Jamaica Inquirer – Daily Jamaica & Caribbean News, Culture & Business
jamaicainquirer.com
8 stories credited to Jamaica Inquirer – Daily Jamaica & Caribbean News, Culture & Business
Latest story Apr 22, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026
A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.
Scores for Jamaica Inquirer – Daily Jamaica & Caribbean News, Culture & Business
Writing quality not enough rated stories yet: 3 of 10. How it is measured
Scores last checked Sep 24, 2026.
Stories ChamberLight collected, by month
Stories credited to Jamaica Inquirer – Daily Jamaica & Caribbean News, Culture & Business, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.
- Stories from Jamaica Inquirer – Daily Jamaica & Caribbean News, Culture & Business
- Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)
Show as a table
| Month | Stories | All outlets |
|---|---|---|
| April 2026 | 8 | 3,360 |
| May 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| June 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| July 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| August 2026 | 0 | 1 (collection gap) |
| September 2026 | 0 | 598 |
Top topics
Share of this source’s stories tagged with each topic. A story can carry several topics, so the shares do not add up to 100%.
- Ethics/Corruption6
75% of 8 stories · 62% across all outlets
- Immigration4
50% of 8 stories · 13% across all outlets
- Budget/Spending3
38% of 8 stories · 33% across all outlets
- Criminal Justice3
38% of 8 stories · 20% across all outlets
- Defense/Military3
38% of 8 stories · 26% across all outlets
- Foreign Policy2
25% of 8 stories · 30% across all outlets
- Voting Rights2
25% of 8 stories · 20% across all outlets
The thin mark on each bar is the topic’s share across all outlets.
Who they cover
Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 13 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 21 story–official pairs, from 8 stories.
- Republican62% · 13 pairs
- Democrat38% · 8 pairs
Most covered
Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 8 stories.
- 1Donald TrumpR6 stories · 75%
- 2Charles SchumerD2 stories · 25%
- 3Eric SwalwellD2 stories · 25%
- 4John ThuneR2 stories · 25%
- 5Alexandria Ocasio-CortezD1 story · 13%
- 6Ayanna PressleyD1 story · 13%
- 7James RischR1 story · 13%
- 8Jeanne ShaheenD1 story · 13%
- 9Lauren BoebertR1 story · 13%
- 10Lindsey GrahamR1 story · 13%
+ 3 other officials (3 story–official pairs)
Article tone
ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not Jamaica Inquirer – Daily Jamaica & Caribbean News, Culture & Business’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 8 stories.
- Good Look
- 1 (13%)
- Mixed
- 6 (75%)
- Informational
- 0 (0%)
- Bad Look
- 1 (13%)
Challenges to these scores
No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.
Articles served from jamaicainquirer.com
21
Trump calls for Republicans to unify around budget reconciliation push
United States President Donald Trump has called on Republican lawmakers to push through legislation to fund immigration enforcement through a process known as budget reconciliation. That procedure would allow them to sidestep opposition from the Democratic Party, which has refused to approve such spending until immigration practices are reformed. list of 3 items list 1 of 3US Homeland Security shutdown to stretch on, despite Senate passing funding list 2 of 3Trump seeks historic $1.5 trillion for military in Congress budget request list 3 of 3House Republicans shoot down bill that would pay federal airport workers end of list In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump said that conservatives must “unify” behind the reconciliation push to end the current deadlock. “Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and Senator Lindsey Graham, have taken a critical first step to passing another Reconciliation Bill to fund our Great Border Patrol and ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] Agents,” Trump wrote. “Republicans must stick together and UNIFY to get this done, and to keep America safe — something which the Democrats don’t care about.” A partial government shutdown has affected the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) since mid-February, with previous efforts to break the impasse proving unsuccessful. DHS oversees multiple agencies, including the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). But the opposition has been focused on blocking funding for two agencies in particular: ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Democrats have refused to support further spending for those agencies without reforms, following the fatal shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good by federal agents in January, during an immigration crackdown in Minneapolis. Advertisement Such reforms would include requirements for immigration agents to clearly identify themselves and avoid racial profiling. Republicans, however, have rejected those demands. The right-wing party holds a small majority in both the House of Representatives and Senate, and it is now seeking to use budget reconciliation to bypass the Democratic opposition. Budget reconciliation is a fast-track process wherein Congressional committees are tasked with crafting legislation to meet certain spending targets. Those bills are then allowed to pass the 100-seat Senate with a simple majority, rather than the 60 votes ordinarily needed to bypass a filibuster, but they must abide by certain limitations. On Tuesday, in a vote of 52 to 46, the Senate approved a motion to start a budget reconciliation process that paves the way for funding ICE and CBP through budget reconciliation. Senator Lindsey Graham called the vote a “significant step” in a social media post, adding that the effort would aim to “fully fund Border Patrol and ICE for the rest of the Trump presidency!” “It’s not my preference,” Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on Tuesday. “But it is reality.” Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the effort a “partisan sideshow” that would direct money towards immigration enforcement, “without putting any restraints on these rogue agencies’ rampant violence in our streets”. Budget reconciliation was previously used by Republican lawmakers to pass Trump’s landmark tax and spending package without any Democratic votes last year.
Trump calls for Republicans to unify around budget reconciliation push
United States President Donald Trump has called on Republican lawmakers to push through legislation to fund immigration enforcement through a process known as budget reconciliation. That procedure would allow them to sidestep opposition from the Democratic Party, which has refused to approve such spending until immigration practices are reformed. list of 3 items list 1 of 3US Homeland Security shutdown to stretch on, despite Senate passing funding list 2 of 3Trump seeks historic $1.5 trillion for military in Congress budget request list 3 of 3House Republicans shoot down bill that would pay federal airport workers end of list In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump said that conservatives must “unify” behind the reconciliation push to end the current deadlock. “Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and Senator Lindsey Graham, have taken a critical first step to passing another Reconciliation Bill to fund our Great Border Patrol and ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] Agents,” Trump wrote. “Republicans must stick together and UNIFY to get this done, and to keep America safe — something which the Democrats don’t care about.” A partial government shutdown has affected the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) since mid-February, with previous efforts to break the impasse proving unsuccessful. DHS oversees multiple agencies, including the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). But the opposition has been focused on blocking funding for two agencies in particular: ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Democrats have refused to support further spending for those agencies without reforms, following the fatal shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good by federal agents in January, during an immigration crackdown in Minneapolis. Advertisement Such reforms would include requirements for immigration agents to clearly identify themselves and avoid racial profiling. Republicans, however, have rejected those demands. The right-wing party holds a small majority in both the House of Representatives and Senate, and it is now seeking to use budget reconciliation to bypass the Democratic opposition. Budget reconciliation is a fast-track process wherein Congressional committees are tasked with crafting legislation to meet certain spending targets. Those bills are then allowed to pass the 100-seat Senate with a simple majority, rather than the 60 votes ordinarily needed to bypass a filibuster, but they must abide by certain limitations. On Tuesday, in a vote of 52 to 46, the Senate approved a motion to start a budget reconciliation process that paves the way for funding ICE and CBP through budget reconciliation. Senator Lindsey Graham called the vote a “significant step” in a social media post, adding that the effort would aim to “fully fund Border Patrol and ICE for the rest of the Trump presidency!” “It’s not my preference,” Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on Tuesday. “But it is reality.” Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the effort a “partisan sideshow” that would direct money towards immigration enforcement, “without putting any restraints on these rogue agencies’ rampant violence in our streets”. Budget reconciliation was previously used by Republican lawmakers to pass Trump’s landmark tax and spending package without any Democratic votes last year.
