The Associated Press reported on October 16 that Zacharia was transitioning out of the position, citing a person familiar with the matter. Euronews separately reported that a White House official confirmed the departure to Agence France-Presse. Neither account established whether Zacharia resigned, was dismissed or agreed to another arrangement.

President Donald Trump had cast doubt on her future earlier that day. Speaking to reporters before leaving for a campaign rally in Georgia, he said he had encouraged her to reconsider the role. He also said he wanted her to be happy and believed she had faced unfair treatment from the media.

Trump said he would discuss the matter with Zacharia after his weekend travel. His comments indicated uncertainty about her future at the time, rather than a clear public explanation of the final decision. AP reporting

A brief tenure began with a short first briefing

The White House announced Zacharia’s appointment on October 9, naming her as the successor to Karoline Leavitt. Zacharia’s first official day in the role was October 12. She held her first and only press briefing the following day.

The briefing lasted about 14 minutes. Zacharia took questions from three reporters, all representing conservative-leaning or Trump-friendly outlets, according to the Associated Press. She opened with remarks praising Trump and his administration before answering questions.

The White House published its own account of the briefing, describing it as a strong introduction to Zacharia’s tenure. That description reflected the administration’s assessment, not an independent evaluation of the event.

Zacharia later said she wanted to keep the briefing short so Trump could hold his own question-and-answer session with reporters. She also said she had not received a full briefing from White House staff beforehand. She did not hold another press briefing before reports of her departure emerged.

The limited opportunity to question the new spokesperson quickly became part of the scrutiny surrounding her first week. Still, the available reporting does not establish how much weight the briefing carried in the administration’s decision about her future.

Questions over her legal credentials

Zacharia also faced questions about describing herself as a lawyer. She graduated from Pepperdine University’s law school but acknowledged in a televised interview on October 15 that she had not passed the California bar exam.

Her comments followed reports about her professional background. Zacharia said she had taken the California exam but did not pass. She explained that plans to marry and move to China had distracted her at the time. She also said she had not intended to enter the practice of law.

The distinction matters: a law degree does not, by itself, establish admission to a state bar or authorization to practise law in the United States. The available reporting supports the conclusion that Zacharia did not pass the California bar exam. It does not, on its own, establish every aspect of her work history or the legal status of any work she may have performed abroad.

Her public comments and the questions they prompted added scrutiny during an already brief tenure. But no public evidence reviewed for this draft establishes that the credential controversy was the formal reason for her departure.

The administration has not explained the transition’s terms

Trump’s public remarks on October 16 suggested that he was considering Zacharia’s future rather than announcing a fully explained personnel decision. Later reporting described her as leaving or transitioning out of the position.

Those descriptions do not resolve whether the administration dismissed her, whether she resigned or whether the parties agreed on a different role. A definitive account requires a direct statement from Zacharia or an on-the-record explanation from the White House.

The administration’s plans for the press secretary’s responsibilities also remain unclear in the sources reviewed for this draft. Trump said that many people wanted the job, but that comment did not identify an interim officeholder or confirm a permanent successor.

The departure leaves several practical questions unanswered: who will lead upcoming press briefings, whether the White House has begun a formal search for a replacement and whether Zacharia will remain in another administration role.

What remains to be established

The sequence is clear: the White House announced Zacharia’s appointment on October 9, she began the job on October 12, delivered her first briefing on October 13 and was reported to be leaving on October 16.

The formal circumstances are less clear. No direct public explanation from Zacharia about the departure was identified in the sources reviewed for this draft. Nor did the material reviewed establish a documented causal link between the controversy over her credentials, the short briefing and the decision that she leave.

Further confirmation from Zacharia and the White House is needed to establish the terms of the transition and succession arrangements. Until then, White House press secretary transition is the most accurate framing of the personnel change, without assigning a motive that the available evidence does not support.

