Costa Rica’s Rebeca Grynspan remained the leading contender, receiving nine “encourage” votes and five “discourage” votes, according to Reuters. Two of the five negative votes came from permanent members, which hold veto power in the formal selection process.

Guyana’s Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett and Argentina’s Rafael Grossi were also among the leading candidates. Both received two “discourage” votes from permanent members, according to the Associated Press, which cited diplomats familiar with the confidential poll.

The results indicate that no candidate has yet overcome the opposition needed to secure a formal Security Council recommendation. However, the straw poll did not formally reject any candidate, and the selection process remains open.

Grynspan leads, but opposition persists

Grynspan, a former vice president of Costa Rica who leads the UN Conference on Trade and Development, received nine “encourage” votes, five “discourage” votes and one “no opinion” vote in the sixth poll, Reuters reported. Two of the five opposing votes came from permanent members.

Rodrigues Birkett, Guyana’s ambassador to the United Nations, received eight “encourage” votes, six “discourage” votes and one “no opinion” vote. Two of her opposing votes came from permanent members, according to Reuters.

Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, also faced opposition from two permanent members, according to AP. The reported results do not establish which governments cast the individual ballots.

The remaining candidates received less support in the latest reported poll. AP reported that former Ecuadorian foreign minister María Fernanda Espinosa and former Ecuadorian ambassador Ivonne A-Baki were at the bottom of the results. Former UN diplomat Olara Otunnu of Uganda and former Senegalese president Macky Sall each received 10 “discourage” votes.

These results measure members’ views during an informal process. They do not amount to formal decisions on the candidates’ eligibility or nominations.

Why the five permanent members matter

The Security Council has 15 members. Five hold permanent seats: the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France. The other 10 members are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms.

The permanent members have a decisive role in recommending a secretary-general. Under the Council’s voting rules, a substantive decision requires at least nine affirmative votes and must not be blocked by a negative vote from any permanent member. A permanent member’s veto can therefore prevent the Council from recommending a candidate, even if that candidate has broad support among other members.

The October 16 poll used color-coded ballots to distinguish votes from permanent members from those cast by elected members. This made it easier to identify whether a candidate faced potential opposition from a government with veto power.

But a “discourage” vote in a straw poll is not a formal veto. The poll is informal and confidential. Members can change their positions in later consultations or votes, and the reported results do not identify which permanent member opposed a particular candidate.

The ballots therefore provide an indication of political obstacles, not a final decision.

Seven candidates remain in the field

The UN’s official selection page lists seven active candidates in the current race. They are:

• Ivonne A-Baki — Ecuador, nominated by Tonga.
• María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés — Ecuador, nominated by Antigua and Barbuda.
• Rafael Mariano Grossi — Argentina, nominated by Argentina.
• Rebeca Grynspan Mayufis — Costa Rica, nominated by Costa Rica.
• Olara Otunnu — Uganda, nominated by Uganda.
• Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett — Guyana, nominated by Guyana.
• Macky Sall — Senegal, nominated by Burundi.

The list reflects candidates’ nationalities and their nominating states, which are not always the same. The UN page also records the withdrawal of Michelle Bachelet’s nomination and the withdrawal of Virginia Gamba’s candidacy.

The seven candidates have presented their qualifications and views through the UN’s candidate dialogue process. The field could still change if a candidate withdraws or a member state submits a new nomination.

The sixth poll has not established a clear path to a recommendation. AP reported that US and Russian representatives left open the possibility of additional candidates joining the race.

UN Appointment Process

How the secretary-general is selected

The selection follows Article 97 of the UN Charter: the General Assembly appoints the secretary-general on the recommendation of the Security Council.

The informal straw polls help Council members assess candidates before a formal recommendation. They are not the appointment vote itself, and they do not replace the required Council decision.

For the formal recommendation, the Security Council must obtain at least nine affirmative votes and avoid a veto by any of its five permanent members. If the Council agrees on a candidate, it recommends that person to the General Assembly, which then makes the appointment.

The distinction matters because a candidate may lead the informal polls without securing the support required for the formal recommendation. Conversely, opposition shown in an informal poll does not permanently disqualify a candidate.

Regional representation and the question of gender

The current contest has renewed discussion about regional representation and the possibility of appointing the first woman to lead the United Nations.

The secretary-general position has traditionally followed an informal regional-rotation practice. Latin America and the Caribbean are widely considered to be next in line, although this is a convention rather than a binding rule. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States called on the Council and General Assembly to give due consideration to a candidate from the region.

There is also public and diplomatic interest in selecting a woman. No woman has held the secretary-general position in the UN’s more than 80-year history. However, neither regional rotation nor gender determines the formal outcome. Member states must still reach agreement through the established process.

