What to know about the trial of Brazil's former President Jair Bolsonaro
The case received renewed attention after President Donald Trump directly tied a 50% tariff on Brazilian imported goods to Bolsonaro's judicial situation, which Trump called a ' witch hunt .'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump visit will not put policing in ‘detrimental position', says Swinney
Policing in Scotland will not be 'put in a detrimental position' because of the cost of Donald Trump's visit, John Swinney has said. The US president is due to arrive in Scotland later this week and visit both his golf courses in the country, but concerns have been raised about the policing operation required. The last time Mr Trump visited Scotland – while he was no longer in office – substantial protests sprang up. He is expected to meet both Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Mr Swinney during his time in Scotland. All of Police Scotland's liaison officers are expected to be required to handle protests during the visit and mutual aid has been requested from other forces to help. Speaking to the PA news agency during a visit to Aberdeen, First Minister John Swinney said talks were still ongoing about how costs would be handled for the visit, but said that Scotland's police force would not suffer as a result. 'Police Scotland will obviously have to deal with the circumstances that they face in relation to the policing operation,' he said. 'They are seeking mutual aid because the scale of the operation that is required requires additional resources that couldn't ordinarily be justified in Scotland's circumstances. 'But obviously, we'll work with Police Scotland, with the Scottish Police Authority and with the United Kingdom Government on the costs.' Pushed on whether that funding would have to come from the already allocated policing budget, the First Minister said: 'We'll obviously work closely with Police Scotland on the funding of this policing operation and make sure that policing in Scotland is not in any way put in a detrimental position as a consequence of the visit of President Trump.' The First Minister's comments came as a senior police officer urged people planning to protest against Mr Trump's visit to follow the law. Speaking to journalists on Tuesday, Assistant Chief Constable Emma Bond encouraged protest groups to discuss their plans with police ahead of the visit. She said: 'As you can imagine, it is a large-scale, complex operation, but actually that's something that Police Scotland is immensely experienced at doing.' The policing plan involves local, national and specialist officers from Police Scotland as well as other forces. She said: 'The key very much is to make sure the President of the United States can come, enjoy a peaceful and safe visit to Scotland and ensure Police Scotland is able to maintain delivery of services to the rest of the community within Scotland over the period of his visit.' Police are working on the assumption there will be protests in Ayrshire, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh, she said. Ms Bond said Police Scotland would take a 'proportionate' approach to ensure people could protest safely, with the force offering to engage with demonstrators ahead of time on a 'no surprises' basis. But she said there was nothing at this stage to give her 'specific concern' about violence. Speaking to PA, she also said that concerns raised by the Scottish Police Federation were 'being resolved'. The organisation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said workforce agreements around health and safety may be breached. Asked for her message to those considering disruptive protest, she said: 'Police Scotland fully recognises people's right to peaceful protest… 'We would wish to make sure we can balance those rights against the impact on communities, on public safety. 'I would appeal to people obviously to stay within the bounds of peaceful protest. 'I'd be really clear however that abusive, threatening behaviour, any activity that's intended to disrupt events or in any way that poses a risk to public safety is not legitimate protest and will potentially require an intervention by policing.'
