden changed direction by running for reelection, not when he stepped aside and Harris stood in the gap.

That’s not to suggest her campaign did everything right or Biden staying in for as long as he did was totally wrong. But there’s a lot to learn right now. Democrats are extremely unpopular. Perhaps instead of dismissing the account of the party’s most recent nominee, former Biden aides and other progressives should take in as much information as they possibly can and consider it constructive feedback.

In 2020, Biden had one message. In 2023, it was the opposite. I’m sure there are things to blame Harris for. Losing the 2024 election isn’t one of them.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Five Shia ministers walk out of cabinet debate as Hezbollah remains adamant it will hold onto its weapons.

Lebanon’s army has presented a plan to the government’s cabinet to disarm Hezbollah, saying the military will begin executing it, as some ministers staged a walkout before the session began.

On Friday, Lebanon’s cabinet met for three hours, which included the plan’s presentation by army commander Rodolphe Haykal. The plan did not set a timeframe for implementation and cautioned that the army had limited capabilities.

Lebanese Information Minister Paul Morcos told reporters after the session that the government welcomed the plan, but stopped short of saying the cabinet had formally passed it.

He said the army would begin implementing the plan according to its logistical, material and personnel capabilities, which might require “additional time [and] additional effort”.

Morcos said the plan’s details would remain secret.

A national divide over Hezbollah’s disarmament has taken centre stage in Lebanon since last year’s devastating war with Israel, which upended a power balance long dominated by Hezbollah.

Five Shia ministers, including those from Hezbollah and its ally the Amal Movement, walked out of the cabinet meeting, with the Lebanese armed group adamant it will hold onto its weapons.

The walkout happened as Lebanon’s army chief Haykal entered the meeting to present a plan for disarming the group, local media reported.

Hezbollah and Amal ministers have now walked out of cabinet meetings three times over the disarmament issue.

Hezbollah-aligned Labor Minister Mohammad Haidar told local media before the cabinet’s session had concluded that any decision taken in the absence of Shia ministers would be null and void, as it would be considered in contravention of Lebanon’s sectarian power-sharing system.

Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem last month raised the spectre of civil war, warning the government against trying to confront the group and saying street protests were possible.

Military and political analyst Elijah Magnier says it is not possible for the Lebanese army to confront Hezbollah, adding that it did not “have the appetite to start a civil war”.

“It [also] doesn’t want a partition in the army, because the Shia members within the army would not side by the Lebanese army if it attacks Shia strongholds,” he told Al Jazeera.

Calls grow to disarm

The United States and Saudi Arabia, along with Hezbollah’s primarily Christian and Sunni opponents in Lebanon, have ramped up calls for the group to give up arms.

US Senators Jim Risch and Jeanne Shaheen, members of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued a joint statement in support of Hezbollah’s disarmament on Friday.

“Lebanon deserves a free, prosperous, and secure future. That will only be possible if Lebanon is freed from the influence of Hezbollah and the Iranian regime,” the senators said.

“We recognize that Lebanon’s government has made important progress in the past year, and we applaud the recent decision by Lebanon’s Council of Ministers to approve disarming militias in Lebanon. This commitment must be carried out to its full conclusion, including approving the Lebanese Armed Forces’ disarmament plan for Hezbollah.”

The bipartisan statement underscores growing pressure from Washington on Beirut to curb Hezbollah’s influence, a longstanding demand of both the US and international partners.

However, Hezbollah has pushed back, saying it would be a serious misstep to even discuss disarmament while Israel continues its air strikes on Lebanon and occupies swathes of territory in the south. Four people were killed in Israeli strikes on Lebanon on Wednesday.

Israeli forces have continued to carry out air attacks across Lebanon in near-daily violations of the November truce, causing deaths and injuries among civilians, including Syrian refugees, and destruction of properties and infrastructure.

SACRAMENTO — California’s push to redraw the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats faced early opposition Tuesday during legislative hearings, a preview of the obstacles ahead for Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies as they try to convince voters to back the effort.