The current results also show why those considerations do not settle the contest. The leading candidates have encountered opposition from permanent members, while the poll results do not reveal a single candidate with an unchallenged path forward.

What happens next

As of October 20, the October 16 straw poll remained the latest publicly reported vote identified in the sources reviewed for this article. The Associated Press reported that another poll using color-coded ballots was expected the following week. That was a reported expectation, not confirmation that a seventh poll had already taken place.

Further informal polls or diplomatic consultations could change the candidates’ positions. Governments could also nominate new candidates, while existing contenders could withdraw. The next decisive step will be a formal Security Council recommendation.

The timetable is under pressure because Guterres’ term ends on December 31, 2026. The UN’s official selection process is intended to identify a successor, but the Council’s ability to reach agreement will determine when it can submit a recommendation to the General Assembly.

The immediate challenge is therefore not simply choosing the candidate with the most encouragement votes. Council members must find someone who can secure the required support without a permanent member blocking the formal recommendation. Until that happens, the race remains open.

Journos News reporting based on the United Nations’ official selection and appointment documentation, Security Council Report’s coverage of the straw-poll process, and reporting by Reuters and the Associated Press on the October 16 results. Individual ballots were confidential, and no independent access to the Council’s internal voting records was available.

The post UN Secretary-General Race Remains Deadlocked as All Seven Candidates Face Opposition appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The White House formally listed Richard Schroyer’s nomination among those withdrawn from Senate consideration on Sept. 17. The notice did not provide a reason for the withdrawal.

Schroyer had been nominated in June to lead ICE, the agency responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws within the United States. He was serving as a senior adviser to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin when Trump selected him for the position.

The withdrawal leaves ICE without a Senate-confirmed director and returns the agency to acting leadership under David Venturella. ICE has not had a Senate-confirmed director since 2017.

Nomination ends before Senate hearing

Schroyer’s nomination had been sent to the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in July. The committee’s public nominations record lists Richard Schroyer as a nominee for assistant secretary of Homeland Security, the formal title under which the ICE director nomination was submitted.

A confirmation hearing had not taken place before the White House withdrew the nomination.

Sen. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican who chairs the committee, had said he wanted information from the Department of Homeland Security concerning investigations into fatal shootings involving federal immigration agents before moving ahead with the nomination. Paul told The Associated Press that his concern was obtaining an update on those investigations, rather than opposition to Schroyer personally.

Paul said he had intended to hold a hearing but learned that the nomination had been withdrawn when the White House announced the decision.

Schroyer’s background

Schroyer is a former Oklahoma Highway Patrol major and Marine who worked closely with Mullin before joining the Department of Homeland Security as a senior adviser.

During his time with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, Schroyer was involved in the state’s cooperation with ICE through the federal 287(g) program, which allows participating state and local law-enforcement officers to perform certain immigration-enforcement functions under federal authority. He was also deputized to make immigration arrests after completing federal training.

When Trump announced the nomination in June, he described Schroyer as an experienced law-enforcement officer and called for the Senate to confirm him. Mullin also publicly supported the nomination.

Schroyer did not previously serve as the director of ICE or as the head of a large federal law-enforcement agency. That background became part of the discussion surrounding his nomination.

ICE remains under acting leadership

The withdrawal means ICE will continue operating without a Senate-confirmed director.

David Venturella, a former executive at private prison operator GEO Group and a longtime immigration official, is serving as acting director after Todd Lyons left the position earlier this year.

The absence of a confirmed director is not new for ICE. The agency’s last Senate-confirmed director was Sarah Saldaña, who left the position in 2017. Since then, the agency has been led by acting directors.

The Trump administration has not announced a replacement nominee.

Withdrawal comes during expanded enforcement

The nomination was withdrawn as ICE has expanded its immigration-enforcement operations under Trump’s second administration.

ICE arrests reached nearly 51,000 in August, according to figures reported by the Associated Press, the highest monthly total during Trump’s second term. The agency has also faced scrutiny over recruitment, training and enforcement operations.

The administration has made immigration enforcement a central part of its domestic policy agenda, while congressional lawmakers have continued to debate the agency’s operations and oversight.

The White House’s decision does not change ICE’s statutory responsibilities or the agency’s existing enforcement authority. It removes the current nominee from the confirmation process and leaves the administration to determine its next choice for permanent leadership.

No replacement announced

The White House’s withdrawal notice provided no explanation for the decision and did not identify another nominee for the position.

The immediate consequence is that Venturella remains in charge on an acting basis while the administration considers another candidate.

The next nomination will have to go through the Senate confirmation process, including consideration by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, before a permanent ICE director can take office.

Reporting Credit: The White House — formal withdrawal of Richard Schroyer’s nomination; U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs — nomination status and committee record; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — agency leadership and operational information; Department of Homeland Security — Schroyer’s federal immigration-enforcement background.