Chicago Tribune
17 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Trump's Labor Department proposes more than 60 rule changes in a push to deregulate workplaces
NEW YORK — The U.S. Department of Labor is aiming to rewrite or repeal more than 60 'obsolete' workplace regulations, ranging from minimum wage requirements for home health care workers and people with disabilities to standards governing exposure to harmful substances. If approved, the wide-ranging changes unveiled this month also would affect working conditions at constructions sites and in mines, and limit the government's ability to penalize employers if workers are injured or killed while engaging in inherently risky activities such as movie stunts or animal training. The Labor Department says the goal is to reduce costly, burdensome rules imposed under previous administrations, and to deliver on President Donald Trump's commitment to restore American prosperity through deregulation. 'The Department of Labor is proud to lead the way by eliminating unnecessary regulations that stifle growth and limit opportunity,' Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer said in a statement, which boasted the 'most ambitious proposal to slash red tape of any department across the federal government.' Critics say the proposals would put workers at greater risk of harm, with women and members of minority groups bearing a disproportionate impact. 'People are at very great risk of dying on the job already,' Rebecca Reindel, the AFL-CIO union's occupational safety and health director, said. 'This is something that is only going to make the problem worse.' The proposed changes have several stages to get through before they can take effect, including a public comment period for each one. Here's a look at some of the rollbacks under consideration: Home health care workers help elderly or medically fragile people by preparing meals, administering medications, assisting with toilet use, accompanying clients to doctor appointments and performing other tasks. Under one of the Labor Department's proposals, an estimated 3.7 million workers employed by home care agencies could be paid below the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 per hour — and made ineligible for overtime pay if they aren't covered by corresponding state laws. The proposed rule would reverse changes made in 2013 under former President Barack Obama and revert to a regulatory framework from 1975. The Labor Department says that by lowering labor and compliance costs, its revisions might expand the home care market and help keep frail individuals in their homes for longer. Judy Conti, director of government affairs at the National Employment Law Project, said her organization plans to work hard to defeat the proposal. Home health workers are subject to injuries from lifting clients, and 'before those (2013) regulations, it was very common for home care workers to work 50, 60 and maybe even more hours a week, without getting any overtime pay,' Conti said. Others endorse the proposal, including the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative nonprofit based in Virginia. Women often bear the brunt of family caregiving responsibilities, so making home care more affordable would help women balance work and personal responsibilities, the group's president, Carrie Lukas, said. 'We're pleased to see the Trump administration moving forward on rolling back some of what we saw as counterproductive micromanaging of relationships that were making it hard for people to get the care they need,' Lukas said. Samantha Sanders, director of government affairs and advocacy at the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute, said the repeal would not constitute a win for women. 'Saying we actually don't think they need those protections would be pretty devastating to a workforce that performs really essential work and is very heavily dominated by women, and women of color in particular,' Sanders said. Last year, the Labor Department finalized rules that provided protections to migrant farmworkers who held H-2A visas. The current administration says most of those rules placed unnecessary and costly requirements on employers. Under the new proposal, the Labor Department would rescind a requirement for most employer-provided transportation to have seat belts for those agriculture workers. The department is also proposing to reverse a 2024 rule that protected migrant farmworkers from retaliation for activities such as filing a complaint, testifying or participating in an investigation, hearing or proceeding. 'There's a long history of retaliation against workers who speak up against abuses in farm work. And with H-2A it's even worse because the employer can just not renew your visa,' said Lori Johnson, senior attorney at Farmworker Justice. Michael Marsh, president and CEO of the National Council of Agricultural Employers, applauded the deregulation efforts, saying farmers were hit with thousands of pages of regulations pertaining to migrant farmworkers in recent years. 'Can you imagine a farmer and his or her spouse trying to navigate 3,000 new pages of regulation in 18 months and then be liable for every one of them?' he asked. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, part of the Labor Department, wants to rescind a requirement for employers to provide adequate lighting at construction sites, saying the regulation doesn't substantially reduce a significant risk. OSHA said if employers fail to correct lighting deficiencies at construction worksites, the agency can issue citations under its 'general duty clause.' The clause requires employers to provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards which are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. Worker advocates think getting rid of a specific construction site requirement is a bad idea. 'There have been many fatalities where workers fall through a hole in the floor, where there's not adequate lighting,' Reindel said. 'It's a very obvious thing that employers should address, but unfortunately it's one of those things where we need a standard, and it's violated all the time.' Several proposals could impact safety procedures for mines. For example, employers have to submit plans for ventilation and preventing roof collapses in coal mines for review by the Labor Department's Mine Safety and Health Administration. Currently, MSHA district managers can require mine operators to take additional steps to improve those plans. The Labor Department wants to end that authority, saying the current regulations give the district manager the ability to draft and create laws without soliciting comments or action by Congress. Similarly, the department is proposing to strip district managers of their ability to require changes to mine health and safety training programs. The general duty clause allows OSHA to punish employers for unsafe working conditions when there's no specific standard in place to cover a situation. An OSHA proposal would exclude the agency from applying the clause to prohibit, restrict or penalize employers for 'inherently risky professional activities that are intrinsic to professional, athletic, or entertainment occupations.' A preliminary analysis identified athletes, actors, dancers, musicians, other entertainers and journalists as among the types of workers the limitation would apply to. 'It is simply not plausible to assert that Congress, when passing the Occupational Safety and Health Act, silently intended to authorize the Department of Labor to eliminate familiar sports and entertainment practices, such as punt returns in the NFL, speeding in NASCAR, or the whale show at SeaWorld,' the proposed rule reads. Debbie Berkowitz, who served as OSHA chief of staff during the Obama administration, said she thinks limiting the agency's enforcement authority would be a mistake. 'Once you start taking that threat away, you could return to where they'll throw safety to the wind, because there are other production pressures they have,' Berkowitz said.