Trump calls for Republicans to unify around budget reconciliation push
United States President Donald Trump has called on Republican lawmakers to push through legislation to fund immigration enforcement through a process known as budget reconciliation. That procedure would allow them to sidestep opposition from the Democratic Party, which has refused to approve such spending until immigration practices are reformed. list of 3 items list 1 of 3US Homeland Security shutdown to stretch on, despite Senate passing funding list 2 of 3Trump seeks historic $1.5 trillion for military in Congress budget request list 3 of 3House Republicans shoot down bill that would pay federal airport workers end of list In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump said that conservatives must “unify” behind the reconciliation push to end the current deadlock. “Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and Senator Lindsey Graham, have taken a critical first step to passing another Reconciliation Bill to fund our Great Border Patrol and ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] Agents,” Trump wrote. “Republicans must stick together and UNIFY to get this done, and to keep America safe — something which the Democrats don’t care about.” A partial government shutdown has affected the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) since mid-February, with previous efforts to break the impasse proving unsuccessful. DHS oversees multiple agencies, including the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). But the opposition has been focused on blocking funding for two agencies in particular: ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Democrats have refused to support further spending for those agencies without reforms, following the fatal shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good by federal agents in January, during an immigration crackdown in Minneapolis. Advertisement Such reforms would include requirements for immigration agents to clearly identify themselves and avoid racial profiling. Republicans, however, have rejected those demands. The right-wing party holds a small majority in both the House of Representatives and Senate, and it is now seeking to use budget reconciliation to bypass the Democratic opposition. Budget reconciliation is a fast-track process wherein Congressional committees are tasked with crafting legislation to meet certain spending targets. Those bills are then allowed to pass the 100-seat Senate with a simple majority, rather than the 60 votes ordinarily needed to bypass a filibuster, but they must abide by certain limitations. On Tuesday, in a vote of 52 to 46, the Senate approved a motion to start a budget reconciliation process that paves the way for funding ICE and CBP through budget reconciliation. Senator Lindsey Graham called the vote a “significant step” in a social media post, adding that the effort would aim to “fully fund Border Patrol and ICE for the rest of the Trump presidency!” “It’s not my preference,” Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on Tuesday. “But it is reality.” Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the effort a “partisan sideshow” that would direct money towards immigration enforcement, “without putting any restraints on these rogue agencies’ rampant violence in our streets”. Budget reconciliation was previously used by Republican lawmakers to pass Trump’s landmark tax and spending package without any Democratic votes last year.
Trump calls for Republicans to unify around budget reconciliation push
United States President Donald Trump has called on Republican lawmakers to push through legislation to fund immigration enforcement through a process known as budget reconciliation. That procedure would allow them to sidestep opposition from the Democratic Party, which has refused to approve such spending until immigration practices are reformed. list of 3 items list 1 of 3US Homeland Security shutdown to stretch on, despite Senate passing funding list 2 of 3Trump seeks historic $1.5 trillion for military in Congress budget request list 3 of 3House Republicans shoot down bill that would pay federal airport workers end of list In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump said that conservatives must “unify” behind the reconciliation push to end the current deadlock. “Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and Senator Lindsey Graham, have taken a critical first step to passing another Reconciliation Bill to fund our Great Border Patrol and ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] Agents,” Trump wrote. “Republicans must stick together and UNIFY to get this done, and to keep America safe — something which the Democrats don’t care about.” A partial government shutdown has affected the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) since mid-February, with previous efforts to break the impasse proving unsuccessful. DHS oversees multiple agencies, including the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). But the opposition has been focused on blocking funding for two agencies in particular: ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Democrats have refused to support further spending for those agencies without reforms, following the fatal shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good by federal agents in January, during an immigration crackdown in Minneapolis. Advertisement Such reforms would include requirements for immigration agents to clearly identify themselves and avoid racial profiling. Republicans, however, have rejected those demands. The right-wing party holds a small majority in both the House of Representatives and Senate, and it is now seeking to use budget reconciliation to bypass the Democratic opposition. Budget reconciliation is a fast-track process wherein Congressional committees are tasked with crafting legislation to meet certain spending targets. Those bills are then allowed to pass the 100-seat Senate with a simple majority, rather than the 60 votes ordinarily needed to bypass a filibuster, but they must abide by certain limitations. On Tuesday, in a vote of 52 to 46, the Senate approved a motion to start a budget reconciliation process that paves the way for funding ICE and CBP through budget reconciliation. Senator Lindsey Graham called the vote a “significant step” in a social media post, adding that the effort would aim to “fully fund Border Patrol and ICE for the rest of the Trump presidency!” “It’s not my preference,” Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on Tuesday. “But it is reality.” Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the effort a “partisan sideshow” that would direct money towards immigration enforcement, “without putting any restraints on these rogue agencies’ rampant violence in our streets”. Budget reconciliation was previously used by Republican lawmakers to pass Trump’s landmark tax and spending package without any Democratic votes last year.
US Congress temporarily extends controversial surveillance power under FISA
News|Privacy The United States Congress has temporarily extended a controversial surveillance law which allows federal intelligence agencies to collect the data of foreigners, including their contacts with US citizens. The move allows a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to continue until April 30. The short-term extension was passed by the House of Representatives and approved by the Senate on Friday. list of 3 items list 1 of 3Former FBI chief Robert Mueller, known for Trump investigation, dead at 81 list 2 of 3US lawmakers push for pause in data centres until AI safeguards in place list 3 of 3‘My phone is a brick’: Russians scramble for information as data blocked end of list The patch comes after President Donald Trump’s efforts to secure a more lasting extension broke down. Section 702 of FISA allows the National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence services to collect data from foreigners outside of the country. That could include their interactions with US citizens, a prospect that has alarmed rights advocates. Collecting such data, which can include correspondence on email and telecommunications platforms, typically requires a warrant approved by a court. The process has been described by critics as a “backdoor search” that circumvents existing privacy laws. Speaking after Friday’s vote, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said there was still some openness to reforming the law. “We’ve got to pivot and figure out what can pass, and we’re in the process of figuring out how to do that here,” he told reporters. Supporters of reform, who stretch across party lines, have long sought to repeal or amend Section 702. While FISA was initially passed in 1978, Section 702 was added as an amendment in 2008. The addition came amid the US’s “global war on terror”. But during its approval, revelations emerged that the administration of former US President George W Bush had already used the tactics Section 702 legalised. Supporters, including Trump, maintain that reforming the provision would lead to a lapse in national security. Advertisement “I have spoken with many in our Military who say FISA is necessary in order to protect our Troops overseas, as well as our people here at home, from the threat of Foreign Terror Attacks,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Wednesday. He has pushed for the law to be extended for 18 months without changes. That effort initially appeared on track in the House but was ultimately scuttled by pushback from within Trump’s own Republican Party. Among the detractors was Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, who has been a regular critic of Trump. “I will be voting NO on final passage of the FISA 702 Reauthorization Bill if it does not include a warrant provision and other reforms to protect US citizens’ right to privacy,” he wrote ahead of the House vote.
US Congress temporarily extends controversial surveillance power under FISA
News|Privacy The United States Congress has temporarily extended a controversial surveillance law which allows federal intelligence agencies to collect the data of foreigners, including their contacts with US citizens. The move allows a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to continue until April 30. The short-term extension was passed by the House of Representatives and approved by the Senate on Friday. list of 3 items list 1 of 3Former FBI chief Robert Mueller, known for Trump investigation, dead at 81 list 2 of 3US lawmakers push for pause in data centres until AI safeguards in place list 3 of 3‘My phone is a brick’: Russians scramble for information as data blocked end of list The patch comes after President Donald Trump’s efforts to secure a more lasting extension broke down. Section 702 of FISA allows the National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence services to collect data from foreigners outside of the country. That could include their interactions with US citizens, a prospect that has alarmed rights advocates. Collecting such data, which can include correspondence on email and telecommunications platforms, typically requires a warrant approved by a court. The process has been described by critics as a “backdoor search” that circumvents existing privacy laws. Speaking after Friday’s vote, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said there was still some openness to reforming the law. “We’ve got to pivot and figure out what can pass, and we’re in the process of figuring out how to do that here,” he told reporters. Supporters of reform, who stretch across party lines, have long sought to repeal or amend Section 702. While FISA was initially passed in 1978, Section 702 was added as an amendment in 2008. The addition came amid the US’s “global war on terror”. But during its approval, revelations emerged that the administration of former US President George W Bush had already used the tactics Section 702 legalised. Supporters, including Trump, maintain that reforming the provision would lead to a lapse in national security. Advertisement “I have spoken with many in our Military who say FISA is necessary in order to protect our Troops overseas, as well as our people here at home, from the threat of Foreign Terror Attacks,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Wednesday. He has pushed for the law to be extended for 18 months without changes. That effort initially appeared on track in the House but was ultimately scuttled by pushback from within Trump’s own Republican Party. Among the detractors was Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, who has been a regular critic of Trump. “I will be voting NO on final passage of the FISA 702 Reauthorization Bill if it does not include a warrant provision and other reforms to protect US citizens’ right to privacy,” he wrote ahead of the House vote.