California Democrats entered the redistricting fray after Republicans in Texas moved to reconfigure their political districts to increase by five the number of GOP members of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, a move that could sway the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections.

The proposed map of new districts in California that could go before voters in November could cost as many as five Golden State Republicans their seats in Congress.

In Sacramento, Republicans criticized Democrats for trying to scrap the independent redistricting process approved by voters in 2010, a change designed to remove self-serving politics and partisan game-playing. GOP lawmakers argued that the public and legislators had little time to review the maps of the proposed congressional districts and questioned who crafted the new districts and bankrolled the effort.

In an attempt to slow down the push by Democrats, California Republicans filed an emergency petition at the California Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats violated the state Constitution by rushing the bills through the legislature.

The state Constitution requires lawmakers to introduce non-budget bills 30 days before they are voted on, unless the Legislature waives that rule by a three-fourths majority vote. The bills were introduced Monday through a common process known as “gut and amend,” where lawmakers strip out the language from an older pending bill and replace it with a new proposal.

The lawsuit said that without the Supreme Court’s intervention, the state could enact “significant new legislation that the public has only seen for, at most, a few days,” according to the lawsuit filed by GOP state Sens. Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach and Suzette Martinez Valladares of Acton and Assemblymembers Tri Ta of Westminster and Kathryn Sanchez of Trabuco Canyon.

Democrats bristled at the questions about their actions, including grilling by reporters and Republicans about who had drawn the proposed congressional districts that the party wants to put before voters.

“When I go to a restaurant, I don’t need to meet the chef,” said Assembly Elections Committee chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz).

Democrats unveiled their campaign to suspend the independent redistricting commission’s work Thursday, proposed maps of the redrawn districts were submitted to state legislative leaders Friday, and the three bills were introduced in the legislature Monday.

If passed by a two-thirds vote in both bodies of the legislature and signed by Newsom this week, as expected, the measure will be on the ballot on Nov. 4.

On Tuesday, lawmakers listened to hours of testimony and debate, frequently engaging in testy exchanges.

After heated arguing and interrupting during an Assembly Elections Committee hearing, Pellerin admonished Assemblymembers Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) and David Tangipa (R-Clovis).

“I would like you both to give me a little time and respect,” Pellerin said near the end of a hearing that lasted about five hours.

Tangipa and the committee’s vice chair, Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare), repeatedly questioned witnesses about issues that the GOP is likely to continue to raise: the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through, the cost of the special election, the limited opportunity for public comment on the maps, who drew the proposed new districts and who is funding the effort.

Tangipa voiced concerns that legislators had too little time to review the legislation.

“That’s insanity, and that’s heartbreaking to the rest of Californians,” Tangipa said. “How can you say you actually care about the people of California?

Berman dismissed the criticism, saying the bill was five pages long.

In a Senate elections committee hearing, State Sen. Steve Choi (R-Irvine), the only Republican on the panel, repeatedly pressed Democrats about how the maps had been drawn before they were presented.

Tom Willis, Newsom’s campaign counsel who appeared as a witness to support the redistricting bills, said the map was “publicly submitted, and then the legislature reviewed it carefully and made sure that it was legally compliant.”

But, Choi asked, who drew the maps in the first place? Willis said he couldn’t answer, because he “wasn’t a part of that process.”

In response to questions about why California should change their independent redistricting ethos to respond to potential moves by Texas, state Sen. Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) was blunt.

“This is a partisan gerrymander,” she said, to counter the impacts of Trump administration policy decisions, from healthcare cuts to immigration raids, that are disproportionately impacting Californians. “That’s what we’re talking about here.”

Her comments prompted a GOP operative who is aiding the opposition campaign to the ballot measure to say, “It made me salivate.”

California Common Cause, an ardent supporter of independent redistricting, initially signaled openness to revisiting the state’s independent redistricting rules because they would not “call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism.”