Reporting Credit: The White House’s October 13 briefing record and Zacharia’s publicly reported televised remarks were used to establish the official chronology and her statements. The president’s October 16 comments and the reported departure were cross-checked against published accounts. Direct confirmation from Zacharia, an on-the-record White House explanation of the transition and primary documentation of succession arrangements remain outstanding.

The post Katie Zacharia Leaves White House Press Secretary Role After Five Days appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Hastert died Saturday at his home in Illinois while receiving hospice care, Coroner Jacquie Purcell said Monday. His death was attributed to natural causes. The coroner’s office said the case did not meet the criteria for coroner jurisdiction and that the attending hospice physician would complete the death certification.

Hastert served as speaker from 1999 until 2007, leading the House through the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the subsequent anthrax emergency. He also played a central role in advancing much of President George W. Bush’s legislative agenda.

His political career later became overshadowed by revelations about sexual abuse he committed decades earlier while working as a high school teacher and wrestling coach. Hastert eventually pleaded guilty to federal financial crimes involving payments made to conceal the abuse and served more than a year in prison.

From Illinois teacher to House speaker

Hastert was born in Aurora, Illinois, in 1942 and worked as a teacher and athletic coach before entering state politics.

He was elected to the Illinois House of Representatives in 1980 and won election to the U.S. House in 1986, representing an Illinois district for more than two decades. He resigned from Congress in November 2007, several months after stepping down from the speakership.

Hastert became speaker in January 1999 after Newt Gingrich resigned from the position following the Republican Party’s disappointing performance in the 1998 elections.

He had not previously held one of the House’s top leadership positions, but Republicans selected him to succeed Gingrich. He went on to serve as speaker through four consecutive Congresses, making him the longest-serving Republican speaker in House history by total days in office.

His tenure placed him at the center of several major events in modern U.S. political history.

During the Clinton impeachment proceedings, Hastert presided over the House while the Senate conducted the president’s trial. After Bush took office, Hastert worked with the administration and congressional Republicans to advance legislation including major tax cuts and the expansion of Medicare prescription-drug coverage.

A political career transformed by scandal

Hastert’s public standing changed dramatically after he left Congress.

Federal investigators discovered that he had made millions of dollars in payments to a former student and wrestler he had coached decades earlier. Prosecutors said the payments were intended to conceal sexual abuse committed when Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach.

In 2015, a federal grand jury indicted Hastert on charges involving the structuring of bank withdrawals and making false statements to the FBI. He pleaded guilty to a financial charge and was sentenced in 2016 to 15 months in federal prison. He ultimately served about 13 months.

The criminal conviction was for the financial conduct surrounding the payments, not for sexual abuse.

At his sentencing, however, Hastert acknowledged sexually abusing former students. Prosecutors said multiple former wrestlers had accused him of abuse, with allegations dating to his time as a high school coach. The abuse allegations were not prosecuted as criminal charges against Hastert because of the applicable statute of limitations.

The revelations fundamentally altered the way his political career was viewed.

One of the highest-ranking U.S. officials sent to prison

Hastert’s imprisonment was an extraordinary conclusion to the career of a former House speaker.

Before his criminal case, he had been one of the most powerful figures in Congress and had presided over the House during some of the most consequential events of the Bush era.

His federal sentence made him one of the highest-ranking former U.S. officials to serve prison time. The scandal also led institutions that had previously honored Hastert to distance themselves from him.

The contrast between Hastert’s political prominence and his later criminal case became central to his legacy.

The former House speaker’s political legacy is therefore inseparable from both periods of his life: his rise from Illinois politics to one of the most powerful offices in Washington and the revelations that brought his career to an end.

A legacy overshadowed by what came after Congress

Hastert left Congress in 2007 after more than 20 years as a representative and nearly nine years as speaker.

His death closes the life of a politician who once occupied the highest-ranking Republican position in the House, but whose later admission of sexual abuse and federal imprisonment permanently changed his place in American political history.