AOC, Boebert join calls for sexual misconduct accountability in Congress
Lawmakers from across the political spectrum have called for more accountability for sexual misconduct in Congress this week, after two US representatives resigned amid a deluge of accusations. Underscoring the bipartisan nature of the calls, both Democratic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a high-profile progressive, and Republican Lauren Boebert, a standardbearer of US President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, were among those calling for higher scrutiny and punishment for those accused of sexual misconduct. list of 3 items list 1 of 3Melania Trump denies ‘relationship’ with Jeffrey Epstein list 2 of 3Democrats in US slam Pam Bondi for refusing to appear for Epstein hearing list 3 of 3US judge dismisses Trump’s $10bn lawsuit against WSJ over Epstein story end of list On Monday, both Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, and Tony Gonzales, a Republican from Texas, announced their resignations amid sexual misconduct allegations. Two representatives, Republican Anna Paulina Luna and Democrat Teresa Leger Fernandez, told CBS News earlier this week that they were preparing to introduce resolutions to expel both Swalwell and Gonzales. They credited the pressure campaign with both men’s decisions to voluntarily leave the chamber, saying they were willing to replicate the tactic against other members of Congress facing sexual misconduct and ethics investigations. What have Ocasio-Cortez and Boebert said? The issue has represented a rare area of bipartisan cooperation in the US Congress, which has remained deeply polarised in recent years. Republicans currently control 218 seats to 213 controlled by Democrats in the chamber. Underlining the broad unity on the issue have been statements from Ocasio-Cortez and Boebert, who represent the leftward and rightward flanks of their parties, respectively, and have long been portrayed by their critics as firebrands. Advertisement Ocasio-Cortez called the resignations “an important turning point”. She said the “abuse of power should never be accepted, and above all, in public office. And so, I think this is an important resetting point for the institution.” “But I don’t think our work is done.” Going further, Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday named Republican Cory Mills, who remains under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for sexual misconduct and campaign finance, as the next lawmaker who should resign. “I’m glad that Eric Swalwell is leaving. I’m glad that Tony Gonzales is leaving. Frankly, I think Cory Mills should be on that list, as well,” she said. Boebert, meanwhile, said in a post on X that she was pursuing efforts to strip Swalwell and Gonzales of their federal pensions. In another video, she urged those facing harassment in Congress to speak to her directly. “If your boss is mistreating you, or someone else in the office, tell somebody – come to my office. If you want to remain anonymous, remain anonymous,” she said. “Let one of us loudmouths get it out there for you.” What were the allegations against Swalwell and Gonzalez? Five women had publicly accused Swalwell of sexual abuse, the most recent going public on Tuesday. Lonna Drewes said the lawmaker had drugged and raped her in 2018. Another woman, identified as a former staffer, had previously told CNN that Swalwell raped her in a New York City hotel in 2024. Three other women told US news outlets that they had received inappropriate messages from Swalwell. Swalwell has pointed to “mistakes in judgment” but has denied taking part in any sexual abuse. He has criticised his fellow lawmakers for moving to expel him without “due process”, while his lawyer has maintained that the allegations against him are politically motivated. A day before resigning from Congress, he announced he was also dropping out of the California gubernatorial race, in which polls showed him as a frontrunner. Gonzales had admitted to having an affair with a staff member in 2024. The woman subsequently committed suicide. The House code of conduct prohibits lawmakers from having sexual relationships with staff members. Despite the admission, Gonzales had resisted calls to resign for months. What comes next? Several lawmakers have used the resignation to highlight a culture of silence in Congress regarding the conduct of their colleagues. Speaking to The Associated Press news agency, Jackie Speier, a Democrat from California, condemned the tendency for Congress to “basically look the other way”. She called on both Republican and Democratic leadership to “really tighten the rules and create a safe environment for these women to report”. Advertisement Some have likened the calls for greater accountability to the bipartisan push to compel the administration of US President Donald Trump to release investigative documents related to billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein. The White House initially resisted the calls, but Trump eventually signed legislation passed by both the House and the Senate that required the Department of Justice to release the files. Speaking to CBS News, Luna and Leger Fernandez, the lawmakers who led the push against Swalwell and Gonzales, said they were also scrutinising Republican Mills and Democrat Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, who has been charged with illegally diverting federal funds to her campaign. Cherfilus-McCormick has not been accused of any sexual misconduct. Leger Fernandez said they hoped to combat a culture of impunity. “We are going to hold men accountable, and we will not let women continue to be silenced,” she said.
AOC, Boebert join calls for sexual misconduct accountability in Congress
Lawmakers from across the political spectrum have called for more accountability for sexual misconduct in Congress this week, after two US representatives resigned amid a deluge of accusations. Underscoring the bipartisan nature of the calls, both Democratic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a high-profile progressive, and Republican Lauren Boebert, a standardbearer of US President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, were among those calling for higher scrutiny and punishment for those accused of sexual misconduct. list of 3 items list 1 of 3Melania Trump denies ‘relationship’ with Jeffrey Epstein list 2 of 3Democrats in US slam Pam Bondi for refusing to appear for Epstein hearing list 3 of 3US judge dismisses Trump’s $10bn lawsuit against WSJ over Epstein story end of list On Monday, both Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, and Tony Gonzales, a Republican from Texas, announced their resignations amid sexual misconduct allegations. Two representatives, Republican Anna Paulina Luna and Democrat Teresa Leger Fernandez, told CBS News earlier this week that they were preparing to introduce resolutions to expel both Swalwell and Gonzales. They credited the pressure campaign with both men’s decisions to voluntarily leave the chamber, saying they were willing to replicate the tactic against other members of Congress facing sexual misconduct and ethics investigations. What have Ocasio-Cortez and Boebert said? The issue has represented a rare area of bipartisan cooperation in the US Congress, which has remained deeply polarised in recent years. Republicans currently control 218 seats to 213 controlled by Democrats in the chamber. Underlining the broad unity on the issue have been statements from Ocasio-Cortez and Boebert, who represent the leftward and rightward flanks of their parties, respectively, and have long been portrayed by their critics as firebrands. Advertisement Ocasio-Cortez called the resignations “an important turning point”. She said the “abuse of power should never be accepted, and above all, in public office. And so, I think this is an important resetting point for the institution.” “But I don’t think our work is done.” Going further, Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday named Republican Cory Mills, who remains under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for sexual misconduct and campaign finance, as the next lawmaker who should resign. “I’m glad that Eric Swalwell is leaving. I’m glad that Tony Gonzales is leaving. Frankly, I think Cory Mills should be on that list, as well,” she said. Boebert, meanwhile, said in a post on X that she was pursuing efforts to strip Swalwell and Gonzales of their federal pensions. In another video, she urged those facing harassment in Congress to speak to her directly. “If your boss is mistreating you, or someone else in the office, tell somebody – come to my office. If you want to remain anonymous, remain anonymous,” she said. “Let one of us loudmouths get it out there for you.” What were the allegations against Swalwell and Gonzalez? Five women had publicly accused Swalwell of sexual abuse, the most recent going public on Tuesday. Lonna Drewes said the lawmaker had drugged and raped her in 2018. Another woman, identified as a former staffer, had previously told CNN that Swalwell raped her in a New York City hotel in 2024. Three other women told US news outlets that they had received inappropriate messages from Swalwell. Swalwell has pointed to “mistakes in judgment” but has denied taking part in any sexual abuse. He has criticised his fellow lawmakers for moving to expel him without “due process”, while his lawyer has maintained that the allegations against him are politically motivated. A day before resigning from Congress, he announced he was also dropping out of the California gubernatorial race, in which polls showed him as a frontrunner. Gonzales had admitted to having an affair with a staff member in 2024. The woman subsequently committed suicide. The House code of conduct prohibits lawmakers from having sexual relationships with staff members. Despite the admission, Gonzales had resisted calls to resign for months. What comes next? Several lawmakers have used the resignation to highlight a culture of silence in Congress regarding the conduct of their colleagues. Speaking to The Associated Press news agency, Jackie Speier, a Democrat from California, condemned the tendency for Congress to “basically look the other way”. She called on both Republican and Democratic leadership to “really tighten the rules and create a safe environment for these women to report”. Advertisement Some have likened the calls for greater accountability to the bipartisan push to compel the administration of US President Donald Trump to release investigative documents related to billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein. The White House initially resisted the calls, but Trump eventually signed legislation passed by both the House and the Senate that required the Department of Justice to release the files. Speaking to CBS News, Luna and Leger Fernandez, the lawmakers who led the push against Swalwell and Gonzales, said they were also scrutinising Republican Mills and Democrat Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, who has been charged with illegally diverting federal funds to her campaign. Cherfilus-McCormick has not been accused of any sexual misconduct. Leger Fernandez said they hoped to combat a culture of impunity. “We are going to hold men accountable, and we will not let women continue to be silenced,” she said.