But on Tuesday, the group announced its opposition to a state Senate bill.

“it would create significant rollbacks in voter protections,” the group said in a statement, arguing that the legislation would result in reduced in-person voting, less opportunities for underrepresented communities to cast ballots and dampens opportunities for public input. “These changes to the Elections Code … would hinder full voter participation, with likely disproportionate harm falling to already underrepresented Californians.”

Katie Price and Peter Andre have had many clashes over the years since their shock split – and now their decades-long feud has boiled over with bombshell new statements

Katie Price and Peter Andre’s whirlwind romance began in front of millions on I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here! and quickly turned into one of Britain’s most watched love stories. With a lavish wedding, a growing family and a string of joint TV shows, they became the ultimate reality TV power couple – until it all came crashing down.

Their 2009 split shocked fans and triggered a years-long saga of public rows, barbed interviews and court battles. Now, with Peter hitting out at his ex-wife in a new bombshell statement, their decades-long feud has ramped up again.

From that first shock announcement to the most recent legal showdown, here’s how the once-golden couple’s love story unravelled in front of the world’s eyes. It comes after Princess Andre says she’s ‘independent’ from parents as she breaks silence after Katie Price row.

READ MORE: Katie Price ‘will no longer be gaslit’ as she responds to Peter Andre’s bombshell claimsREAD MORE: Peter Andre’s furious Katie Price statement in full as he rejects olive branch offer

Split announcement – 2009

Following a rocky romance after meeting on I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here! in 2004, Katie and Peter split in 2009. The TV couple had been married for four years, and had welcomed children Junior and Princess.

A statement from the couple’s management company, Can Associates Limited, said at the time: “Peter Andre and Katie Price are separating after four-and-a-half years of marriage… They have both requested that the media respect their families’ privacy at this difficult time.”

The joint statement marked the last time the exes would ever put on a united front. Katie and Peter, who remained with Can Associates Limited, embarked on multiple public spats as they moved on.

Katie pays Peter libel damages – 2011

Two years after their split, Katie issued a public apology to her ex-husband, admitting she had been wrong to suggest he had cheated and been insincere about his feelings during their marriage.

Peter had launched defamation proceedings in 2009, soon after their break-up, in response to remarks Katie made during interviews with Heat magazine and on The Graham Norton Show.

She agreed to pay “substantial” damages, which Peter’s solicitor confirmed would be placed into a trust fund for Harvey Price – Katie’s eldest son from her relationship with footballer Dwight Yorke.

Social media spat – 2013

During Christmas 2013, Katie appeared to take a swipe at Peter in a series of tweets. She wrote: “What kind of Dad doesn’t let their children see their mum not even 1 day over Christmas when the children want 2 c their mum #fakefamilyman.”

In another message to a follower, she reportedly added: “From Xmas Eve am to NYE am. I had them last Xmas Day, he had them in the eve onwards. So selfish. Can someone remind him he has a son called Harvey that calls him dad or was that just for show too.”

Katie brands Peter’s new wife Emily ‘disgusting’ – 2022

At the start of 2022, Katie sparked controversy with a quickly-deleted Instagram Story in which she launched an apparent unprovoked attack on her ex-husband’s wife, Dr Emily Andre, who he started dating in 2012.

Sharing a magazine cover featuring the mother-of-three, Katie branded her a “disgusting person.”

“My mouth has been shut for so long but I’ve had enough of people selling stories on me and particularly this so-called woman @dr_emily_official,” Katie began.

She went on to accuse Emily of courting the media despite claiming she didn’t want to be famous, adding: “So cringe she has used my children to make money in photo shoots yet covers her own children’s faces up!”

Writing a year on from her drug-drive crash, Katie also claimed Emily was “jealous” of her relationship with her eldest daughter, Princess.

“She claims to be a doctor who clearly doesn’t have a clue about mental health,” Katie alleged, further accusing Emily of stopping Princess from visiting her at The Priory.