Hastert is survived by his wife, Jean, and two sons, according to current reporting.

His career illustrates the sharp divide between the political influence he accumulated in Washington and the revelations that ultimately defined the final years of his public life.

Reporting Credit: Kendall County Coroner’s Office; U.S. House of Representatives History, Art & Archives; Associated Press; CBS News; UPI.

The post Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert Dies at 84 appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The payment is intended to help offset the cost of Medicare Part B premiums and is being funded through the Medicare Improvement Fund, which Congress established in 2008. CMS describes it as a one-time $90 Premium Rebate for eligible Part B beneficiaries.

The payments are scheduled to arrive about a month before the November 3 U.S. midterm elections. That timing is politically relevant, but it does not by itself establish that the payment was created for electoral purposes.

How the $90 payment works

Eligible beneficiaries will receive one $90 payment in October 2026.

CMS says most recipients will receive the money by direct deposit on or around October 8. Beneficiaries without direct deposit will receive a paper check from the U.S. Treasury later in October.

The payment is intended to offset part of the October Medicare Part B premium. It is a one-time rebate and does not change the regular Medicare premium.

Who qualifies

The payment is not available to everyone enrolled in Medicare.

CMS says the program covers 20.8 million people enrolled in Original Medicare Part B who meet the eligibility requirements. Beneficiaries must live in the United States and must not receive Part B premium assistance through Medicaid or pay an income-related monthly adjustment amount, known as IRMAA.

People enrolled in Medicare Advantage are not eligible for the rebate.

The payment therefore should not be described as a benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries or all older Americans.

The $90 does not reduce the regular premium

The rebate is separate from the standard Medicare Part B premium.

CMS set the 2026 Part B premium at $202.90 per month, compared with $185 in 2025. The annual Part B deductible is $283.

For someone paying the standard premium, the $90 rebate covers less than half of one month’s premium.

The underlying $202.90 monthly premium remains unchanged. The measure is therefore a one-time payment, not a permanent reduction in Medicare costs.

Why the Medicare Improvement Fund matters

The Medicare Improvement Fund was created by Congress in 2008 to make improvements to the original fee-for-service Medicare program.

The administration says it is now using the fund to put money directly toward beneficiaries’ Medicare costs. CMS says Trump is the first president to use the fund for direct beneficiary payments, while noting that Congress has previously withdrawn money from the fund for other spending purposes.

The White House has presented the move as a way to make Medicare more affordable and has criticized previous congressional withdrawals from the fund.

Those political characterizations remain statements from the administration. They do not, by themselves, establish an independent conclusion about how the fund should be used.

Payments arrive before the midterm elections

The first payments are scheduled for October, while the U.S. midterm elections are set for November 3.

That means millions of eligible beneficiaries are expected to receive the payment only weeks before voting for the House, Senate and numerous state and local offices.

The timing is therefore relevant political context.

It does not, however, establish that the administration designed the payment to influence voters. JournosNews does not characterize the measure as an electoral inducement or “vote-buying” effort without evidence establishing such intent.

The administration has instead presented the payment as part of its effort to reduce healthcare costs.

A short-term offset, not a broader Medicare change

For beneficiaries paying the standard Part B premium, the $90 payment provides a limited reduction in October’s out-of-pocket cost.

It does not change the monthly premium that applies afterward.

Beneficiaries who pay higher Part B premiums because of IRMAA are excluded from this particular rebate under the published eligibility rules.

The payment also does not reverse the increase in the standard Part B premium that took effect in 2026.

What beneficiaries should expect

CMS says most eligible beneficiaries should receive their payment around October 8.

Those who receive Social Security payments by direct deposit are expected to receive the rebate electronically. Others will receive a Treasury check at the mailing address registered with Medicare.

The Treasury check will identify the payment as a Medicare Improvement Fund payment intended to offset the October premium.