AOC, Boebert join calls for sexual misconduct accountability in Congress
Lawmakers from across the political spectrum have called for more accountability for sexual misconduct in Congress this week, after two US representatives resigned amid a deluge of accusations. Underscoring the bipartisan nature of the calls, both Democratic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a high-profile progressive, and Republican Lauren Boebert, a standardbearer of US President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, were among those calling for higher scrutiny and punishment for those accused of sexual misconduct. list of 3 items list 1 of 3Melania Trump denies ‘relationship’ with Jeffrey Epstein list 2 of 3Democrats in US slam Pam Bondi for refusing to appear for Epstein hearing list 3 of 3US judge dismisses Trump’s $10bn lawsuit against WSJ over Epstein story end of list On Monday, both Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, and Tony Gonzales, a Republican from Texas, announced their resignations amid sexual misconduct allegations. Two representatives, Republican Anna Paulina Luna and Democrat Teresa Leger Fernandez, told CBS News earlier this week that they were preparing to introduce resolutions to expel both Swalwell and Gonzales. They credited the pressure campaign with both men’s decisions to voluntarily leave the chamber, saying they were willing to replicate the tactic against other members of Congress facing sexual misconduct and ethics investigations. What have Ocasio-Cortez and Boebert said? The issue has represented a rare area of bipartisan cooperation in the US Congress, which has remained deeply polarised in recent years. Republicans currently control 218 seats to 213 controlled by Democrats in the chamber. Underlining the broad unity on the issue have been statements from Ocasio-Cortez and Boebert, who represent the leftward and rightward flanks of their parties, respectively, and have long been portrayed by their critics as firebrands. Advertisement Ocasio-Cortez called the resignations “an important turning point”. She said the “abuse of power should never be accepted, and above all, in public office. And so, I think this is an important resetting point for the institution.” “But I don’t think our work is done.” Going further, Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday named Republican Cory Mills, who remains under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for sexual misconduct and campaign finance, as the next lawmaker who should resign. “I’m glad that Eric Swalwell is leaving. I’m glad that Tony Gonzales is leaving. Frankly, I think Cory Mills should be on that list, as well,” she said. Boebert, meanwhile, said in a post on X that she was pursuing efforts to strip Swalwell and Gonzales of their federal pensions. In another video, she urged those facing harassment in Congress to speak to her directly. “If your boss is mistreating you, or someone else in the office, tell somebody – come to my office. If you want to remain anonymous, remain anonymous,” she said. “Let one of us loudmouths get it out there for you.” What were the allegations against Swalwell and Gonzalez? Five women had publicly accused Swalwell of sexual abuse, the most recent going public on Tuesday. Lonna Drewes said the lawmaker had drugged and raped her in 2018. Another woman, identified as a former staffer, had previously told CNN that Swalwell raped her in a New York City hotel in 2024. Three other women told US news outlets that they had received inappropriate messages from Swalwell. Swalwell has pointed to “mistakes in judgment” but has denied taking part in any sexual abuse. He has criticised his fellow lawmakers for moving to expel him without “due process”, while his lawyer has maintained that the allegations against him are politically motivated. A day before resigning from Congress, he announced he was also dropping out of the California gubernatorial race, in which polls showed him as a frontrunner. Gonzales had admitted to having an affair with a staff member in 2024. The woman subsequently committed suicide. The House code of conduct prohibits lawmakers from having sexual relationships with staff members. Despite the admission, Gonzales had resisted calls to resign for months. What comes next? Several lawmakers have used the resignation to highlight a culture of silence in Congress regarding the conduct of their colleagues. Speaking to The Associated Press news agency, Jackie Speier, a Democrat from California, condemned the tendency for Congress to “basically look the other way”. She called on both Republican and Democratic leadership to “really tighten the rules and create a safe environment for these women to report”. Advertisement Some have likened the calls for greater accountability to the bipartisan push to compel the administration of US President Donald Trump to release investigative documents related to billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein. The White House initially resisted the calls, but Trump eventually signed legislation passed by both the House and the Senate that required the Department of Justice to release the files. Speaking to CBS News, Luna and Leger Fernandez, the lawmakers who led the push against Swalwell and Gonzales, said they were also scrutinising Republican Mills and Democrat Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, who has been charged with illegally diverting federal funds to her campaign. Cherfilus-McCormick has not been accused of any sexual misconduct. Leger Fernandez said they hoped to combat a culture of impunity. “We are going to hold men accountable, and we will not let women continue to be silenced,” she said.
US House votes to extend temporary protections for Haitians in Trump rebuke
The United States House of Representatives has voted to extend temporary immigration protections for some 350,000 Haitians living in the country, in a break with President Donald Trump. Ten Republicans joined the Democratic majority in Thursday’s vote, which passed by a margin of 224 to 204. list of 3 items list 1 of 3At least 70 killed, 30 wounded in Haiti gang attack, rights group says list 2 of 3Trump administration nixes temporary immigration protections for Haitians list 3 of 3Trump administration to suspend immigrant visa processing for 75 countries end of list The bill would allow Haitians already in the US to keep their Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for three additional years, due to violence and instability in the Caribbean country. The measure will now proceed to the US Senate, where it faces uncertain prospects. If it passed, Trump would almost certainly veto the bill. “This is a monumental victory in a long-fought battle to protect the safety, dignity, and humanity of our Haitian neighbors,” Democratic Representative Ayanna Pressley, the co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus, said in a statement. “Democrats and Republicans alike have come together to support our Haitian neighbors not just because this is good, commonsense policy, but because it is the right, humane thing to do.” The bill advanced on Thursday through a bipartisan discharge petition, a legislative tool that allows lawmakers to bypass the House’s Republican leadership and force a vote. But the bill’s progress tees up a potential clash with the White House. Trump and his officials have repeatedly attempted to roll back temporary immigration protections on the basis that previous administrations had exceeded their authority in granting extensions. The push comes as part of Trump’s wider effort to restrict immigration into the US. Advertisement TPS is designed to shield foreign nationals who are already in the country from deportation. It is granted when their countries of origin are facing temporarily unsafe conditions, including natural disasters and conflicts. It also confers temporary work authorisation to successful applicants. Last year, the Trump administration made several efforts to end TPS for Haitians, citing US “national interests”. In June, for instance, it said the designation would expire in August. Then, in November, it renewed its intentions to end the programme, calling the move a “vote of confidence” in Haiti’s government. The Caribbean nation has suffered from high levels of violence and political instability since the assassination of President Jovenel Moise in 2021. The period following his death saw powerful gangs expand their influence on the island, seizing control of much of the capital of Port-au-Prince. The State Department has previously warned US citizens not to travel to Haiti “due to the risk of crime, terrorism, kidnapping, unrest, and limited health care”. Advocacy groups have warned that the fear of deportation has become a strain on Haitian migrants living in the US. They called on Congress to act to protect the vulnerable group. “We are asking: Where will you be? On the right side of history? Or continuing to cause trauma to people who are asking for nothing other than safety and protection?” asked Guerline Jozef, the executive director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, during a news conference outside of the Capitol. This month, the US Supreme Court is set to consider a fast-track case weighing the administration’s request to move forward with the revocation of deportation protections for Haitians and Syrians.
