Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court closes term
The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that might make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power.
With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents.
The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion", said Paul Rosenzweig, a lawyer who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration.
Friday's ruling said that judges generally could grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions.
The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021.
Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds.
The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes.
"President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said.
"Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform."
Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward.
The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence", Luther said.
The cases involving Trump administration policies came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found it was likely unconstitutional.
"One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said.
In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive health care and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination.
The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBTQI characters are read.
In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson.
"The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress's problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues'," Levinson said.
This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.
The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries".
Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court", Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said.
The court's jurisprudence reflected a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they had the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said.
The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act".
The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that might make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power.
With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents.
The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion", said Paul Rosenzweig, a lawyer who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration.
Friday's ruling said that judges generally could grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions.
The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021.
Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds.
The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes.
"President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said.
"Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform."
Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward.
The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence", Luther said.
The cases involving Trump administration policies came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found it was likely unconstitutional.
"One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said.
In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive health care and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination.
The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBTQI characters are read.
In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson.
"The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress's problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues'," Levinson said.
This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.
The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries".
Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court", Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said.
The court's jurisprudence reflected a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they had the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said.
The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act".
The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that might make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power.
With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents.
The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion", said Paul Rosenzweig, a lawyer who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration.
Friday's ruling said that judges generally could grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions.
The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021.
Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds.
The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes.
"President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said.
"Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform."
Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward.
The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence", Luther said.
The cases involving Trump administration policies came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found it was likely unconstitutional.
"One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said.
In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive health care and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination.
The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBTQI characters are read.
In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson.
"The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress's problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues'," Levinson said.
This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.
The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries".
Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court", Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said.
The court's jurisprudence reflected a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they had the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said.
The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act".
The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that might make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power.
With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents.
The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship.
The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion", said Paul Rosenzweig, a lawyer who served in Republican President George W Bush's administration.
Friday's ruling said that judges generally could grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions.
The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021.
Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds.
The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labour boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes.
"President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said.
"Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform."
Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward.
The rulings in favour of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence", Luther said.
The cases involving Trump administration policies came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found it was likely unconstitutional.
"One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said.
In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive health care and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination.
The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBTQI characters are read.
In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson.
"The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress's problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues'," Levinson said.
This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.
The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries".
Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court", Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said.
The court's jurisprudence reflected a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they had the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said.
The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
35 minutes ago
- ABC News
Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo sign US-mediated peace deal aimed at ending decades of bloody conflict
Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have signed a US-facilitated peace deal intended to help end deadly fighting in eastern Congo, while also helping the US government and American companies gain access to critical minerals in the region. The agreement has provisions on territorial integrity, prohibition of hostilities and the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of non-state armed groups. "Today, the violence and destruction comes to an end, and the entire region begins a new chapter of hope and opportunity, harmony, prosperity and peace," US President Donald Trump told the two countries' foreign ministers at a White House meeting on Friday. The agreement was signed earlier at the State Department's Treaty Room beneath a portrait of Colin Powell, the first African-American to serve as top US diplomat. There, current Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it "an important moment after 30 years of war". Over the past few decades, the DRC has been wracked by conflict between the government and more than 100 armed groups — the most potent backed by neighbouring Rwanda — leading to the deaths of millions of people. However, while the deal could be a turning point in the struggle to end the conflict, many Congolese see it mainly as an opportunity for the US to acquire Congo's critical minerals, after their government reached out to Mr Trump for support in fighting the rebels. The US president has pushed to gain access to those minerals at a time when the United States and China are actively competing for influence in Africa. So, will this deal mark the beginning of the end of the decades-long conflict, or is it destined to fail due to the absence of a major player? With 7 million people displaced in the DRC, the United Nations has called the situation "one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth". The conflict can be traced to the aftermath of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, where Hutu militias killed between 500,000 and 1 million ethnic Tutsi, as well as moderate Hutus and Twa, Indigenous people. When Tutsi-led forces fought back, nearly 2 million Hutus crossed into Congo, fearing reprisals. Rwandan authorities have accused the Hutus who fled of participating in the genocide, and alleged that elements of the Congolese army protected them. They have also argued that the militias formed by a small fraction of the Hutus are a threat to Rwanda's Tutsi population. Since then, the ongoing fighting in eastern Congo has killed 6 million people, in attacks, famines and unchecked disease outbreaks stemming from the fighting. The M23 rebel group is the most prominent armed group involved in the conflict, and its major advance early this year left bodies on the streets. Rwanda is also estimated to have up to 4,000 troops in the region supporting M23, though it maintains it is simply defending its territorial interests. While signing the agreement, Congo's Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner invoked the millions of victims of the conflict. She expressed optimism, but stressed significant work was yet to be done in order to end the fighting. "Some wounds will heal, but they will never fully disappear," Ms Wagner said. Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe was similarly cautious, nothing there was still a "great deal of uncertainty" because previous agreements were never implemented. "There is no doubt that the road ahead will not be easy," he said. "But with the continued support of the United States and other partners, we believe that a turning point has been reached." While the two foreign ministers appeared to be guardedly optimistic, most analysts do not believe the deal will quickly end the fighting — because rebel group M23, the most prominent of the armed groups fighting the government in Congo, says the deal does not apply to it. Asked in the Oval Office about potential violations of the agreement, Mr Trump said he didn't think that would happen but also warned of "very severe penalties, financial and otherwise", if it did. The DRC hopes the deal with Rwanda — which includes access to critical minerals for US companies — will lead the US to provide it with the security support it believes it needs to fight the rebels, and possibly get them to withdraw from the key cities of Goma and Bukavu. M23 rebels, however, say they won't abide by it as they weren't directly involved in the deal's development, though they have been part of other ongoing peace talks. Corneille Nangaa, who leads the Congo River Alliance — which includes M23 — said in March that direct peace talks with the DRC could only be held if the government acknowledges the rebels' grievances, as well as the principle that "anything regarding us which [is] done without us, it's against us". An M23 spokesperson, Oscar Balinda, echoed those sentiments to the Associated Press this week. Mr Nduhungirehe pointed to separate talks happening in Qatar that are meant to get both Congo and the M23 rebels to agree among themselves how they will end the fighting. He also said Rwanda had agreed to lift its "defensive measures", though it was not clear if he meant withdrawing troops that Rwanda has previously said were in Congo to defend its interests. The new deal is also at the heart of the US government's push to counter China in Africa. For many years, Chinese companies have been a key player in Congo's minerals sector. Chinese cobalt refineries, which account for a majority of the global supply, rely heavily on Congo. Rwanda has also been accused of exploiting eastern Congo's critical minerals, which are used in smartphones, advanced fighter jets and much more. Congo's foreign minister said the US had proven to be a "reliable partner" during the peace process, as well as during talks on other issues in the relationship between the two countries. "So there is no doubt in this moment, if you want, when it comes to the credibility of the US as a partner — be it for a peace process, where we have signed a very important agreement today, or for investment from the US," Ms Wagner said on Friday. However, analysts say the US government's commitment might depend on how much access it has to the minerals being discussed under separate negotiations between the American and Congolese governments. The mostly untapped minerals are estimated to be worth as much as $US24 trillion ($36.8 trillion) by the US Department of Commerce. Christian Moleka, a political scientist at the Congolese think tank Dypol, called the deal a "major turning point" but said it could "in no way eliminate all the issues of the conflict". "This seems like a trigger-happy proposition and cannot establish lasting peace without justice and reparation." In Congo's North Kivu province, the hardest-hit by the fighting, some believe that the peace deal will help resolve the violence — but warn justice must still be served for an enduring peace. "I don't think the Americans should be trusted 100 per cent," said Hope Muhinuka, an activist from the province. "It is up to us to capitalise on all we have now as an opportunity." ABC/AP
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Deadly strikes in Gaza as Trump flags possible truce
At least 34 people were killed across Gaza by Israeli strikes, health staff say, as Palestinians face a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and ceasefire prospects inch closer. The strikes began late on Friday and continued into Saturday morning, among others killing 12 people at the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, and eight more living in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital where the bodies were brought. Six others were killed in southern Gaza when a strike hit their tent in Muwasi, according to the hospital. The strikes come as US President Donald Trump says there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week. Taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office Friday, the president said, "We're working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of." Talks have been on again, off again since Israel broke the latest ceasefire in March, continuing its military campaign in Gaza and furthering the Strip's dire humanitarian crisis. Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, fewer than half of them believed to still be alive. They were part of some 250 hostages taken when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, sparking the 21-month-long war. The war has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. It says more than half of the dead were women and children. There is hope among hostage families that Trump's involvement in securing the recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran might exert more pressure for a deal in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is riding a wave of public support for the Iran war and its achievements, and he could feel he has more space to move towards ending the war in Gaza, something his far-right governing partners oppose. Hamas has repeatedly said it is prepared to free all hostages in exchange for an end to the war, while Netanyahu says he will end the war only when Hamas is disarmed and exiled, something the group has rejected. Hungry Palestinians are enduring a catastrophic situation in Gaza. After blocking all food for two-and-a-half months, Israel has allowed only a trickle of supplies into the territory since mid-May. Palestinians have been shot and wounded while on their way to get food at newly formed aid sites, run by the American and Israeli backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, according to Gaza's health officials and witnesses. Palestinian witnesses say Israeli troops have opened fire at crowds heading towards the sites. Israel's military said it was investigating incidents in which civilians had been harmed while approaching the sites. At least 34 people were killed across Gaza by Israeli strikes, health staff say, as Palestinians face a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and ceasefire prospects inch closer. The strikes began late on Friday and continued into Saturday morning, among others killing 12 people at the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, and eight more living in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital where the bodies were brought. Six others were killed in southern Gaza when a strike hit their tent in Muwasi, according to the hospital. The strikes come as US President Donald Trump says there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week. Taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office Friday, the president said, "We're working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of." Talks have been on again, off again since Israel broke the latest ceasefire in March, continuing its military campaign in Gaza and furthering the Strip's dire humanitarian crisis. Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, fewer than half of them believed to still be alive. They were part of some 250 hostages taken when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, sparking the 21-month-long war. The war has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. It says more than half of the dead were women and children. There is hope among hostage families that Trump's involvement in securing the recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran might exert more pressure for a deal in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is riding a wave of public support for the Iran war and its achievements, and he could feel he has more space to move towards ending the war in Gaza, something his far-right governing partners oppose. Hamas has repeatedly said it is prepared to free all hostages in exchange for an end to the war, while Netanyahu says he will end the war only when Hamas is disarmed and exiled, something the group has rejected. Hungry Palestinians are enduring a catastrophic situation in Gaza. After blocking all food for two-and-a-half months, Israel has allowed only a trickle of supplies into the territory since mid-May. Palestinians have been shot and wounded while on their way to get food at newly formed aid sites, run by the American and Israeli backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, according to Gaza's health officials and witnesses. Palestinian witnesses say Israeli troops have opened fire at crowds heading towards the sites. Israel's military said it was investigating incidents in which civilians had been harmed while approaching the sites. At least 34 people were killed across Gaza by Israeli strikes, health staff say, as Palestinians face a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and ceasefire prospects inch closer. The strikes began late on Friday and continued into Saturday morning, among others killing 12 people at the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, and eight more living in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital where the bodies were brought. Six others were killed in southern Gaza when a strike hit their tent in Muwasi, according to the hospital. The strikes come as US President Donald Trump says there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week. Taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office Friday, the president said, "We're working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of." Talks have been on again, off again since Israel broke the latest ceasefire in March, continuing its military campaign in Gaza and furthering the Strip's dire humanitarian crisis. Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, fewer than half of them believed to still be alive. They were part of some 250 hostages taken when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, sparking the 21-month-long war. The war has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. It says more than half of the dead were women and children. There is hope among hostage families that Trump's involvement in securing the recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran might exert more pressure for a deal in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is riding a wave of public support for the Iran war and its achievements, and he could feel he has more space to move towards ending the war in Gaza, something his far-right governing partners oppose. Hamas has repeatedly said it is prepared to free all hostages in exchange for an end to the war, while Netanyahu says he will end the war only when Hamas is disarmed and exiled, something the group has rejected. Hungry Palestinians are enduring a catastrophic situation in Gaza. After blocking all food for two-and-a-half months, Israel has allowed only a trickle of supplies into the territory since mid-May. Palestinians have been shot and wounded while on their way to get food at newly formed aid sites, run by the American and Israeli backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, according to Gaza's health officials and witnesses. Palestinian witnesses say Israeli troops have opened fire at crowds heading towards the sites. Israel's military said it was investigating incidents in which civilians had been harmed while approaching the sites. At least 34 people were killed across Gaza by Israeli strikes, health staff say, as Palestinians face a growing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and ceasefire prospects inch closer. The strikes began late on Friday and continued into Saturday morning, among others killing 12 people at the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, and eight more living in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital where the bodies were brought. Six others were killed in southern Gaza when a strike hit their tent in Muwasi, according to the hospital. The strikes come as US President Donald Trump says there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week. Taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office Friday, the president said, "We're working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of." Talks have been on again, off again since Israel broke the latest ceasefire in March, continuing its military campaign in Gaza and furthering the Strip's dire humanitarian crisis. Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, fewer than half of them believed to still be alive. They were part of some 250 hostages taken when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, sparking the 21-month-long war. The war has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. It says more than half of the dead were women and children. There is hope among hostage families that Trump's involvement in securing the recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran might exert more pressure for a deal in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is riding a wave of public support for the Iran war and its achievements, and he could feel he has more space to move towards ending the war in Gaza, something his far-right governing partners oppose. Hamas has repeatedly said it is prepared to free all hostages in exchange for an end to the war, while Netanyahu says he will end the war only when Hamas is disarmed and exiled, something the group has rejected. Hungry Palestinians are enduring a catastrophic situation in Gaza. After blocking all food for two-and-a-half months, Israel has allowed only a trickle of supplies into the territory since mid-May. Palestinians have been shot and wounded while on their way to get food at newly formed aid sites, run by the American and Israeli backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, according to Gaza's health officials and witnesses. Palestinian witnesses say Israeli troops have opened fire at crowds heading towards the sites. Israel's military said it was investigating incidents in which civilians had been harmed while approaching the sites.