Beneficiaries can contact 1-800-MEDICARE to check their eligibility. CMS says people seeking payment-status information can contact the Social Security Administration beginning October 15.

What happens next

The immediate issue for beneficiaries is whether they qualify and when their payment arrives.

For policymakers, the larger questions concern how the administration is using the Medicare Improvement Fund, what resources remain available in the fund and whether Congress takes further action.

The political timing is also likely to remain part of the discussion because the payments are being distributed shortly before the November midterm elections.

But the timing alone does not establish an electoral motive.

The confirmed development is narrower: the Trump administration is providing a one-time $90 Medicare Part B rebate to 20.8 million eligible beneficiaries, with most payments scheduled for October.

Reporting Credit: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; White House; Social Security Administration; Congressional statutory records concerning the Medicare Improvement Fund; and KFF for independent Medicare policy context.

The post Trump Announces One-Time $90 Medicare Payment for More Than 20 Million appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Trump announced the move in a post on Truth Social, saying the restrictions were effective immediately. He did not identify a specific article or incident that prompted the announcement. Later, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump described the decision as the result of what he called cumulative coverage over several years.

The practical scope of the proposed ban remained unclear.

Reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were still working at the White House later Friday, with no immediate indication that they had been removed from the grounds or press facilities. Reuters reported that the White House was informing the outlets that they would be banned from the grounds beginning Saturday, citing an unnamed senior White House official.

Trump says other outlets could also face restrictions

Trump said the three organizations were being targeted because of what he characterized as inaccurate coverage of his administration and the presidency.

He also warned that additional news organizations could be included.

During his Oval Office remarks, Trump mentioned The New York Times and The Washington Post when discussing what he described as other “fake news” outlets that could face restrictions. He did not announce specific restrictions against either organization.

The administration had not publicly provided a detailed policy explaining whether the announcement would apply to all White House facilities, the regular press workspace, presidential events, press briefings, the White House press pool or only selected presidential appearances.

That distinction could become significant because White House press access operates through several different arrangements.

The news organizations reject the move

CNN said it stood behind its White House journalists and argued that they have a constitutional right to report without government interference.

The network said that if the announced ban were implemented, it would challenge the restriction as an infringement of its press rights.

Politico also said it would continue covering the Trump administration and said it would defend its First Amendment rights against attempts to restrict its access. MS NOW did not immediately provide a response to the Associated Press.

Press-freedom organizations also challenged the proposed action.

The Committee to Protect Journalists said the announced restrictions violated First Amendment protections. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press likewise argued that the government cannot exclude journalists from an otherwise available press forum because officials object to their reporting.

Those organizations’ statements are legal and policy assessments, not court rulings.

The constitutional question depends partly on how the ban is applied

The First Amendment protects freedom of the press, but the legal rules governing presidential press access can differ depending on the type of access involved.

Presidents have substantial discretion over limited-access events, including small press pools and certain Oval Office appearances. Broader exclusion from generally available White House press facilities or credentials presents different constitutional and due-process questions.

The precise scope of Trump’s announcement therefore matters.

If the administration were to exclude the three organizations from particular limited-access events, the legal analysis could differ from a broader prohibition preventing their journalists from entering ordinary White House press facilities.

No court had ruled on Trump’s Sept. 18 announcement as of the initial reports.

Trump has previously fought over White House press access

The announcement follows earlier disputes between Trump’s administration and news organizations.

During Trump’s first term, the White House revoked CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s press credentials after a November 2018 confrontation between Acosta and the president during a news conference.

CNN challenged the decision in federal court. A federal judge temporarily ordered the credentials restored, citing due-process concerns, and the White House later reinstated Acosta’s access.

Trump’s second administration has also changed how White House media access is organized, including giving the administration greater control over portions of the presidential press pool.

In 2025, the administration restricted Associated Press access to some presidential events after the news agency continued using the name “Gulf of Mexico” rather than Trump’s preferred “Gulf of America.” The Associated Press challenged those restrictions in court.

