Peru's Congress votes to oust the interior minister for failing to halt killings
Peru's Congress voted Friday to remove the interior minister from office after deciding that he had failed to adequately handle rising violent crime in the Andean country.
Interior Minister Juan José Santiváñez by law has 72 hours to leave his position after the no-confidence vote, which succeeded with 78 votes in favor, 11 against and 20 abstentions. Santiváñez insisted that he had worked hard alongside police during his 10 months in office, but that he would respect the lawmakers' decision.
Santiváñez must step down and take responsibility for his 'inability to address the wave of citizen insecurity the country is facing,' the Peruvian Congress said on its X account.
Public outrage has surged over an increase in killings and other violence, especially the killing Sunday of Paul Flores, the 39-year-old lead singer of the cumbia band Armonia 10. He was fatally shot when assailants attacked his band's tour bus after a concert in Lima.
In reaction to the Flores killing, President Dina Boluarte on Monday declared a state of emergency in the capital and ordered the deployment of soldiers to help police address the surge of violence. That same day, opposition lawmakers requested a vote of no confidence against the interior minister.
Boluarte's government previously had decreed a state of emergency from September to December in an attempt to stem the violence.
Authorities reported 2,057 killings in 2024, up from 1,506 in 2023.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
US Senate Republicans seek to limit judges' power via Trump's tax-cut bill
June 13 (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans have added language to President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that would restrict the ability of judges to block government policies they conclude are unlawful. Text of the Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's contribution to the bill, opens new tab released by its chair, Senator Chuck Grassley, late on Thursday would limit the ability of judges to issue preliminary injunctions blocking federal policies unless the party suing posts a bond to cover the government's costs if the ruling is later overturned. The bond requirement in the Senate's version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is different from the provision the Republican-controlled House of Representatives included when it passed the bill last month that would curb courts' power in a different way. The House version curtails the ability of judges to enforce orders holding officials in contempt if they violate injunctions. Judges use contempt orders to bring parties into compliance, usually by ratcheting up measures from fines to jail time. Some judges who have blocked Trump administration actions have said officials are at risk of being held in contempt for not complying with their orders. Congressional Republicans have called for banning or curtailing nationwide injunctions blocking government policies after key parts of Trump's agenda have been stymied by such court rulings. The House in April voted 219-213 along largely party lines in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act to do so, but the Senate has not yet taken up the measure. A White House memo in March directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post bonds if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. Such bonds can make obtaining an injunction a cost-prohibitive option in cases concerning multi-billion-dollar agenda items. Grassley's office said in a statement the language the Judiciary Committee proposed would ensure judges enforce an existing requirement that they make a party seeking a preliminary injunction provide a security bond to cover costs incurred by a defendant if a judge's ruling is later overturned. Judges rarely require such bonds when a lawsuit is not pitting two private parties against each other but instead challenging an alleged unlawful or unconstitutional government action. Several judges have denied the Trump administration's requests for bonds or issued nominal ones. Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, are using complex budget rules to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 votes needed to advance most legislation in the 100-seat chamber. The Senate Judiciary Committee's piece of the bill would also provide the judiciary funding to study the costs to taxpayers associated with such injunctions and provide training for judges about the problems associated with them. A spokesperson for Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, criticized the Republican-drafted legislative text, saying "Republicans are targeting nationwide injunctions because they're beholden to a president who is breaking the law — but the courts are not."
NBC News
6 hours ago
- NBC News
Four detainees at Newark ICE facility are missing, senior officials say
Four people detained at an immigration detention center in New Jersey have gone missing, according to two senior officials. The detainees were being held at the Delaney Hall facility in Newark, where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been holding individuals who are facing possible deportation. The four people were unaccounted for Thursday night, and federal authorities were looking into whether they were still on the grounds of the facility, or had somehow escaped, senior officials said. Chopper 4 was over the scene Thursday afternoon showing law enforcement and ICE agents canvassing the area. The wife of one detainee told NBC New York she rushed over to Delaney Hall after she got a call from her husband about a lockdown in his pod and a protest about inhumane conditions at the detention center. The wife of that detainee said she was worried about her husband's safety. A search was ongoing. Local and state authorities were notified of the missing detainees, and some additional resources were called in to assist with the situation, according to the senior officials. Delaney Hall made headlines in May after protests broke out at the 1,000-bed, privately owned facility. Democratic U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver was charged in a criminal complaint with two assault charges stemming from a May 9 visit to the center. She was indicted on Tuesday; The indictment includes three counts of assaulting, resisting, impeding and interfering with federal officials. By law, members of Congress are authorized to go into federal immigration facilities as part of their oversight powers, even without notice. Congress passed a 2019 appropriations bill that spelled out the authority. McIver said in a statement that she had 'serious concerns about the reports of abusive circumstances at the facility,' and that her office had reached out to ICE for answers. At the same visit that resulted in McIver's charges, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested on a trespassing charge, which was later dropped. Baraka later filed a lawsuit against acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba over what he said was a malicious prosecution. In a statement, Baraka expressed concern for what had transpired at Delaney Hall on Thursday, 'ranging from withholding food and poor treatment, to uprising and escaped detainees.' The mayor went on to say the situation 'lacks sufficient oversight of every basic detail — including local zoning laws and fundamental constitutional rights. This is why city officials and our congressional delegation need to be allowed entry to observe and monitor, any why private prisons pose a very real problem to our state and its must put an end to this chaos and not allow this operation to continue unchecked.'
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Democrats accuse acting head of US employment agency of failing to protect trans and nonbinary workers
Democrats are demanding the acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforce civil rights protections for transgender and nonbinary people. A letter to Andrea Lucas, a copy of which was viewed by the Guardian, alleges the agency has 'abdicated this responsibility under the law when it comes to transgender and nonbinary workers'. The letter cites shortly after Lucas' appointment as acting chair of the EEOC in January 2025, Lucas instructed the agency to halt the processing of claims related to gender identity discrimination, and that in April 2025 the agency instructed all employees to classify gender identity discrimination complaints as its lowest priority. 'A categorization reserved for meritless charges– which essentially puts the processing of such complaints in an indefinite hold,' the letter states. The letter also notes the EEOC moved to dismiss six cases the agency had previously pursued against employers accused of gender identity discrimination, including EEOC v Boxwood Hotels, a lawsuit where the employer is alleged to have fired a transgender employee after the employee's manager repeatedly misgendered the employee and referred to them as 'it'. Signers of the letter include 70 members of Congress, led by Congressman Mark Takano, Robert C 'Bobby' Scott and Suzanne Bonamici. The letter comes as state legislatures in the US introduced over 530 bills targeting LGBTQI+ people in 2024. The EEOC also removed the 'x' gender marker on intake forms, removed materials on rights and protections on gender identity discrimination, and issued a memorandum informing Fair Employment Practices Agencies that they will not receive credit for intakes or resolutions related to gender identity, the letter added. 'Alarmingly, in both the commission's filings in court and in your previous statements, you have invoked President Trump's sweeping executive order, which states it is the policy of the federal government to only recognize two sexes and seeks to have all agencies refuse to acknowledge the existence of transgender people,' the letter continued. 'The commission is supposed to be an independent agency, and as a commissioner and its acting chair, your job is to enforce the law. The supreme court's ruling in Bostock is the law of the land, and the commission's previous cases, including Macy v Holder, Jameson v US postal service and Lusardi v Department of the Army, are binding precedents on the agency. An executive order cannot overturn any of those precedents or the commission's obligations and responsibilities under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.'