The post Trump Withdraws Lance Schroyer Nomination to Lead Immigration Enforcement Agency appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The Board of Trustees voted Tuesday to shut the performing arts center for up to two years, citing safety concerns and the need for extensive reconstruction. The decision came only hours after U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that the board’s latest effort to honor Trump violated an existing court order and federal law.

The developments have placed the future of one of Washington’s most prominent cultural institutions at the intersection of a renovation project, a naming dispute and an ongoing court battle.

Judge says board cannot change the center’s name

Cooper’s ruling prevents the Kennedy Center board from adding Trump’s name to the building’s exterior or renaming the plaza surrounding the complex.

The board had approved language that would have described the facility as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts “Restored and Renovated By President Donald J. Trump.” It also proposed naming the plaza after Trump.

The judge said the board could not make those changes without congressional approval. He relied on an earlier ruling that found the center’s legal name could not be changed by the trustees alone.

Cooper also rejected the board’s argument that recognizing Trump was necessary to secure funding for the center’s renovation. The court noted that Congress had already appropriated $257 million for the project.

Kennedy Center closes for renovation

The board subsequently voted to close the main building immediately.

The planned renovation is expected to last about two years. The project is intended to address significant structural and facility problems, including damage that officials say has made continued occupancy unsafe.

The center’s leadership has said the building requires major work. Administration officials have also pointed to deteriorating conditions as justification for the closure.

The timing has become part of the dispute. Critics of the board’s decision have challenged whether the safety evidence supports an immediate shutdown, while Kennedy Center officials say the closure is necessary to protect people inside the building.

Renovation funding remains contested

The center’s renovation has an established federal funding component, but Trump and his allies have argued that private fundraising is also essential to the institution’s future.

Trump has said the renovation cannot proceed unless the courts allow his name to be placed on the building. In a statement following the court ruling, he said the closure could begin but that reconstruction and renovation would not proceed while the naming dispute remained unresolved.

The judge disputed the suggestion that Trump’s name was necessary for the center’s financial survival. Cooper noted that the federal government had already committed hundreds of millions of dollars to the renovation.

The board’s position and the court’s assessment therefore differ on whether recognition of Trump is materially connected to the center’s ability to fund the work.

Legal fight is not over

The ruling does not end the broader dispute.

The Trump administration and Kennedy Center board can continue to challenge the decision through the appeals process. The D.C. Circuit has already been involved in earlier litigation over Trump’s name and the center’s governance.

The immediate consequence, however, is clear: the center’s main building is closed while the legal dispute over its naming and the proposed renovation continues.

Programming may continue at other Kennedy Center facilities and off-site locations, but the closure removes the institution’s principal building from normal operations during the planned reconstruction period.

For now, the renovation itself remains tied to a separate question from the court’s naming ruling: whether the center can proceed with the work under the terms set by its board and whether the administration will continue to condition the project on Trump’s recognition.

Reporting Credit: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — Judge Christopher Cooper’s rulings concerning the Kennedy Center’s name and the board’s authority; John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts — board decisions concerning closure, safety and renovation; U.S. Congress — statutory designation and federal appropriation for the Kennedy Center.

The post Kennedy Center to Close as Judge Blocks Trump Name From Building appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced the appointments Sept. 8, describing them as part of an effort to strengthen FDA leadership and advance the Trump administration’s priorities for regulatory reform, innovation and public health.

The appointments place Michael Davis at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Karim Mikhail at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Bret Koplow at the Center for Tobacco Products and Jared Seehafer in the newly created technology and artificial intelligence position.

Four positions receive permanent leadership

Davis, a physician and scientist, has been serving as acting director of CDER and previously held the center’s deputy director position. HHS said he will oversee the FDA division responsible for regulating prescription and over-the-counter drugs.

The department said Davis will focus on expanding access to critical medicines, advancing drug-development science and strengthening domestic and global drug supply chains.

Mikhail will permanently lead CBER after serving as its acting director. The center regulates biological products including vaccines, blood and blood products, and cellular and gene therapies.

According to HHS, Mikhail’s priorities will include modernizing regulatory frameworks, accelerating clinical development and strengthening vaccine safety surveillance.

Koplow, who has also been serving in an acting capacity, will become director of the Center for Tobacco Products. HHS said he has held senior legal, policy and leadership positions at the FDA since joining the agency in 2011.

His responsibilities will include regulating tobacco and nicotine products while addressing both access to less harmful alternatives for adult smokers and risks to young people.

FDA creates new technology and AI post

Seehafer will become the FDA’s first deputy commissioner for technology and artificial intelligence.

HHS said the new position will give Seehafer responsibility for the agency’s technology, software and AI strategy. The role is intended to support modernization of federal technology and the development of a regulatory framework for emerging technologies.