The mum-of-five ended the post by saying: “Emily you are not and never will be my kids’ parent so mind your own business, you’re so two-faced and definitely not the person you portray to the public. I think you’re a disgusting person so stop trying to interfere in my life.”

‘Pete was a nobody’ – 2024

Katie reignited tensions with her ex during an appearance on the podcast Anything Goes with James English, where she claimed Peter’s career had been reignited by their relationship.

“When we did jobs together I’d always get more money, make sure we had separate contracts,” she told the host, suggesting Peter “found that a bit hard.”

“I was like, well hang on, you’ve just turned up in the jungle, I’ve already got a career going on. You had a song like, how many years ago? You need to earn it. This is the truth, I don’t care what anyone says – I made Pete again. I made him,” she continued.

Doubling down on her comments, Katie said: “He was no one before he went in the jungle and that’s the truth, that’s not me being a b****. He done that one hit, like 10 years ago, and I think he forgets where he came from.”

‘Don’t speak to him’ – 2024

During an appearance on the Louis Theroux Podcast in an episode released last year, Katie once again took aim at her ex-husband Peter. She claimed she had been “worth more” than him when they married and explained that the pair had always insisted on separate contracts.

Reflecting on his career before I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!, Katie remarked: “Who was he? I was already established. He met me and it was his lucky day. So we always had separate contracts. There’s no way I’m splitting half and half – no thanks.”

When asked about their relationship today, she told Louis: “[I] don’t speak to him.” Pressed further on why, she replied: “Just don’t. It’s all through legals.”

She also alleged that Peter “was quite jealous” of her work commitments during their marriage.

Princess Andre speaks out – 2025

Princess Andre has unveiled her very own ITV2 series, The Princess Diaries, chronicling her step into adulthood, exploring the worlds of fashion, beauty, and life under the spotlight.

The fly-on-the-wall series includes footage of her modeling debut in Ibiza and offers a candid look into her personal journey toward independence. Alongside her father Peter Andre, sister Junior, and stepmother Emily, the documentary follows Princess as she carves out her identity in the industry.

Katie has been noticeably absent from the series – something she described as upsetting and hurtful in posts on her podcast and social media.

She alleges her exclusion wasn’t a personal choice, but enforced by producers aiming to preserve Princess’s independent branding and “middle-class influencer” image.

Despite speculation of a feud, Princess herself has pushed back on these rumours, insisting: “The show is not actually about any of my parents. It is about me.” She also clarified that Katie is featured via a voice note in the premiere episode, although filming restrictions kept her out of on-camera appearances.

Bombshell statements – 2025

Just hours after Katie Price appeared to extend an olive branch to her ex-husband by suggesting a ceasefire in their years-long public disputes, Peter Andre responded with a blistering statement that left little doubt he has no interest in reconciliation.

Posting on Instagram, the father-of-five broke what he described as 16 years of silence, writing: “For sixteen years, I have stayed silent in the face of repeated lies from my ex-wife and her family, out of respect for my children and loved ones, but staying silent has been incredibly frustrating. That ends today.

“The latest comments about my children’s welfare and living arrangements compel me to set the record straight. For well-documented reasons, and for their safety, Junior and Princess came into my care in 2018 and remained with me until they reached adulthood. In 2019, the family courts issued a legally binding order to enforce this arrangement. I have never made this public before, out of respect for my children.

“In 2011 and 2015, publicly documented court cases found my ex-wife had made false claims. She was ordered to pay substantial damages and legal costs, and to apologise to me and my management. The same falsehoods are being repeated today. Unfortunately, there are many more lies and baseless accusations I have yet to address. Those will now be dealt with in the coming months.”