US House votes to extend temporary protections for Haitians in Trump rebuke
The United States House of Representatives has voted to extend temporary immigration protections for some 350,000 Haitians living in the country, in a break with President Donald Trump. Ten Republicans joined the Democratic majority in Thursday’s vote, which passed by a margin of 224 to 204. list of 3 items list 1 of 3At least 70 killed, 30 wounded in Haiti gang attack, rights group says list 2 of 3Trump administration nixes temporary immigration protections for Haitians list 3 of 3Trump administration to suspend immigrant visa processing for 75 countries end of list The bill would allow Haitians already in the US to keep their Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for three additional years, due to violence and instability in the Caribbean country. The measure will now proceed to the US Senate, where it faces uncertain prospects. If it passed, Trump would almost certainly veto the bill. “This is a monumental victory in a long-fought battle to protect the safety, dignity, and humanity of our Haitian neighbors,” Democratic Representative Ayanna Pressley, the co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus, said in a statement. “Democrats and Republicans alike have come together to support our Haitian neighbors not just because this is good, commonsense policy, but because it is the right, humane thing to do.” The bill advanced on Thursday through a bipartisan discharge petition, a legislative tool that allows lawmakers to bypass the House’s Republican leadership and force a vote. But the bill’s progress tees up a potential clash with the White House. Trump and his officials have repeatedly attempted to roll back temporary immigration protections on the basis that previous administrations had exceeded their authority in granting extensions. The push comes as part of Trump’s wider effort to restrict immigration into the US. Advertisement TPS is designed to shield foreign nationals who are already in the country from deportation. It is granted when their countries of origin are facing temporarily unsafe conditions, including natural disasters and conflicts. It also confers temporary work authorisation to successful applicants. Last year, the Trump administration made several efforts to end TPS for Haitians, citing US “national interests”. In June, for instance, it said the designation would expire in August. Then, in November, it renewed its intentions to end the programme, calling the move a “vote of confidence” in Haiti’s government. The Caribbean nation has suffered from high levels of violence and political instability since the assassination of President Jovenel Moise in 2021. The period following his death saw powerful gangs expand their influence on the island, seizing control of much of the capital of Port-au-Prince. The State Department has previously warned US citizens not to travel to Haiti “due to the risk of crime, terrorism, kidnapping, unrest, and limited health care”. Advocacy groups have warned that the fear of deportation has become a strain on Haitian migrants living in the US. They called on Congress to act to protect the vulnerable group. “We are asking: Where will you be? On the right side of history? Or continuing to cause trauma to people who are asking for nothing other than safety and protection?” asked Guerline Jozef, the executive director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, during a news conference outside of the Capitol. This month, the US Supreme Court is set to consider a fast-track case weighing the administration’s request to move forward with the revocation of deportation protections for Haitians and Syrians.
AOC, Boebert join calls for sexual misconduct accountability in Congress
Lawmakers from across the political spectrum have called for more accountability for sexual misconduct in Congress this week, after two US representatives resigned amid a deluge of accusations. Underscoring the bipartisan nature of the calls, both Democratic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a high-profile progressive, and Republican Lauren Boebert, a standardbearer of US President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, were among those calling for higher scrutiny and punishment for those accused of sexual misconduct. list of 3 items list 1 of 3Melania Trump denies ‘relationship’ with Jeffrey Epstein list 2 of 3Democrats in US slam Pam Bondi for refusing to appear for Epstein hearing list 3 of 3US judge dismisses Trump’s $10bn lawsuit against WSJ over Epstein story end of list On Monday, both Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, and Tony Gonzales, a Republican from Texas, announced their resignations amid sexual misconduct allegations. Two representatives, Republican Anna Paulina Luna and Democrat Teresa Leger Fernandez, told CBS News earlier this week that they were preparing to introduce resolutions to expel both Swalwell and Gonzales. They credited the pressure campaign with both men’s decisions to voluntarily leave the chamber, saying they were willing to replicate the tactic against other members of Congress facing sexual misconduct and ethics investigations. What have Ocasio-Cortez and Boebert said? The issue has represented a rare area of bipartisan cooperation in the US Congress, which has remained deeply polarised in recent years. Republicans currently control 218 seats to 213 controlled by Democrats in the chamber. Underlining the broad unity on the issue have been statements from Ocasio-Cortez and Boebert, who represent the leftward and rightward flanks of their parties, respectively, and have long been portrayed by their critics as firebrands. Advertisement Ocasio-Cortez called the resignations “an important turning point”. She said the “abuse of power should never be accepted, and above all, in public office. And so, I think this is an important resetting point for the institution.” “But I don’t think our work is done.” Going further, Ocasio-Cortez on Wednesday named Republican Cory Mills, who remains under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for sexual misconduct and campaign finance, as the next lawmaker who should resign. “I’m glad that Eric Swalwell is leaving. I’m glad that Tony Gonzales is leaving. Frankly, I think Cory Mills should be on that list, as well,” she said. Boebert, meanwhile, said in a post on X that she was pursuing efforts to strip Swalwell and Gonzales of their federal pensions. In another video, she urged those facing harassment in Congress to speak to her directly. “If your boss is mistreating you, or someone else in the office, tell somebody – come to my office. If you want to remain anonymous, remain anonymous,” she said. “Let one of us loudmouths get it out there for you.” What were the allegations against Swalwell and Gonzalez? Five women had publicly accused Swalwell of sexual abuse, the most recent going public on Tuesday. Lonna Drewes said the lawmaker had drugged and raped her in 2018. Another woman, identified as a former staffer, had previously told CNN that Swalwell raped her in a New York City hotel in 2024. Three other women told US news outlets that they had received inappropriate messages from Swalwell. Swalwell has pointed to “mistakes in judgment” but has denied taking part in any sexual abuse. He has criticised his fellow lawmakers for moving to expel him without “due process”, while his lawyer has maintained that the allegations against him are politically motivated. A day before resigning from Congress, he announced he was also dropping out of the California gubernatorial race, in which polls showed him as a frontrunner. Gonzales had admitted to having an affair with a staff member in 2024. The woman subsequently committed suicide. The House code of conduct prohibits lawmakers from having sexual relationships with staff members. Despite the admission, Gonzales had resisted calls to resign for months. What comes next? Several lawmakers have used the resignation to highlight a culture of silence in Congress regarding the conduct of their colleagues. Speaking to The Associated Press news agency, Jackie Speier, a Democrat from California, condemned the tendency for Congress to “basically look the other way”. She called on both Republican and Democratic leadership to “really tighten the rules and create a safe environment for these women to report”. Advertisement Some have likened the calls for greater accountability to the bipartisan push to compel the administration of US President Donald Trump to release investigative documents related to billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein. The White House initially resisted the calls, but Trump eventually signed legislation passed by both the House and the Senate that required the Department of Justice to release the files. Speaking to CBS News, Luna and Leger Fernandez, the lawmakers who led the push against Swalwell and Gonzales, said they were also scrutinising Republican Mills and Democrat Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, who has been charged with illegally diverting federal funds to her campaign. Cherfilus-McCormick has not been accused of any sexual misconduct. Leger Fernandez said they hoped to combat a culture of impunity. “We are going to hold men accountable, and we will not let women continue to be silenced,” she said.
US Senate rejects another war powers resolution to limit Trump on Iran
Washington, DC – A resolution to rein in US President Donald Trump’s authority to wage war with Iran has failed for the fourth time in the US Senate, where lawmakers have pledged to introduce the measure weekly. The vote was the first since the US and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire last week. Subsequent talks in Islamabad, Pakistan, failed to yield a more lasting agreement, although both sides have signalled they are open to a second round. list of 3 items list 1 of 3Iran says $270bn war loss must be compensated, as fresh talks with US loom list 2 of 3Iran war day 47: What’s happening in Lebanon, Tehran and the Middle East? list 3 of 3US sending 10,000 more troops to Middle East despite Iran ceasefire end of list Prior to the fighting pause, US President Donald Trump had repeatedly threatened to strike civilian infrastructure in Iran. His threat on April 7 that a “whole civilisation will die tonight”, just hours before an agreement had been reached, stoked further calls for Congress to constrain Trump on the war. As with past votes, the resolution on Wednesday failed mostly along party lines, 47-53, with one Republican, Rand Paul, voting in favour and one Democrat, John Fetterman, voting against. Supporters of the resolution have maintained that Trump acted outside of constitutional authority in launching the war alongside Israel on February 28. The US Constitution reserves the decision to go to war for Congress, with presidents only able to unilaterally launch operations in instances of immediate self-defence. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has offered a carousel of explanations for going to war, including arguing that the totality of Iran’s actions since the Islamic revolution in 1979 represented an imminent threat to the US. Speaking before Wednesday’s vote, US Senator Chris Murphy called the conflict a “bungled, mismanaged war” that has failed to achieve several of the administration’s stated goals. Advertisement He further decried a lack of transparency from the Trump administration and oversight from Republicans in Congress. “We should not fail to note how extraordinary it is that our Senate Republican leadership has declined to do any oversight of a war that is costing billions of dollars every week, that has already led to the loss of over a dozen American lives, that has erupted a regional war throughout the Middle East, and is literally melting down economies all over the world,” Murphy said. Senator Jim Risch, a Republican, maintained Trump was acting within his authority as president, dismissing the measure as “a same old, same old”. “It says President Trump: ‘Put your tail between your legs and run.’ That’s what this resolution says,” he said. “Not only does [Trump] have the right to do this, he has the duty to do this. He took an oath to defend the people of the United States of America,” he said. The US House of Representatives was expected to vote on its own resolution this week, with passage in the chamber considered more plausible, particularly given growing wariness of the war among some Republicans. The success of the resolution in either chamber would be largely symbolic. Even if it passed both the House and the Senate, it could be vetoed by Trump. Both chambers would then need a likely insurmountable two-thirds vote to overcome the veto. However, lawmakers could face a larger test at the end of April, when the war hits its 60-day mark. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the US Congress must authorise the military action at that point or approve a 30-day extension. Otherwise, Trump would be legally required to begin withdrawing forces. On Wednesday, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said that no ships entering or exiting Iranian ports had successfully crossed the US blockade in the Strait of Hormuz over the last 48 hours. CENTCOM said that nine vessels had complied with US military commands to turn around. In a separate statement, the US Navy said it was warning ships that “vessels will be boarded for interdiction and seizure transiting to or from Iranian ports”. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, meanwhile, said Washington was preparing a new raft of actions that would be the “financial equivalent” of military attacks. The US had lifted some sanctions on Iran amid the war to lower soaring global energy prices. Speaking to reporters, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said the Trump administration had not formally requested an extension of the two-week ceasefire, which is set to end next week. She struck an optimistic tone on the prospect of a second round of US-Iran talks in Islamabad. Advertisement “At this moment, we remain very much engaged in these negotiations, in these talks,” she said. Meanwhile, Iran’s state-owned television channel reported that a high-level Pakistani delegation had arrived in Tehran to coordinate a new round of talks. Still, Major-General Ali Abdollahi, the commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), warned that the ongoing naval blockade could end the fragile pause in fighting. “If the aggressor and terrorist US seeks to continue its illegal action of imposing a naval blockade in the region and to create insecurity for Iran’s commercial vessels and oil tankers, this action by the US will constitute a prelude to a violation of the ceasefire,” he said.