Newsweek
17 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Nearly Half a Million Student Loan Repayment Plans at Risk: Report
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Department of Education plans to deny 460,000 federal student loan borrowers from accessing lower repayment plans, according to a Politico report citing internal department documents. The affected students had selected the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan, a Biden-era policy that generally came with the lowest monthly payments and which the Education Department functionally abolished earlier this month. Newsweek has contacted the Department of Education for comment outside regular hours. Why It Matters The amendments to the SAVE Plan and the decision to deny lower-income students access is in line with the steps taken by President Donald Trump's administration to phase out educational policies and financial support systems enacted under his predecessor. While the Education Department has said it will support students transitioning to alternative plans, experts have said this could result in hundreds of dollars being tacked onto their monthly payments. What Was the SAVE Plan? The SAVE Plan was introduced in 2023, replacing the Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) Program. Intended as a more generous income-driven option, undergraduates enrolled in the plan had payments capped at 5 percent of their discretionary income, rising to 10 percent for graduate borrowers, per Politico. According to the Department of Education, there are almost 7.7 million borrowers enrolled in SAVE. Amid a string of legal disputes and a court injunction blocking elements of SAVE in June 2024, enrollees have been in legal limbo and their loans placed in general forbearance with a zero percent interest rate since then. What To Know In early July, the Education Department announced that it would recommence interest accrual on loans in the "illegal" SAVE Plan. The change is set to take effect on August 1. An Education Department spokesperson told Politico that the reason for the 460,000 applications being denied was because loan servicers were now unable to process these "as SAVE is no longer an option, as it is illegal." In the place of SAVE, the department is rolling out two alternatives as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a budget package that Trump signed into law on July 4. These include a revised 10-year standard repayment plan and a new Repayment Assistance Plan. Education Secretary Linda McMahon testifies before the Senate Appropriations Committee's Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on June 3. Education Secretary Linda McMahon testifies before the Senate Appropriations Committee's Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on June its early July news release, the Education Department said it would "support borrowers in selecting a new, legal repayment plan that best fits their needs and helps them get on a sustainable financial path while protecting American taxpayers." The department has also begun outreach to the almost 8 million borrowers enrolled in SAVE, advising them on how to switch to a new plan. However, the new plans are "generally less generous than SAVE, requiring borrowers to pay more," according to Robert Kelchen, the head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. According to the Student Borrower Protection Center, the decision to resume interest payments on SAVE debts could also force borrowers to pay more than $3,500 annually, or $300 per month, in additional fees. What People Are Saying Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a news release on July 9: "Since day one of the Trump Administration, we've focused on strengthening the student loan portfolio and simplifying repayment to better serve borrowers. As part of this effort, the Department urges all borrowers in the SAVE Plan to quickly transition to a legally compliant repayment plan—such as the Income-Based Repayment Plan. Borrowers in SAVE cannot access important loan benefits and cannot make progress toward loan discharge programs authorized by Congress." Robert Kelchen, the head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, told Newsweek: "The Department of Education fundamentally disagrees with the SAVE Plan and wants to quickly move to the new repayment options passed in the recent budget reconciliation bill. The fate of the 460,000 borrowers currently in SAVE will likely end up in court again, and the Trump administration will likely win based on other recent Supreme Court decisions in favor of [the Education Department]." What Happens Next The department has said interest will not be added retroactively to those previously enrolled on the SAVE Plan. It has urged borrowers to visit the government's Loan Simulator to assess monthly repayment options.