The appointment gives AI a dedicated senior leadership position within an agency that regulates products increasingly connected to digital technologies and software.

Appointments come after leadership upheaval

The permanent selections come after a period of significant turnover at the FDA.

The agency’s current leadership profile lists Kyle Diamantas as acting commissioner, while the principal deputy commissioner position is vacant.

The FDA also lost its previous commissioner, Martin Makary, who served from April 2025 until May 2026, according to the agency’s official leadership record.

The new appointments therefore give permanent leadership to three of the FDA’s major regulatory centers while leaving the agency’s top commissioner position under acting leadership.

Leadership changes could shape regulatory policy

The four appointments cover areas with major consequences for pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology firms, tobacco manufacturers and technology developers.

CDER handles the FDA’s drug-regulation responsibilities, while CBER oversees vaccines and other biological products. The tobacco center regulates tobacco products, and the newly created technology role is intended to coordinate agency-wide work on software and artificial intelligence.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the selections were intended to support faster decision-making, innovation and reform. FDA Acting Commissioner Diamantas said the agency needed to attract and retain talent while strengthening its workforce and infrastructure.

The appointments do not by themselves change individual drug, vaccine or tobacco-product decisions. Their significance lies in establishing permanent leadership in several areas where the administration has identified regulatory reform and modernization as priorities.

Reporting Credit: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — Sept. 8, 2026 announcement identifying Jared Seehafer, Michael Davis, Karim Mikhail and Bret Koplow and outlining their responsibilities and policy priorities; U.S. Food and Drug Administration — official leadership records confirming the agency’s current senior leadership structure and acting commissioner.

The post FDA Fills Four Senior Posts as Trump Administration Reshapes Agency appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The two ministers are scheduled to make statements on September 8, followed by a parliamentary debate on September 10.

The review marks the latest examination of a compensation system that has remained largely unchanged since the framework established after the 2011 review, following earlier decisions to defer or maintain the existing arrangements.

Review Reopens Long-Deferred Question

Singapore has not comprehensively revised its political-salary framework since the 2011 review.

The Government deferred a scheduled review in 2023, citing geopolitical and economic uncertainty. The Public Service Division said at the time that the existing framework remained relevant and that the Government would review it when appropriate.

In January 2026, the Government convened an independent committee to examine political salaries and the framework used to determine compensation.

The Government said the review was timely because the framework and salary levels had not been updated since the changes arising from the 2011 process.

The current parliamentary proceedings therefore represent the first major reconsideration of the system in several years.

Political Pay Is Linked to Private-Sector Benchmarks

Singapore’s existing system links political compensation to income levels among high earners in the private sector.

Under the framework, ministerial salaries are benchmarked against the incomes of the top 1,000 Singaporean earners, with a 40% discount applied to reflect the public-service nature of political office. The benchmark includes senior corporate executives and high-income professionals.

The Government has defended the approach as a way to keep compensation competitive and help attract and retain people for senior public responsibilities. It has also linked competitive remuneration to reducing incentives for corruption.

The compensation model has nevertheless remained politically sensitive because it places senior political salaries against benchmarks derived from some of Singapore’s highest private-sector incomes.

Framework Was Established After the 2011 Review

The current system followed a major review of political salaries in 2011.

That process resulted in substantial reductions in political compensation. The changes were accepted by Parliament and became the basis of the existing framework.

A subsequent review in 2018 did not result in the recommended changes being implemented, with the Government maintaining that the existing structure remained appropriate amid economic uncertainty.

The framework has consequently remained in place for more than a decade while Singapore’s economic conditions and broader environment have evolved.

Independent Committee Examines Compensation

The 2026 review was conducted by an independent committee established by the Government.

Its mandate included assessing appropriate salary levels under the existing framework and considering whether refinements were needed to keep the system relevant. The review covers political appointment holders and Members of Parliament.

The Government’s response now goes before Parliament, providing lawmakers with an opportunity to consider both the committee’s recommendations and the administration’s position on the compensation framework.

Economic Conditions Delayed Government Response

The latest parliamentary debate follows an earlier postponement of the Government’s response.

In May, the Government said it wanted greater clarity over the economic consequences of the conflict in the Middle East before responding to the review.

The delay reflected wider concerns about economic conditions and uncertainty facing Singapore.

The scheduled September statements indicate that the Government has now decided to proceed with formal consideration of the review.

Framework Covers More Than Cabinet Ministers

The review extends beyond the salaries of cabinet ministers.

Singapore’s political-remuneration framework also covers political appointment holders and Members of Parliament, including Non-Constituency Members of Parliament and Nominated Members of Parliament.

The parliamentary discussion will therefore address the broader compensation structure governing political office rather than ministerial salaries alone.