In response to the statement, a spokesperson for Katie told the Mirror: “Kate is in a much better and clear headspace and is at peace with the situation. This was in the past and she doesn’t feel the need to bring up tit-for-tat comments, but more importantly, she’s dealing with this the right way and it’s now in her lawyers’ hands. Kate will no longer be gaslighted and bullied as she once was…”

Portable neck fan

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

from £14.99

Amazon

Shop Deal

Now on sale with prices starting from £14.99, the handy gadget is essentially a fan that sits around the neck, blowing cold air and cooling down the body.

A collection of letters gifted to the deceased, high-profile sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, on his birthday in 2003 includes a birthday note bearing US President Donald Trump’s signature, the Wall Street Journal (WSG) reported on Thursday.

Trump denies having written the letter and, on Thursday, told Attorney General Pam Bondi to request a court release of the transcripts of all grand jury testimony in the Epstein case.

The WSJ claims have reignited intrigue about Trump’s relationship with Epstein. We break down how closely, exactly, the two men associated with each other over the years.

What was in Trump’s birthday letter to Epstein?

According to the WSJ report, Epstein was gifted a leather-bound collection of letters and notes for his 50th birthday in 2003.

This had been compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s associate and partner, who was later charged as Jeffrey Epstein’s accomplice in his sexual abuse operation. She was found guilty in 2021 and is now serving a 20-year prison sentence handed down in 2022.

The letter included typewritten text in the third person. It also featured a drawing of a woman’s breasts and was signed “Donald”. The drawing appeared to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker, the WSJ reported.

The letter ended with: “Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

Al Jazeera could not independently verify the authenticity of the letter.

Following the revelations about the letter, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “The Wall Street Journal printed a FAKE letter, supposedly to Epstein. These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don’t draw pictures.

“I told Rupert Murdoch it was a Scam, that he shouldn’t print this Fake Story. But he did, and now I’m going to sue his a** off, and that of his third rate newspaper. Thank you for your attention to this matter! DJT.”

He also wrote: “Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval. This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!”

Soon after Trump’s statement, Bondi announced on X that the Justice Department planned to request the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in court on Friday.

Here’s what we know about how well the two men really knew each other.

1980s: Trump and Epstein are friends

in 2002, Trump told the New York Magazine that he had been friends with Epstein since about the late 1980s.

In the 1980s, Trump was a businessman and a real estate mogul.

“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,” Trump said.

“He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life,” Trump continued.

1990s: Trump and Epstein are spotted at parties together, flying together

Through the 1990s, the two men were spotted socialising at high-profile gatherings.

In November 1992, Trump threw a party with NFL cheerleaders at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. He had invited NBC to record the event.

The tape from the party, published by NBC online in 2019, shows Trump laughing with Epstein, their conversation drowned by the really loud music.

In 1997, Epstein and Trump were seen together at the Victoria Secret “Angels” party in New York.

Trump also frequently flew on Epstein’s private jets – seven times in total between 1993 and 1997 – according to flight logs presented as evidence during Maxwell’s trial.

This included four times in 1993, once in 1994, once in 1995 and once in 1997. The flights were between Palm Beach and New York, and they included a stop in Washington, DC.

2000s: The two continue to party, Trump’s name in Epstein files

There are pictures of the two men at a party at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in 2000.

These images also feature Maxwell and Trump’s now wife, then known as Melania Knauss.

In January 2024, about 950 pages of court documents identifying associates of Epstein were made public.

Trump was mentioned in these documents, but was not accused of anything.

Virginia Giuffre, one of the women who accused Epstein of sexual abuse, told the court that she was working at Mar-a-Lago when she was recruited by Maxwell to become Epstein’s masseuse at the age of 16.

Giuffre said that Epstein and Maxwell groomed her into performing sexual acts with adult men, including Prince Andrew.

Johanna Sjoberg, another woman who accused Epstein of sexual abuse, recalled a 2001 flight from Florida on which she and Virginia Giuffre, then underage, were among the passengers.

Due to a storm, the plane diverted to Atlantic City, where they visited one of Trump’s casinos.