News.com.au
5 hours ago
- News.com.au
Rwanda, DR Congo sign peace deal in US after rebel sweep
Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo signed a peace agreement Friday in Washington to end fighting that has killed thousands, with the two countries pledging to pull back support for guerrillas -- and President Donald Trump boasting of securing mineral wealth. "Today, the violence and destruction comes to an end, and the entire region begins a new chapter of hope and opportunity," Trump said as he welcomed the two nations' foreign ministers to the White House. "This is a wonderful day." The agreement comes after the M23, an ethnic Tutsi rebel force linked to Rwanda, sprinted across the mineral-rich east of the DRC this year, seizing vast territory including the key city of Goma. The deal -- negotiated through Qatar since before Trump took office -- does not explicitly address the gains of the M23 in the area torn by decades of on-off war but calls for Rwanda to end "defensive measures" it has taken. Rwanda has denied directly supporting the M23 but has demanded an end to another armed group, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), which was established by ethnic Hutus linked to the massacres of Tutsis in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. The agreement calls for the "neutralization" of the FDLR, with Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe saying the "irreversible and verifiable end to state support" to the Hutu militants should be the "first order of business." The process would be "accompanied by a lifting of Rwanda's defensive measures," Nduhungirehe said at a signing ceremony at the State Department. But he added: "We must acknowledge that there is a great deal of uncertainty in our region, and beyond, because many previous agreements have not been implemented." His Congolese counterpart, Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, highlighted the agreement's call for respecting state sovereignty. "It offers a rare chance to turn the page, not just with words but with real change on the ground. Some wounds will heal, but they will never fully disappear," she said. The agreement also sets up a joint security coordination body to monitor progress and calls vaguely for a "regional economic integration framework" within three months. - Trump takes credit - Trump has trumpeted the diplomacy that led to the deal, and started his White House event by bringing up a journalist who said he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Speaking to reporters earlier Friday, Trump said the United States will be able to secure "a lot of mineral rights from the Congo." The DRC has enormous mineral reserves that include lithium and cobalt, vital in electric vehicles and other advanced technologies, with US rival China now a key player in securing the resources. Trump said he had been unfamiliar with the conflict as he appeared to allude to the horrors of the 1994 Rwanda genocide, in which hundreds of thousands of people, mostly Tutsis, were killed in just 100 days. "I'm a little out of my league on that one because I didn't know too much about it. I knew one thing -- they were going at it for many years with machetes," Trump said. The agreement drew wide but not universal praise. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called the deal "a significant step towards de-escalation, peace and stability" in the eastern DRC and the Great Lakes region. "I urge the parties to honour in full the commitments they have undertaken in the Peace Agreement... including the cessation of hostilities and all other agreed measures," Guterres said in a statement. The landmark agreement was also praised by the chairman of the African Union Commission. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, who witnessed the signing of the deal in Washington, "welcomed this significant milestone and commended all efforts aimed at advancing peace, stability, & reconciliation in the region," a statement said. But Denis Mukwege, a gynecologist who shared the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end the DRC's epidemic of sexual violence in war, voiced alarm about the agreement, saying it effectively benefited Rwanda and the United States. The deal "would amount to granting a reward for aggression, legitimizing the plundering of Congolese natural resources, and forcing the victim to alienate their national heritage by sacrificing justice in order to ensure a precarious and fragile peace," he said in a statement ahead of the signing. Physicians for Human Rights, which has worked in the DRC, welcomed the de-escalation but said the agreement had "major omissions," including accountability for rights violations.