The central institutional question is whether the existing framework remains appropriate across the different political positions covered by the system.

Parliament to Examine the Pay Framework

The parliamentary debate will bring renewed scrutiny to the principles underpinning political compensation.

The established framework seeks to maintain competitive remuneration while applying a discount to recognize that political office constitutes public service rather than private-sector employment.

Any changes would therefore affect not only individual salary levels but also the mechanism Singapore uses to determine compensation for political office.

The debate could consequently address the continued suitability of the existing benchmarks and the broader structure governing remuneration for political officeholders and lawmakers.

A System Designed More Than a Decade Ago

The return of the issue to Parliament follows years in which major changes to the framework did not occur.

The 2011 review established the current model after a significant public debate. The 2018 review did not produce implemented changes, while the 2023 review was deferred.

The 2026 process provides Parliament with another opportunity to examine whether the framework remains suitable under current conditions.

Government Response Moves to Parliament

The immediate issue before Parliament is the Government’s response to the 2026 review.

Wong and Chan are scheduled to present the Government’s position on September 8, with lawmakers due to debate the response on September 10.

The proceedings will determine the next stage for Singapore’s political-compensation framework, including whether the existing model is retained or changes are proposed to its benchmarks and salary arrangements.

Reporting Credit: Parliament of Singapore — official parliamentary Order Paper and sitting schedule confirming the September 8 ministerial statements by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and Coordinating Minister for Public Services Chan Chun Sing and the scheduled parliamentary debate on September 10; Public Service Division, Prime Minister’s Office — official government information on the political-salary framework, previous reviews and the Government’s decisions to defer earlier reviews; Government of Singapore / AskGov — official explanation of the 2026 independent political-salary review, its purpose and the Government’s rationale for conducting the review; 2026 Review of Salaries for Political Appointment Holders and Members of Parliament — independent review process concerning the salary framework and compensation levels for political officeholders and Members of Parliament.

The post Singapore Parliament Reopens Debate Over Political Salaries appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The referendum asks a relatively narrow question: Should Iceland resume negotiations on joining the European Union? It does not itself decide whether Iceland will become an EU member. If voters approve restarting the talks, a separate referendum would be required to approve any eventual membership agreement.

The vote comes as Iceland reassesses its position in a rapidly changing North Atlantic security environment.

Greenland changes the debate

For years, Iceland’s EU debate centered primarily on whether joining the bloc would threaten its control over its lucrative fishing industry.

That remains a major concern. But Trump’s campaign to bring Greenland under U.S. control has introduced a much broader geopolitical question: whether Iceland should strengthen its ties with European countries as uncertainty grows around the United States’ future role in the region.

Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and lies roughly 1,200 kilometers from Iceland. Trump’s statements about acquiring Greenland have caused unease across the Nordic region, particularly because Iceland relies heavily on its alliances for national security.

Iceland is a member of NATO but does not maintain a conventional standing army. Its defense arrangements have historically depended heavily on cooperation with the United States and other NATO members.

Iceland has long kept the EU at arm’s length

Iceland applied for EU membership in 2009 amid the financial crisis and formally began accession negotiations.

The process later stalled, largely because of disagreements over fisheries and concerns about surrendering control over one of the country’s most important natural resources.

Negotiations were suspended, and Iceland ultimately moved away from the membership process.

The issue has returned under Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir’s government, which supports giving voters the opportunity to decide whether negotiations should resume.

The government accelerated the timetable as geopolitical tensions increased.

Fishing remains the biggest obstacle

Iceland’s fishing industry remains at the heart of opposition to EU membership.

Fishing accounts for a substantial share of Iceland’s exports and has long been closely connected to the country’s national identity and economic independence. Opponents fear EU membership could weaken Iceland’s ability to control access to its fishing waters and determine quotas.

Those concerns are rooted in Iceland’s history.

The country fought a series of disputes with Britain over fishing rights, known as the Cod Wars, and control of North Atlantic waters remains politically sensitive.

Opponents therefore argue that EU membership could force Iceland to surrender a degree of control over resources that previous generations fought to protect.

Supporters see Europe as a strategic safeguard

Supporters of restarting negotiations argue that the security environment has changed dramatically since Iceland last seriously considered EU membership.

Russia’s war against Ukraine, uncertainty surrounding trans-Atlantic relations and Trump’s Greenland ambitions have encouraged some Icelanders to reconsider whether closer European integration could provide greater political and economic security.

Prime Minister Frostadóttir has presented the referendum as an opportunity for Iceland to examine its options rather than as an automatic decision to join the EU.

Supporters also argue that Iceland already participates in much of Europe’s economic and travel framework through the European Economic Area and Schengen Area, while remaining outside the EU’s political decision-making structures.