Sjoberg said of Giuffre: “I did not know anything about how old you had to be to gamble legally. I just knew she could not get in because of an ID issue, so she and I did not gamble.”

Giuffre died by suicide in April this year.

2003: Trump’s birthday letter to Epstein

The WSJ published the text of a letter allegedly written by Trump for Epstein’s birthday. It appears to be in script form:

“Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything.

Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.

Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is.

Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.

Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.

Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?

Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.

Donald: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

According to the report, Trump told the WSJ on Tuesday that he did not write the letter, and threatened to sue the publication. “I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women,” he told the Journal.

“The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J Trump that the supposed letter they printed by President Trump to Epstein was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued,” Trump reiterated in a post on his Truth Social platform.

Rupert Murdoch controls the WSJ’s publisher, News Corp.

2004: Trump and Epstein have a real estate dispute

In 2004, Trump and Epstein had a falling out over a foreclosed oceanfront mansion in Palm Beach.

The Washington Post reported that Trump had outbid Epstein on the property.

Since that date, there was sparse public evidence of the two men interacting.

2006: Epstein faces criminal charges

In 2005, Florida police investigated claims Epstein had sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl after the girl’s parents made the complaint.

Epstein was charged by Palm Beach police officials with multiple counts of unlawful sex with a minor.

However, the State Attorney took the unusual step of referring the case to a grand jury, which indicted Epstein on a single count of soliciting prostitution.

In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to charges involving a single victim. He served 13 months in jail under a work-release programme that permitted him to leave during the day for work and return to jail at night.

2019: Epstein is jailed again and dies in prison

During Trump’s first presidential term in 2019, federal prosecutors in New York charged Epstein with sex trafficking.

In July 2019, Trump was asked by a reporter about Epstein, to which he responded: “Well, I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him. I mean, people in Palm Beach knew him. He was a fixture in Palm Beach.”

Trump added: “I had a falling out with him a long time ago. I don’t think I’ve spoken to him for 15 years.”

Epstein died in a Manhattan jail cell on August 10, 2019.

During an interview after Epstein’s death, Trump said about the case: “I want a full investigation, and that’s what I absolutely am demanding.”

2025: Trump’s shifting stance on the ‘Epstein list’

In 2024, while campaigning for the election, Trump said he would release information about the Epstein case.

He also appointed Pam Bondi to be the Attorney General.

During an interview with Fox News in February, Bondi was asked, “The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients, will that really happen?”

She responded, “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review.”

However, on July 7, the US Department of Justice released a memo stating that a government review had found no evidence that Epstein had a specific “secret client list”.

The memo also reaffirmed that Epstein had died by suicide, a claim that many conspiracy theorists among Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) base disbelieve. They believe Epstein was murdered because he had sensitive information about powerful figures, and that this was covered up.

When Trump and Bondi were questioned by reporters about the July 7 memo, Trump said: “I can’t believe you’re asking a question on Epstein at a time like this, where we’re having some of the greatest success and also tragedy, with what happened in Texas,” referring to flash floods that roiled the southern US state over the weekend before the memo was released, killing 109 people.

“It just seems like a desecration,” Trump added.

Trump recently expressed anger towards his supporters over Epstein conspiracy theories.

“Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don’t even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don’t want their support anymore!” he wrote on his Truth Social platform on Monday.

July 6 (UPI) — Tariffs are set to return to previous levels on the first of August for countries that haven’t agreed on new deals, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday.

Bessent said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, just three days prior to the Trump administration’s July 9 deadline for tariffs to return, that it would be notifying 100 smaller countries that “if you don’t move things along, then on August 1, you will boomerang back to your April 2 tariff level.”

The tariffs were originally set to take effect in April but were pushed back to this Wednesday while countries worked with the Trump administration to reach new deals on products from their countries, a window that allowed dozens of countries to work out the details of between 10% and 50%.

The Trump administration has said reaching deals with some countries has been increasingly difficult.

