Conservative Karol Nawrocki wins Poland's presidential election
Conservative Karol Nawrocki has won Poland's weekend presidential runoff election, according to the final vote count.
Mr Nawrocki won 50.89% of the votes in a very tight race against liberal Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, who received 49.11%.
The close race had the country on edge since a first-round two weeks earlier and through the night into Monday, revealing deep divisions in the country along the eastern flank of NATO and the European Union.
An early exit poll released on Sunday evening suggested Mr Trzaskowski was headed to victory before updated polling began to reverse the picture hours later.
The outcome indicates that Poland can be expected to take a more nationalist path under its new leader, who was backed by US President Donald Trump.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
US proposes interim step in Iran nuclear talks allowing some enrichment
Advertisement The outline of the potential deal, which was described on the condition of anonymity by Iranian and European officials, was handed to Iran over the weekend. Officials in Tehran indicated Monday that a response would come in several days. It is the first concrete indication since President Donald Trump took office that the United States and Iran might be able to find a path to compromise that would head off a potential regional war over Tehran's ambitions to build a nuclear weapon. But the details remain vague, the two sides remain far apart on many elements of a deal, and the domestic politics for both are complex. In his first term, Trump canceled an agreement negotiated under President Barack Obama that had similarly sought to keep Iran from being able to produce a nuclear bomb. Advertisement At least in the opening years of the proposed arrangement, when new enrichment facilities to produce fuel for power plants are being built in cooperation with Arab states, Iran would be allowed to continue enriching uranium at low levels, despite Trump's post on social media Monday saying the United States would 'not allow any enrichment of uranium.' (It is possible that he was referring to what would be allowed at the concluding stage of the potential deal rather than during an interim arrangement.) The idea of a regional consortium would essentially wrap Iran in a bearhug with countries that might include the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and others, allowing the production of low-grade nuclear fuel for power plants while seeking to ensure that Iran is not enriching fuel on its own for a bomb. But one key unresolved question is whether Iran's leadership will agree to an ultimate arrangement in which no nuclear fuel is produced on Iranian soil. 'We do not need anyone's permission to enrich uranium,' Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Tuesday. Israel has also been deeply skeptical of any deal that would leave Iran with nuclear capabilities. It has repeatedly suggested that now is the time for a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, citing Tehran's degraded air defense systems and the weakness of its regional allies Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran, however, still possesses a formidable arsenal of conventional weapons, including ballistic missiles, capable of threatening Israel, Gulf neighbors and U.S. bases in the region. Iranian officials have warned that in the event of a military strike on their nuclear facilities, they would respond forcefully, exit the nonproliferation agreement and end international inspectors' access to sites. Advertisement The wording of the new proposal, crafted by Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, is vaguely worded on many of the most important issues, suggesting that considerable negotiating lies ahead, Iranian and European officials said. For example, it is unclear that the accord meets the standard Trump said last week that he would demand, an agreement in which 'we can take whatever we want; we can blow up whatever we want.' Senior Iranian officials involved in the negotiations called the bombastic statement 'a fantasy.' Araghchi said Monday at the sideline of meetings in Egypt with officials that Iran would 'soon send America an appropriate response. Without respecting our right to enrich uranium, there will be no agreement.' He added that he was confident of a diplomatic breakthrough to avert further crises. The Trump administration's proposal, according to two Iranian officials, leaves unclear exactly what would be required in dismantling the country's nuclear program. Iran has invested billions of dollars in building its two main nuclear facilities, Natanz and Fordo, and in developing its advanced nuclear program, which it considers a source of national pride. Shuttering the facilities would be humiliating and difficult to justify, according to an Iranian official familiar with the internal deliberations. These facilities also employ hundreds of scientists, some of the country's most talented, and the government worries that many of the top ones may leave Iran if they are unemployed and waiting for the new consortium to take shape, an Iranian official said. Over the years, Israel has targeted and assassinated a number of leading nuclear scientists, including Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. The proposal did not specify which of the hundreds of sanctions against Iran would be removed in any final deal. Iran has told the United States that all sanctions would need to be removed in order to sign a deal -- not just those related to its nuclear program. Advertisement Iranian officials said they would not take any measures curbing their program without parallel sanctions relief, particularly diluting or exporting the huge stockpile of enriched uranium that the United Nations' atomic watchdog says would allow them to build 10 bombs if they chose to weaponize. While the outcome of the negotiation remains unclear, Witkoff's strategy is beginning to emerge. The consortium he proposed would provide nuclear fuel for Iran and any of its neighbors interested in developing civilian nuclear power or research programs. The many players would watch one another -- and they would be watched by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. group that monitors nuclear fuel around the world and is supposed to send alarms if it believes the fuel is being diverted to a weapons program. But the proposal does not make clear exactly where the enrichment facility would be located, though the U.S. has said it cannot be in Iran. Iranian officials continue to insist it must be in their territory, because they would not give up their right to enrich nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran is a signatory to the treaty, though so far it has not ratified an addendum, called the Additional Protocol, that would give inspectors much greater rights to search any part of the country where they suspect nuclear activity. Although it was not noted in the U.S. proposal, Omani and Saudi officials have discussed the idea of building an enrichment facility on an island in the Persian Gulf. This would potentially give both sides a talking point: The Iranians would be able to say they are still enriching uranium, and the Americans could state that enrichment is not happening on Iranian soil. Advertisement Two Iranian officials said the country was open to accepting the consortium idea because the government did not want talks to fail. But the Iranian officials said negotiators planned to bargain in the next round of talks for the island to be one of their own: They may propose Kish or Qeshm in the Persian Gulf, though other possibilities have been discussed. Iran claims these territories and would most likely argue that this would allow it to keep enrichment on its soil. But it would also make a facility much more visible to the world than Iran's current enrichment facilities, which are underground, and in one case deep inside a mountain to protect against Israeli attack. This article originally appeared in
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
This is Medicare fraud capital. Why would Trump give a pass to healthcare exec?