The economic argument

Economic concerns are also influencing the vote.

Supporters say EU membership could provide greater economic stability, potentially lower some costs and give Iceland a formal role in shaping regulations that already affect its economy.

Iceland is currently closely integrated with the EU’s single market through the European Economic Area.

But opponents question whether full membership would deliver enough economic benefits to justify the loss of national flexibility, particularly in fishing and agriculture.

The debate is therefore not simply about Washington or Brussels.

It is also about how much control Iceland is willing to share in exchange for greater integration and influence.

A close and uncertain referendum

Opinion polls ahead of the vote showed Icelanders divided.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll published shortly before voting showed 51.3% supporting the resumption of negotiations and 48.7% opposed, underscoring how close the contest had become.

Other polling showed similarly narrow margins, leaving the outcome uncertain.

The result could therefore depend heavily on turnout and voters who remain undecided.

A “yes” would not mean immediate EU membership

One important distinction is that Saturday’s vote is only about restarting negotiations.

If voters approve the proposal, Iceland would enter a new phase of discussions with the EU.

The country’s government has indicated that negotiations could begin later in 2026 and potentially take around 18 to 24 months. Any final agreement would then have to be presented to Icelandic voters in another referendum.

That means even a “yes” vote would not settle the membership question.

It would instead reopen a process that has been dormant for more than a decade.

Security is changing Iceland’s calculations

The referendum illustrates how questions of national security can alter long-standing political assumptions.

Iceland has traditionally relied on NATO and its defense relationship with Washington while maintaining a close relationship with Europe through economic and diplomatic institutions.

Trump’s Greenland campaign has complicated that balance.

For supporters of EU talks, the issue demonstrates why Iceland should deepen its European relationships.

For opponents, the controversy surrounding Greenland is not sufficient reason to give up greater national control over fishing, agriculture and other areas.

The result could resonate beyond Iceland

The outcome will be closely watched elsewhere in Europe.

A decision to restart EU negotiations would represent a significant shift for a country that previously stepped away from membership talks.

It could also reinforce broader European efforts to strengthen cooperation in the Arctic and North Atlantic at a time of increasing strategic competition.

A rejection, meanwhile, would preserve Iceland’s current relationship with Europe while signaling that concerns over sovereignty and resource control remain stronger than the arguments for deeper political integration.

What Happens Next

If voters approve restarting negotiations, Iceland and the EU could begin formal discussions later this year. Any eventual membership agreement would require another vote by Iceland’s electorate.

If voters reject the proposal, Iceland’s existing relationship with the EU through the European Economic Area and other agreements would remain in place.

The immediate question is therefore not whether Iceland becomes the next EU member.

It is whether Iceland is willing to reopen the door.

Key Facts

• Country: Iceland
• Referendum: Whether to resume EU membership negotiations
• Vote: August 29, 2026
• Prime minister: Kristrún Frostadóttir
• Main domestic issue: Fishing rights and national sovereignty
• Major geopolitical factor: Trump’s threats involving Greenland
• Iceland’s security alliance: NATO
• EU membership: Iceland is not an EU member
• Next step after a “yes”: Membership negotiations
• Final EU membership decision: Would require a separate referendum
• Status: DEVELOPING

Reporting Credit: Reporting and source material from the Government of Iceland, Icelandic electoral authorities and other public institutions.
Government of Iceland — referendum and European affairs; Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs — EU accession process; Icelandic Parliament (Althingi) — referendum and government proceedings; European Union — Iceland accession framework.

The post Trump’s Greenland Threats Cast Shadow Over Iceland’s Vote on EU Membership Talks appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The bipartisan measure passed 308-117. It would establish permanent daylight saving time nationwide while allowing states to opt out if their legislatures act before the law takes effect. The bill now heads to the Senate, where its prospects remain uncertain.

Supporters said the change would provide more evening daylight, benefiting families, businesses and outdoor recreation. Critics argued it would leave many Americans beginning winter mornings in darkness, raising concerns about school commutes and public safety.

Supporters Call for Ending Clock Changes

Rep. Gus Bilirakis, a Florida Republican who backed the legislation, said Americans are ready to “ditch the switch” by ending the practice of changing clocks twice each year.

He argued that a permanent schedule would reduce disruptions while extending daylight into the evening, providing benefits for families and local businesses. Bilirakis also said the change would support Florida’s tourism-driven economy.

Before the vote, the White House endorsed the Sunshine Protection Act, calling it a common-sense reform with broad public support. The administration said presidential advisers would recommend that the president sign the measure if it reaches the White House.

Critics Cite Winter Morning Risks

Democratic lawmakers who opposed the bill warned that permanent daylight saving time would produce darker winter mornings, increasing risks for children traveling to school and commuters heading to work before sunrise.