US Senate rejects another war powers resolution to limit Trump on Iran
Washington, DC – A resolution to rein in US President Donald Trump’s authority to wage war with Iran has failed for the fourth time in the US Senate, where lawmakers have pledged to introduce the measure weekly. The vote was the first since the US and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire last week. Subsequent talks in Islamabad, Pakistan, failed to yield a more lasting agreement, although both sides have signalled they are open to a second round. list of 3 items list 1 of 3Iran says $270bn war loss must be compensated, as fresh talks with US loom list 2 of 3Iran war day 47: What’s happening in Lebanon, Tehran and the Middle East? list 3 of 3US sending 10,000 more troops to Middle East despite Iran ceasefire end of list Prior to the fighting pause, US President Donald Trump had repeatedly threatened to strike civilian infrastructure in Iran. His threat on April 7 that a “whole civilisation will die tonight”, just hours before an agreement had been reached, stoked further calls for Congress to constrain Trump on the war. As with past votes, the resolution on Wednesday failed mostly along party lines, 47-53, with one Republican, Rand Paul, voting in favour and one Democrat, John Fetterman, voting against. Supporters of the resolution have maintained that Trump acted outside of constitutional authority in launching the war alongside Israel on February 28. The US Constitution reserves the decision to go to war for Congress, with presidents only able to unilaterally launch operations in instances of immediate self-defence. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has offered a carousel of explanations for going to war, including arguing that the totality of Iran’s actions since the Islamic revolution in 1979 represented an imminent threat to the US. Speaking before Wednesday’s vote, US Senator Chris Murphy called the conflict a “bungled, mismanaged war” that has failed to achieve several of the administration’s stated goals. Advertisement He further decried a lack of transparency from the Trump administration and oversight from Republicans in Congress. “We should not fail to note how extraordinary it is that our Senate Republican leadership has declined to do any oversight of a war that is costing billions of dollars every week, that has already led to the loss of over a dozen American lives, that has erupted a regional war throughout the Middle East, and is literally melting down economies all over the world,” Murphy said. Senator Jim Risch, a Republican, maintained Trump was acting within his authority as president, dismissing the measure as “a same old, same old”. “It says President Trump: ‘Put your tail between your legs and run.’ That’s what this resolution says,” he said. “Not only does [Trump] have the right to do this, he has the duty to do this. He took an oath to defend the people of the United States of America,” he said. The US House of Representatives was expected to vote on its own resolution this week, with passage in the chamber considered more plausible, particularly given growing wariness of the war among some Republicans. The success of the resolution in either chamber would be largely symbolic. Even if it passed both the House and the Senate, it could be vetoed by Trump. Both chambers would then need a likely insurmountable two-thirds vote to overcome the veto. However, lawmakers could face a larger test at the end of April, when the war hits its 60-day mark. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the US Congress must authorise the military action at that point or approve a 30-day extension. Otherwise, Trump would be legally required to begin withdrawing forces. On Wednesday, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said that no ships entering or exiting Iranian ports had successfully crossed the US blockade in the Strait of Hormuz over the last 48 hours. CENTCOM said that nine vessels had complied with US military commands to turn around. In a separate statement, the US Navy said it was warning ships that “vessels will be boarded for interdiction and seizure transiting to or from Iranian ports”. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, meanwhile, said Washington was preparing a new raft of actions that would be the “financial equivalent” of military attacks. The US had lifted some sanctions on Iran amid the war to lower soaring global energy prices. Speaking to reporters, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said the Trump administration had not formally requested an extension of the two-week ceasefire, which is set to end next week. She struck an optimistic tone on the prospect of a second round of US-Iran talks in Islamabad. Advertisement “At this moment, we remain very much engaged in these negotiations, in these talks,” she said. Meanwhile, Iran’s state-owned television channel reported that a high-level Pakistani delegation had arrived in Tehran to coordinate a new round of talks. Still, Major-General Ali Abdollahi, the commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), warned that the ongoing naval blockade could end the fragile pause in fighting. “If the aggressor and terrorist US seeks to continue its illegal action of imposing a naval blockade in the region and to create insecurity for Iran’s commercial vessels and oil tankers, this action by the US will constitute a prelude to a violation of the ceasefire,” he said.
What is Trump-backed SAVE America Act and what could it mean for US vote?
Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump has been unambiguous about his desire for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, a sweeping voting law that supporters say will boost election security and that detractors say risks disenfranchising millions of voters. The push has gained new urgency, with the US Senate continuing debate on the law following a two-week recess. list of 3 items list 1 of 3We, the American people, have had enough of endless wars list 2 of 3Trump fires Pam Bondi as US attorney general, elevates Todd Blanche list 3 of 3Trump files emergency motion to continue building White House ballroom end of list The president has said the bill, which at its core would create higher documentation standards for proving citizenship when registering to vote and casting a ballot, is his top priority ahead of the midterm elections in November, which will determine which party controls the Senate and the US House of Representatives. The bill has near-total support from Republicans, with Democrats remaining largely unified in opposition. It passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in February along party lines. The measure has since remained stalled in Congress, where Republicans control 53 out of 100 seats, short of the 60 votes it will likely need to pass. That is, unless party leaders move to change the chamber’s longstanding rules, a transformative approach considered a”nuclear” option that will reverberate for years to come. Here’s what to know. What would the SAVE America Act do? The version of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act passed by the House in February would require voters to provide proof of citizenship – a birth certificate or passport – when registering to vote. It would also implement stricter voter identification requirements for individuals casting ballots, whether by mail or in person. Advertisement Under the US Constitution, states administer elections, and currently have different processes for registering voters and confirming citizenship. Voting by noncitizens is already illegal, and all people registering to vote attest they are US citizens under threat of perjury. The bill does not provide any funding for the new verification processes, which would be effective immediately upon the bill being signed into law. The legislation would also require all states to run their voter rolls through a US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) “Alien Verification Eligibility” system to identify potential noncitizens already enrolled. It would include criminal penalties for election officials who register voters without the required documentation. The US president has long maintained that elections in the country are marred by widespread fraud, including noncitizen voting, despite there being no evidence to support these claims. Even the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has influenced many of Trump’s policies, has found only exceedingly rare instances of voter fraud over decades of US elections. Trump’s focus on election administration dates back to his 2020 loss to former US President Joe Biden, which he continues to maintain was the result of the vote being “stolen”. Again, no evidence has emerged to back those claims. The president has called the SAVE America Act “one of the most IMPORTANT & CONSEQUENTIAL pieces of legislation in the history of Congress, and America itself”. In March, he vowed not to sign any other bills into law until the legislation was passed. He has further vowed not to endorse any Republicans who do not support the legislation. Trump also told members of his party in March that passing the bill would “guarantee” their success not only in the midterm elections but in the years to come. Several top Republicans have embraced Trump’s messaging, with US House Speaker Mike Johnson saying opponents of the legislation “want illegal aliens to vote in our elections”. Critics have said the bill would be tantamount to widespread voter disenfranchisement, creating onerous barriers to address what several studies show to be the fleetingly rare problem of noncitizens registering to vote. Several studies have shown that about 11 percent of eligible voters do not have access to birth certificates, while 52 percent do not have valid passports. All told, a recent study by several election-monitoring groups found that about nine percent of eligible voters in the US do not have easy access to documents proving citizenship, accounting for about 21.3 million people. Advertisement Several groups, including the Bipartisan Policy Center, have argued the legislation risks doing more damage than good. Data from a USCIS voter verification system, which some states already use to identify noncitizens in their voter rolls, found that only 0.04 percent of reviewed cases were flagged as potential noncitizens. But as noted by the Bipartisan Policy Center, evidence indicates that the rate may be considerably lower, pointing to a review by Travis County, Texas that found that a quarter of the voters flagged by USCIS had actually provided proof of citizenship. In another example, a review of all registered voters in Utah from 2025 to 2026 found only a single instance of a noncitizen registered to vote out of more than two million voters. There were no confirmed instances of a noncitizen actually voting. Top Democrats have echoed those criticisms, while charging that Trump is seeking to influence the outcome of the midterms as part of what they call a years-long effort to politicise voting administration. “The only thing Republicans are trying to save with this legislation is their own skin in the next election,” Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, said earlier this week. Could it affect women and name changes? A main point of contention for opponents of the legislation is the additional barriers it could create for individuals, primarily women, who changed their last names after marriage or for other reasons. An estimated 69 million women in the US lack easy access to documentation linking their current legal names to those at birth, according to the League of Women Voters, which has been a leading opponent of the bill. The requirement for extra documentation for some married women creates inherent inequality in the system, the organisation has argued. The law would further create extra barriers for individuals who move regularly, including members of the military, and those who have been afflicted by disruptive life changes, including natural disasters, opponents have argued. How does this relate to the filibuster? The so-called “filibuster” is a procedural rule in the Senate that can be used to require 60 votes to pass most bills, as opposed to a simple majority of 51 votes in the 100-seat chamber. Parties in the minority have long used the rule to temper the party in the majority, with Republicans and Democrats rarely holding a filibuster-proof 60 seats. Being a rule of the Senate’s own making, it could be easily scrapped by the party in power. However, doing so has long been seen as a “nuclear” option. While it would offer short-term benefits to the majority party, it would undermine the same party if it becomes the minority in future elections. Nevertheless, Trump has heaped pressure on Republican leaders in the Senate to scrap the rule, writing on Truth Social in March, they need to “Kill the Filibuster”. What happens next? Debate remains ongoing in the Senate over the legislation, but major shifts in support are seen as extremely unlikely. Advertisement Republicans are unlikely to bring the legislation to a vote if they do not have the support for it to pass. Currently, there is no plan to hold a vote to do away with the filibuster, which would require only a simple majority. Lawmakers have also not yet pursued other, more incremental procedural manoeuvres to pass the bill without 60 votes.
What is Trump-backed SAVE America Act and what could it mean for US vote?
Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump has been unambiguous about his desire for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, a sweeping voting law that supporters say will boost election security and that detractors say risks disenfranchising millions of voters. The push has gained new urgency, with the US Senate continuing debate on the law following a two-week recess. list of 3 items list 1 of 3We, the American people, have had enough of endless wars list 2 of 3Trump fires Pam Bondi as US attorney general, elevates Todd Blanche list 3 of 3Trump files emergency motion to continue building White House ballroom end of list The president has said the bill, which at its core would create higher documentation standards for proving citizenship when registering to vote and casting a ballot, is his top priority ahead of the midterm elections in November, which will determine which party controls the Senate and the US House of Representatives. The bill has near-total support from Republicans, with Democrats remaining largely unified in opposition. It passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in February along party lines. The measure has since remained stalled in Congress, where Republicans control 53 out of 100 seats, short of the 60 votes it will likely need to pass. That is, unless party leaders move to change the chamber’s longstanding rules, a transformative approach considered a”nuclear” option that will reverberate for years to come. Here’s what to know. What would the SAVE America Act do? The version of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act passed by the House in February would require voters to provide proof of citizenship – a birth certificate or passport – when registering to vote. It would also implement stricter voter identification requirements for individuals casting ballots, whether by mail or in person. Advertisement Under the US Constitution, states administer elections, and currently have different processes for registering voters and confirming citizenship. Voting by noncitizens is already illegal, and all people registering to vote attest they are US citizens under threat of perjury. The bill does not provide any funding for the new verification processes, which would be effective immediately upon the bill being signed into law. The legislation would also require all states to run their voter rolls through a US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) “Alien Verification Eligibility” system to identify potential noncitizens already enrolled. It would include criminal penalties for election officials who register voters without the required documentation. The US president has long maintained that elections in the country are marred by widespread fraud, including noncitizen voting, despite there being no evidence to support these claims. Even the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has influenced many of Trump’s policies, has found only exceedingly rare instances of voter fraud over decades of US elections. Trump’s focus on election administration dates back to his 2020 loss to former US President Joe Biden, which he continues to maintain was the result of the vote being “stolen”. Again, no evidence has emerged to back those claims. The president has called the SAVE America Act “one of the most IMPORTANT & CONSEQUENTIAL pieces of legislation in the history of Congress, and America itself”. In March, he vowed not to sign any other bills into law until the legislation was passed. He has further vowed not to endorse any Republicans who do not support the legislation. Trump also told members of his party in March that passing the bill would “guarantee” their success not only in the midterm elections but in the years to come. Several top Republicans have embraced Trump’s messaging, with US House Speaker Mike Johnson saying opponents of the legislation “want illegal aliens to vote in our elections”. Critics have said the bill would be tantamount to widespread voter disenfranchisement, creating onerous barriers to address what several studies show to be the fleetingly rare problem of noncitizens registering to vote. Several studies have shown that about 11 percent of eligible voters do not have access to birth certificates, while 52 percent do not have valid passports. All told, a recent study by several election-monitoring groups found that about nine percent of eligible voters in the US do not have easy access to documents proving citizenship, accounting for about 21.3 million people. Advertisement Several groups, including the Bipartisan Policy Center, have argued the legislation risks doing more damage than good. Data from a USCIS voter verification system, which some states already use to identify noncitizens in their voter rolls, found that only 0.04 percent of reviewed cases were flagged as potential noncitizens. But as noted by the Bipartisan Policy Center, evidence indicates that the rate may be considerably lower, pointing to a review by Travis County, Texas that found that a quarter of the voters flagged by USCIS had actually provided proof of citizenship. In another example, a review of all registered voters in Utah from 2025 to 2026 found only a single instance of a noncitizen registered to vote out of more than two million voters. There were no confirmed instances of a noncitizen actually voting. Top Democrats have echoed those criticisms, while charging that Trump is seeking to influence the outcome of the midterms as part of what they call a years-long effort to politicise voting administration. “The only thing Republicans are trying to save with this legislation is their own skin in the next election,” Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, said earlier this week. Could it affect women and name changes? A main point of contention for opponents of the legislation is the additional barriers it could create for individuals, primarily women, who changed their last names after marriage or for other reasons. An estimated 69 million women in the US lack easy access to documentation linking their current legal names to those at birth, according to the League of Women Voters, which has been a leading opponent of the bill. The requirement for extra documentation for some married women creates inherent inequality in the system, the organisation has argued. The law would further create extra barriers for individuals who move regularly, including members of the military, and those who have been afflicted by disruptive life changes, including natural disasters, opponents have argued. How does this relate to the filibuster? The so-called “filibuster” is a procedural rule in the Senate that can be used to require 60 votes to pass most bills, as opposed to a simple majority of 51 votes in the 100-seat chamber. Parties in the minority have long used the rule to temper the party in the majority, with Republicans and Democrats rarely holding a filibuster-proof 60 seats. Being a rule of the Senate’s own making, it could be easily scrapped by the party in power. However, doing so has long been seen as a “nuclear” option. While it would offer short-term benefits to the majority party, it would undermine the same party if it becomes the minority in future elections. Nevertheless, Trump has heaped pressure on Republican leaders in the Senate to scrap the rule, writing on Truth Social in March, they need to “Kill the Filibuster”. What happens next? Debate remains ongoing in the Senate over the legislation, but major shifts in support are seen as extremely unlikely. Advertisement Republicans are unlikely to bring the legislation to a vote if they do not have the support for it to pass. Currently, there is no plan to hold a vote to do away with the filibuster, which would require only a simple majority. Lawmakers have also not yet pursued other, more incremental procedural manoeuvres to pass the bill without 60 votes.