A Miami man whose sentence President Donald Trump commuted this week was accused of helping orchestrate the nation's largest mental healthcare racket before he pleaded guilty to a series of charges in 2011, the Herald reported at the time. Among those charges were defrauding Medicare, healthcare fraud and money laundering. In South Florida, which carries the disgraceful moniker of America's healthcare fraud capital, holding perpetrators accountable matters. In an administration obsessed with slashing spending and poised to cut food stamps and Medicaid, Trump should have taken the sheer cost of fraud to taxpayers into account. In 2016, Lawrence Duran — the former co-owner of American Therapeutic Corp., a Miami-based company that ran seven healthcare clinics between South Florida and Orlando — received the longest sentence ever given at the time, 50 years, for Medicare fraud. He and his girlfriend, Marianella Valera, who was released from prison in March 2020, filed 866,000 false claims with Medicare and received more than $87 million, according to court records reviewed by the Herald. Their case was part of a bigger probe into a scheme involving $200 million in false billings, an amount Trump's DOGE would have bragged about cutting if it meant eliminating foreign aid or the jobs of federal workers. In all, South Florida was responsible for $308 million, or 20%, of the $1.4 billion in false healthcare claims nationwide in 2021, ranking the region No. 1 in healthcare fraud. These words by then-Acting U.S. Attorney Tony Gonzalez need attention four years later: '... We are clearly one of the most aggressive offices going after fraudsters. Indeed we are super aggressive in going after all types of healthcare fraud.' Unfortunately, aggressive prosecution of such cases can be a waste when the president can give sentenced perpetrators a pass. It's unclear why Trump commuted Duran's sentence, but he was among dozens who received clemency this week. Others include political allies and Trump supporters, a former Chicago gang leader and a former New York representative who pleaded guilty to felony tax evasion in 2014. For example, the daughter of reality TV stars Julie and Todd Chrisley, who received a presidential pardon after their conviction for evading taxes and defrauding banks, is a Trump supporter. In many cases, it seems Trump's criteria for presidential clemency include how much those under consideration embrace the MAGA label. As Ed Martin, a Trump advisor who led clemency efforts, wrote on social media on Monday: 'No MAGA left behind.' Let's not forget that among those Trump is not leaving behind are the more than 1,500 people pardoned after being convicted for their involvement in the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, including former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio from Miami. During Trump's first term, he also commuted the 35-year sentence of Judith Negron, whom a jury convicted in 2011 on 24 counts of conspiracy, fraud, paying kickbacks and money laundering in collaboration with Duran and Valera. Negro was vice president of a company prosecutors say was created to launder $83 million in Medicare payments to Duran, Valera and others. The couple lived in a Miami bayfront condo and drove a Maserati, the Herald reported. Meanwhile, the scheme prosecutors accused them of orchestrating involved billing Medicare for group mental-health sessions that were not needed or were not provided to patients at their clinics. Those patients were not capable of feeding themselves, much less attending therapy group sessions. Medicare fraud costs taxpayers a lot of money, both from the fraudulent payments made to providers and for the cost of paying prosecutors and court expenses to bring these cases to justice. Presidential clemency in this case sends the wrong message. Click here to send the letter.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump to attend NATO summit in The Hague
US President Donald Trump will attend a NATO summit in The Hague later in June where his demands to ramp up defense spending will dominate the agenda, the White House said Tuesday. Trump has long criticized NATO partners for not paying their fair share and had not previously confirmed he would attend the meeting, his first with the transatlantic alliance since his return to power. "I can confirm he will be going to the NATO summit, yes," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a briefing when asked by AFP if Trump would attend. Ukraine's war with Russia will also be on the agenda, with President Volodymyr Zelensky confirming on Tuesday that his country has been invited. Zelensky and Trump had a major Oval Office row in February. Republican Trump threatened to withdraw altogether from NATO during his first term, and has since threatened to defend only those allies that he thinks are spending enough on defense. His administration has also raised the prospect that it could look to shift forces away from Europe to focus on threats elsewhere like China -- while causing tensions with allies Canada and Denmark by threatening their territory. His core demand is for NATO members to spend five percent of GDP on defense, claiming that Washington is bearing most of the burden for their defense. None of NATO's 32 members -- including the United States -- currently hit that level. To make him happy, alliance chief and former Dutch premier Mark Rutte has floated a proposal for 3.5 percent of GDP on direct defense spending by 2032, and 1.5 percent of broader security-related expenditures. Such a deal could let Trump claim a win by reaching his headline figure even if not all of it is new spending. Rutte's compromise deal received backing from heavyweights Germany and France in May, boosting its chances of going through. dk/md