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania said millions of Americans would begin their winter days in darkness, with sunrise occurring after many had already left home.

Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts said he supports permanent daylight saving time in principle but questioned whether Congress should prioritize the issue while many Americans continue to face rising housing, grocery, utility and healthcare costs.

Poll Shows Public Support

Public opinion has generally favored keeping daylight saving time year-round.

According to a 2025 poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 56% of U.S. adults said they would choose permanent daylight saving time if required to adopt a single nationwide system. About four in 10 preferred permanent standard time, which provides more morning daylight but earlier sunsets.

Senate Faces Familiar Debate

Congress has debated daylight saving time for decades. The practice was first adopted as a wartime measure in 1942.

The Senate passed similar legislation four years ago, but the proposal stalled in the House.

Whether the latest bill advances remains uncertain. Although it cleared the House with bipartisan support, senators have yet to indicate whether they will take up the measure before lawmakers adjourn for the year.

This report is based on reporting by The Associated Press.

Article Topics: Daylight Saving Time | House of Representatives | Sunshine Protection Act | Senate | White House | Clock Changes | Public Opinion

The post House Approves Bill to Make Daylight Saving Time Permanent appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Comedian Bill Maher received the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor on Sunday at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, an event that unfolded against the backdrop of continuing legal and governance disputes surrounding the federally supported cultural institution.

The Mark Twain Prize, established in 1998, recognizes individuals who have made significant contributions to American humor and social commentary. Previous recipients include Conan O’Brien, Dave Chappelle, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, David Letterman, Carol Burnett, and Tina Fey.

Ahead of the ceremony, Maher described receiving the award as a significant personal honor and noted that he identifies with Mark Twain’s willingness to challenge different sides of public debate.

The ceremony came during a period of uncertainty for the Kennedy Center after leadership changes and legal disputes followed President Donald Trump’s return to office earlier this year.

Leadership Changes Continue to Shape the Kennedy Center

According to the supplied material, Trump dismissed much of the Kennedy Center’s leadership shortly after returning to the White House in January 2025. A newly appointed board, largely composed of presidential allies, subsequently named Trump as chairman.

The source material states that Trump’s name was later added to the Kennedy Center’s exterior, prompting legal action that developed into a broader dispute over presidential authority and governance of the performing arts institution.

President Trump did not attend Sunday’s ceremony. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick represented the administration, while attendees also included Project 2025 contributor Paul Dans and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania.

Among the entertainment figures participating in the event were Woody Harrelson, Arianna Huffington, Stephen A. Smith and Jay Leno.

Court Rulings Halt Planned Changes

The future of the Kennedy Center remains uncertain following recent court decisions.

According to the supplied material, Trump announced plans to close the venue in July for a two-year renovation. However, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled in May that Trump’s name had been unlawfully placed on the building and ordered it removed.

The judge also blocked the planned closure.

The source material states that while Trump’s name has since been removed, the area previously occupied by the lettering remains covered by a tarp. Kennedy Center attorneys have indicated they are not currently moving forward with expanded programming plans while litigation continues.

Judge Cooper has requested an update next month regarding how long the temporary covering will remain in place.

The final event currently scheduled in the Kennedy Center’s Concert Hall is “The Freedom Gathering: A Musical Celebration” on July 3.

Ceremony Reflects Differing Views on Kennedy Center Dispute

The Kennedy Center’s legal and political challenges became part of the conversation surrounding the Mark Twain Prize ceremony.

Ahead of the event, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said President Trump wants to improve the venue.

Comedian Jay Leno offered a different perspective while speaking on the red carpet, describing the dispute over the building’s signage as humorous and characterizing it as an issue centered on vanity rather than a more serious national conflict.

Maher and Trump Have a Long Public History

Maher’s selection as this year’s recipient drew additional attention because of his longstanding public relationship with Trump.

According to the supplied material, Trump sued Maher in 2013 after comments the comedian made during an appearance on “The Tonight Show.” The lawsuit sought $5 million for breach of contract but was later withdrawn.

The relationship resurfaced publicly this year after Trump criticized a previous meeting with Maher on social media.

Over the weekend, Maher interviewed Vice President JD Vance on his television program. During the discussion, Maher questioned the vice president about issues including U.S. military action involving Iran, immigration enforcement policies, and election-related conspiracy theories.

The supplied material states that Maher argued elections should not routinely be characterized as legitimate only when one political side prevails.

The Mark Twain Prize ceremony is scheduled to stream on Netflix beginning July 21.