What is Trump-backed SAVE America Act and what could it mean for US vote?
Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump has been unambiguous about his desire for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, a sweeping voting law that supporters say will boost election security and that detractors say risks disenfranchising millions of voters. The push has gained new urgency, with the US Senate continuing debate on the law following a two-week recess. list of 3 items list 1 of 3We, the American people, have had enough of endless wars list 2 of 3Trump fires Pam Bondi as US attorney general, elevates Todd Blanche list 3 of 3Trump files emergency motion to continue building White House ballroom end of list The president has said the bill, which at its core would create higher documentation standards for proving citizenship when registering to vote and casting a ballot, is his top priority ahead of the midterm elections in November, which will determine which party controls the Senate and the US House of Representatives. The bill has near-total support from Republicans, with Democrats remaining largely unified in opposition. It passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in February along party lines. The measure has since remained stalled in Congress, where Republicans control 53 out of 100 seats, short of the 60 votes it will likely need to pass. That is, unless party leaders move to change the chamber’s longstanding rules, a transformative approach considered a”nuclear” option that will reverberate for years to come. Here’s what to know. What would the SAVE America Act do? The version of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act passed by the House in February would require voters to provide proof of citizenship – a birth certificate or passport – when registering to vote. It would also implement stricter voter identification requirements for individuals casting ballots, whether by mail or in person. Advertisement Under the US Constitution, states administer elections, and currently have different processes for registering voters and confirming citizenship. Voting by noncitizens is already illegal, and all people registering to vote attest they are US citizens under threat of perjury. The bill does not provide any funding for the new verification processes, which would be effective immediately upon the bill being signed into law. The legislation would also require all states to run their voter rolls through a US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) “Alien Verification Eligibility” system to identify potential noncitizens already enrolled. It would include criminal penalties for election officials who register voters without the required documentation. The US president has long maintained that elections in the country are marred by widespread fraud, including noncitizen voting, despite there being no evidence to support these claims. Even the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has influenced many of Trump’s policies, has found only exceedingly rare instances of voter fraud over decades of US elections. Trump’s focus on election administration dates back to his 2020 loss to former US President Joe Biden, which he continues to maintain was the result of the vote being “stolen”. Again, no evidence has emerged to back those claims. The president has called the SAVE America Act “one of the most IMPORTANT & CONSEQUENTIAL pieces of legislation in the history of Congress, and America itself”. In March, he vowed not to sign any other bills into law until the legislation was passed. He has further vowed not to endorse any Republicans who do not support the legislation. Trump also told members of his party in March that passing the bill would “guarantee” their success not only in the midterm elections but in the years to come. Several top Republicans have embraced Trump’s messaging, with US House Speaker Mike Johnson saying opponents of the legislation “want illegal aliens to vote in our elections”. Critics have said the bill would be tantamount to widespread voter disenfranchisement, creating onerous barriers to address what several studies show to be the fleetingly rare problem of noncitizens registering to vote. Several studies have shown that about 11 percent of eligible voters do not have access to birth certificates, while 52 percent do not have valid passports. All told, a recent study by several election-monitoring groups found that about nine percent of eligible voters in the US do not have easy access to documents proving citizenship, accounting for about 21.3 million people. Advertisement Several groups, including the Bipartisan Policy Center, have argued the legislation risks doing more damage than good. Data from a USCIS voter verification system, which some states already use to identify noncitizens in their voter rolls, found that only 0.04 percent of reviewed cases were flagged as potential noncitizens. But as noted by the Bipartisan Policy Center, evidence indicates that the rate may be considerably lower, pointing to a review by Travis County, Texas that found that a quarter of the voters flagged by USCIS had actually provided proof of citizenship. In another example, a review of all registered voters in Utah from 2025 to 2026 found only a single instance of a noncitizen registered to vote out of more than two million voters. There were no confirmed instances of a noncitizen actually voting. Top Democrats have echoed those criticisms, while charging that Trump is seeking to influence the outcome of the midterms as part of what they call a years-long effort to politicise voting administration. “The only thing Republicans are trying to save with this legislation is their own skin in the next election,” Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, said earlier this week. Could it affect women and name changes? A main point of contention for opponents of the legislation is the additional barriers it could create for individuals, primarily women, who changed their last names after marriage or for other reasons. An estimated 69 million women in the US lack easy access to documentation linking their current legal names to those at birth, according to the League of Women Voters, which has been a leading opponent of the bill. The requirement for extra documentation for some married women creates inherent inequality in the system, the organisation has argued. The law would further create extra barriers for individuals who move regularly, including members of the military, and those who have been afflicted by disruptive life changes, including natural disasters, opponents have argued. How does this relate to the filibuster? The so-called “filibuster” is a procedural rule in the Senate that can be used to require 60 votes to pass most bills, as opposed to a simple majority of 51 votes in the 100-seat chamber. Parties in the minority have long used the rule to temper the party in the majority, with Republicans and Democrats rarely holding a filibuster-proof 60 seats. Being a rule of the Senate’s own making, it could be easily scrapped by the party in power. However, doing so has long been seen as a “nuclear” option. While it would offer short-term benefits to the majority party, it would undermine the same party if it becomes the minority in future elections. Nevertheless, Trump has heaped pressure on Republican leaders in the Senate to scrap the rule, writing on Truth Social in March, they need to “Kill the Filibuster”. What happens next? Debate remains ongoing in the Senate over the legislation, but major shifts in support are seen as extremely unlikely. Advertisement Republicans are unlikely to bring the legislation to a vote if they do not have the support for it to pass. Currently, there is no plan to hold a vote to do away with the filibuster, which would require only a simple majority. Lawmakers have also not yet pursued other, more incremental procedural manoeuvres to pass the bill without 60 votes.
Abuse allegations against lead Democrat shake race for California governor
News|Sexual Assault Reports detailing sexual assault allegations against US Congressman Eric Swalwell have shaken the California state gubernatorial race, where polls have shown him leading a crowded field of Democratic candidates seeking to replace Governor Gavin Newsom. A number of influential Democratic Party lawmakers called on Swalwell to drop out of the race and resign from the United States Congress during TV interviews on Sunday, days after reports from CNN and the San Francisco Chronicle detailed alleged accounts of sexual assault from a former staffer and misconduct allegations from several other women. list of 3 items list 1 of 3Democrats in US slam Pam Bondi for refusing to appear for Epstein hearing list 2 of 3Dolores Huerta, sexual violence survivors speak out against Cesar Chavez list 3 of 3Bill Cosby found guilty of 1972 sexual assault, victim awarded nearly $60m end of list “What he did is sick and disgusting,” Congressman Ro Khanna told the news programme Fox News Sunday, calling for investigations into the allegations by law enforcement and the US House of Representatives. Swalwell has denied the allegations as “absolutely false” and has not given any indication that he plans to exit the race for the governorship of the country’s most populous state. A March poll from Emerson College had shown Swalwell ahead of Democratic and Republican challengers by several points. But the reports have shaken his campaign, with powerful figures and organisations revoking their endorsements and calling for him to drop out over the weekend. The Manhattan district attorney’s office confirmed on Saturday that it was investigating the allegations. California gubernatorial candidate, US Representative Eric Swalwell, appears at a town hall meeting in Sacramento, California, on Tuesday, April 7, 2026 [Rich Pedroncelli/AP Photo] Republican US Representative Anna Paulina Luna has said she will submit a motion to begin the process of expelling Swalwell, a move some Democrats in Congress have said they could support. Advertisement “This is not a partisan issue,” Representative Pramila Jayapal said Sunday. “This cuts across party lines. And it is the depravity of the way that women have been treated.” Democrats have also called for the expulsion of Representative Tony Gonzales, a Republican from Texas who is also facing sexual misconduct allegations. Khanna and Republican Representative Byron Donalds have said that they could support a bid to eject both Gonzales and Swalwell from Congress. “As far as I’m concerned, both gentlemen need to go home,” Donalds said.