August 1st is not a new deadline, Bessent said Sunday, but an opportunity to arrive at new tariff deals.

“We are saying this is when it’s happening,” Bessent said Sunday. “If you want to speed things up, have at it. If you want to go back to the old rate, that’s your choice.”

The administration has signaled that there may be some flexibility around the new timeline for key trading partners, but National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” President Donald Trump would make the ultimate decision.

“There are deadlines, and there are things that are close, and so maybe things will push back the dead, past the deadline,” Hassett said. “In the end the president’s going to make that judgment.”

The administration did not name the 12 countries that it would be communicating with this week about the tariff negotiations.

It has been more than a year since Cameron Brink suited up for the Sparks, and excitement is building around the return of one of the team’s biggest stars.

Sidelined by a torn ACL and meniscus, Brink has steadily progressed through drills and contact work since training camp.

Head coach Lynne Roberts, who spoke with her last week, said Brink is making significant progress and is champing at the bit to get back on the court.

There’s no set timeline, as the team remains cautious about pushing her too hard during recovery. At this point, her return depends on when team doctors and Brink agree she’s ready.

“I want to know as much as you do about when she’ll be back — and I don’t,” Roberts said. “It’ll be sooner rather than later, but soon could be a couple of weeks or it could be a month. I don’t know.”

Dearica Hamby, who is close with Brink, said she has seen “the commitment it takes not to give up and show up and pour into herself and her teammates — and being optimistic about getting back.”

Mounting frustrations

Through 17 games, the Sparks are 5-12 — just one win better than their start last season — but there’s confidence they can eventually turn the tide with a healthier roster.

Still, the process has been frustrating, not just because of the losses, but because of how many of them unfolded.

“If we don’t show up and play collectively, with a spirit, we’ll get beat,” Roberts said. “We’ve learned the hard way, too many times this year. Chicago was a good example — we had that game and just fell apart. Really frustrating.”

The return of Odyssey Sims, who missed time for personal reasons, and Julie Allemand, fresh off a EuroBasket championship, has brought renewed optimism.

“Part of the team I signed up to coach is getting close to being back,” Roberts said.

Hamby said the frustration is felt “individually and collectively, at each level — upper staff, lower staff.”

“We’re going to take those frustrations and build off them so we can learn from them to be better,” she added.

The road ahead doesn’t get easier. The Sparks now face a tough three-game trip against the defending champion New York Liberty, the Indiana Fever with a potentially returning Caitlin Clark and the WNBA-leading Minnesota Lynx.

With making the playoffs still a goal, the team currently sits 11th in the standings, as the gap continues to widen between contenders and those on the outside looking in.

Burrell practices

Rae Burrell is off crutches for the first time in six weeks after suffering a knee injury in the season opener.

Initially given a six- to eight-week timeline for recovery, Burrell returned to practice right on schedule and has begun working toward game action. The team is easing her back now that the broken bone in her knee is fully healed.

“We don’t want to throw her into the fire right off the bat,” Roberts said. “Today was her first day out there, but no contact was allowed.”

Roberts said Burrell’s reintroduction probably will move quickly based on updates from the training staff. She will travel with the team and is expected to absorb more contact starting with tomorrow’s practice.
Depending on her progress, her return to the rotation could come as early as Saturday against the Fever.

“She’s amped up,” Roberts said. “She doesn’t look tired like the rest of them — got bounce in her legs. She’s ready to roll. So it’d be good to get her back there, bringing athleticism and length to our perimeter.”

More than 100 Palestinians have been killed trying to get aid at distribution centres run by the US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation over the past eight days. This is a timeline of the key events that led to the UN labelling it a ‘death trap’.

The administration of President Donald Trump has taken a hard line against top US universities over their responses to pro-Palestine protests, as well as their diversity initiatives and curricula.

The move on Thursday to block Harvard University from enrolling foreign students represents the latest escalation in a months-long standoff, which critics say has been rooted in unfounded claims of rampant anti-Semitism.