Tags: Kennedy Center, Governance, Federal Court, Executive Branch, Public Arts, Cultural Institutions, Mark Twain Prize, Judicial Review, Institutional Governance, Donald Trump,

The post Bill Maher Receives Mark Twain Prize as Kennedy Center Faces Ongoing Legal and Governance Dispute appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The anniversary commemorating the nation’s independence from British rule has been marked by public events led by Trump, including a campaign-style rally on the National Mall. According to the supplied material, the president also plans to return to the Mall on July 4 for another event, while his own commemorative activities have largely overshadowed a bipartisan commission established by Congress to coordinate the national observance.

The developments have prompted renewed discussion among historians, legal scholars, political organizations, and elected officials about the constitutional balance between executive authority and institutional oversight.

Executive Authority Becomes the Central Political Debate

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has taken a series of actions that critics argue represent an expansion of presidential authority.

According to the supplied material, those actions include nominating one of his former personal lawyers to serve as attorney general, directing the Department of Justice to pursue political opponents, deploying U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, seeking greater federal influence over election administration, filing lawsuits against media organizations, and pursuing litigation involving federal agencies.

The White House referred questions regarding Trump’s exercise of executive authority to the president’s previous public statements.

Trump has repeatedly defended his interpretation of presidential powers. During earlier public appearances, he cited Article II of the U.S. Constitution in describing the authority of the presidency and has rejected comparisons portraying him as a monarch or dictator.

Earlier this year, he told CBS’ “60 Minutes,” “I’m not a king.”

Historical Comparisons Fuel Public Debate

The supplied material notes that comparisons between presidents and monarchs have periodically appeared throughout American political history. However, Princeton University historian Julian Zelizer argued that Trump has generated renewed attention because of how he has described the presidency and exercised executive authority.

The debate has also extended into political messaging.

According to the supplied material, the official White House X account earlier this year published an image of Trump alongside King Charles III with the caption “TWO KINGS.” Trump also posted “LONG LIVE THE KING” on social media after announcing the end of a New York City transportation program.

Meanwhile, the political organization Indivisible adopted the slogan “No Kings,” framing its opposition around concerns over executive power during Trump’s second administration.

Courts Continue to Test Presidential Powers

With Republicans controlling Congress, the judiciary has become one of the principal institutions reviewing disputes involving presidential authority.

The supplied material states that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued several significant rulings affecting Trump’s administration.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, the Court ruled that presidents possess broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, a decision that affected multiple investigations connected to Trump’s first administration.

At the same time, the Court has also placed limits on executive authority in other cases. According to the supplied material, justices allowed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to remain in office while litigation continues regarding the president’s authority to remove members of independent agencies.

The Court also ruled against Trump’s global tariff policy, concluding that only Congress possessed the authority involved in that dispute.

John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said those rulings demonstrate that constitutional limits on presidential authority remain in place.

Financial Interests and Ethics Questions Remain Under Review

The article also highlights renewed scrutiny over Trump’s business interests during his second presidency.

According to the supplied material, Trump launched multiple cryptocurrency ventures before and after returning to office, while questions have continued regarding potential conflicts involving his private business operations.

The supplied material further states that Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service following the disclosure of his tax returns. It also reports that the Department of Justice initially directed the IRS to negotiate a settlement before later modifying its approach following criticism from members of both political parties.

Julian Zelizer said the scale of Trump’s continuing business interests distinguishes his administration from previous presidencies discussed in historical comparisons.

Justice Department Actions Face Political Scrutiny

The Justice Department has also become a focal point in debates over executive authority.

According to the supplied material, Trump has publicly urged federal prosecutors to pursue investigations involving several political opponents. The article states that indictments were later brought against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, although those charges were eventually dismissed before additional charges were later filed against Comey.

The supplied material also reports that California Governor Gavin Newsom criticized a White House event celebrating Trump’s 80th birthday, arguing that government property was used in ways that benefited the president’s private business interests. Days later, Newsom disclosed that the Department of Justice was investigating him and his wife.

The supplied material does not indicate the outcome of those investigations.

America 250 Celebrations Coincide With Broader Constitutional Debate

As preparations continue for the nation’s 250th anniversary, discussion surrounding the constitutional limits of presidential authority has become closely linked to the broader public conversation about American democratic institutions.

The supplied material presents differing views from legal scholars, historians, administration officials, and political organizations regarding Trump’s interpretation of executive power.

While critics argue that his approach represents an unprecedented expansion of presidential authority, Trump has maintained that his actions fall within the constitutional powers granted to the office. Court decisions continue to shape the legal boundaries of those powers as litigation proceeds.

Tags: Executive Branch, U.S. Supreme Court, Constitution, Department of Justice, Presidential Authority, Congress, Institutional  Accountability, America 250, Federal Government, Rule of Law,

The post Trump’s Expanding Use of Presidential Authority Draws Renewed Scrutiny Ahead of America’s 250th Anniversary appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The post Warsh Faces Spotlight as Federal Reserve Expected to Hold Interest Rates Steady appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.