In a statement, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the administration was “holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus”.

Harvard has called the latest move “unlawful” and a “retaliatory action”.

Here’s how we got here:

December 2023: The standoff stretches back to the months following the October 7, 2023 attack on southern Israel, and the resulting Israeli offensive on Gaza, in which at least 53,655 Palestinians have since been killed.

Then-Harvard President Claudine Gay’s testimony before Congress on the administration’s response to pro-Palestine protests sparks outrage, as elected officials, particularly Republicans, call for greater crackdowns.

Gay subsequently resigns from her post and is replaced by Alan Garber in August 2024.

January 2025: Trump takes office in January 2025, following a campaign where he vowed to crack down on pro-Palestine protests, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes, and “woke ideology” on college campuses.

Trump also signs a series of executive orders calling for government agencies to take actions against DEI programmes at private institutions, including universities, and to increase government actions to combat anti-Semitism, particularly on campuses.

February 2025: The US Department of Justice (DOJ) launches a task force to “root out anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college campuses”.

The task force later announces it will visit 10 schools, saying it was “aware of allegations that the schools may have failed to protect Jewish students and faculty members from unlawful discrimination, in potential violation of federal law”.

The schools include Harvard, as well as Columbia University, George Washington University, Johns Hopkins University, New York University, Northwestern University, the University of California, Los Angeles, the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Southern California.

March 7, 2025: The Trump administration takes its first action against a US university, slashing $400m in federal funding to Columbia University and accusing the school of “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students”.

A subsequent letter from the Department of Education warns Harvard and dozens of other universities of “potential enforcement actions”.

March 21, 2025: Columbia yields to Trump’s demands, which include banning face masks, empowering campus police with arresting authority, and installing a new administrator to oversee the department of Middle East, South Asian and African Studies and the Center for Palestine Studies.

March 31, 2025: The US Departments of Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the US General Services Administration (GSA) announce an official review of $255.6m in Harvard contracts and $8.7bn in multi-year grants.

The review is part of the “ongoing efforts of the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism”, the statement said.

April 11, 2025: Harvard is sent a letter saying the university has “failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment” and listing several Trump administration demands.

The demands include a governance overhaul that lessens the power of students and some staff, reforming hiring and admissions practices, refusing to admit students deemed “hostile to the American values and institutions”, doing away with diversity programmes, and auditing several academic programmes and centres, including several related to the Middle East.

April 14, 2025: Harvard President Garber issues a forceful rejection of the demands, writing: “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights”.

The US administration announces an immediate freeze on funding, including $2.2bn in multi-year grants and $60m in multi-year contracts.

April 15, 2025: In a Truth Social post, Trump floats that Harvard could lose “Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity”. He accuses Harvard of “pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness’”.

April 16, 2025: The Department of Homeland Security calls on Harvard to turn over records on any foreign students’ “illegal and violent activities”, while threatening to revoke the university’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program approval. The certification is required for it to enrol foreign students. Noem gives an April 30 deadline for this.

April 21, 2025: Harvard files a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution with “arbitrary and capricious” funding cuts.

April 30, 2025: Harvard says it shared information requested by Noem regarding foreign students, but does not release the nature of the information provided.

May 2, 2025: Trump again says the administration will take away Harvard’s tax-exempt status. No action is immediately taken.

May 5, 2025: The Trump administration says it is cutting all new federal grants to Harvard.

May 13, 2025: The US Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announces another $450m in federal funding from eight federal agencies.

May 19, 2025: The DOJ announces it will use the False Claims Act, typically used to punish federal funding recipients accused of corruption, to crack down on universities like Harvard over DEI policies. The Department of Health and Human Services also says it is terminating $60m in federal grants to Harvard.

May 22, 2025: Noem announces revocation of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program, blocking it from enrolling new foreign students and saying current students will need to transfer to continue their studies.

Harvard responds: “We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the university – and this nation – immeasurably.”