The latest announcement extends that continuing dispute to three major news organizations at once.

Implementation will determine the next legal test

For now, Trump’s declaration and the administration’s intended implementation are separate questions.

The president has stated that CNN, MS NOW and Politico are being barred. But the organizations’ journalists remained present at the White House after the announcement, and the administration had not publicly released a detailed procedure for enforcing the restriction.

The outlets have indicated that they would defend their press-access rights if the restriction is implemented.

Any resulting legal challenge would likely turn on the precise access being denied, the government’s stated justification, the rules governing the particular press facility or event and whether the restriction is based on the organizations’ journalistic viewpoint.

Until those details are established, the legal status of the announced ban remains unsettled.

Reporting Credit: The White House / President Donald Trump — Sept. 18 announcement and stated rationale; CNN — response concerning White House reporting access; Politico — response concerning First Amendment rights; Committee to Protect Journalists — press-freedom assessment; Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — legal and constitutional assessment.

The post Trump Threatens to Bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico From White House appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Trump unveiled what he called a “Trump Dividend” at a Republican midterm convention in Dallas last week. He said every adult U.S. citizen would receive $5,000 if Republicans retain control of both the House and Senate.

The White House has presented the proposal as a cash payment made possible by what it describes as the strength of the U.S. economy.

Johnson, however, said Congress would have to act.

“I would assume, yes, he’d need Congress to act,” Johnson said, describing the proposal as a “creative idea.” He also said he would work to advance it despite the Republicans’ narrow congressional margin.

Trump has taken a different view of the need for legislation. He previously said he did not believe Congress would have to authorize the payments, although he has not publicly explained how the federal government could distribute more than $1 trillion without congressional authorization.

Trump ties the payment to the midterm elections

Trump’s proposal is explicitly conditional on Republicans retaining control of Congress.

The White House said the dividend would be issued if Republicans win the House and Senate in November, framing the payment as a way for Americans to share in what the administration describes as the country’s economic gains.

Trump later reaffirmed the promise, saying the $5,000 payment would happen. Johnson likewise said he intended to work toward making the proposal possible if Republicans remain in control.

The proposal therefore faces two separate questions: whether Congress would approve it and how the government would finance the payments.

Federal spending requires congressional authority

The constitutional issue raised by Johnson is straightforward. Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution says money cannot be drawn from the Treasury without appropriations made by law.

The Congressional Research Service describes Congress’s control over federal spending as its “power of the purse” and says Congress must authorize expenditures of Treasury funds.

That does not by itself determine what legislation Congress would need to pass for Trump’s proposed dividend, how the payments would be structured or what funding mechanism could be used. Those details would have to be worked out through the legislative process.

Johnson acknowledged that much of the proposal remains unsettled while nevertheless saying Republicans would try to find a way forward.

The price tag could exceed $1 trillion

The scale of the proposed payment is substantial.

A $5,000 payment to roughly 240 million adult Americans would amount to about $1.2 trillion before accounting for eligibility rules or administrative costs. The exact cost would depend on who qualifies and how Congress structures the program.

That figure makes the proposal a major federal spending question rather than a routine executive payment.

The United States already faces a large federal deficit, adding fiscal pressure to the debate over how such a program could be financed. Contemporary reporting has estimated the plan could cost more than $1 trillion.

Trump has argued that the government can afford the payments because of strong revenues and economic performance. He has not, however, provided a detailed financing plan for the proposed dividend.

Republicans would have to move it through Congress

Johnson’s support does not guarantee that the proposal will become law.

Republicans would need to agree on the eligibility rules, payment structure and funding mechanism before legislation could move through Congress. The party’s congressional margins would also matter in determining how easily such a measure could pass.

For now, Johnson has signaled that he is willing to pursue Trump’s proposal while acknowledging that congressional action is necessary.

That leaves Trump’s $5,000 promise dependent not simply on the outcome of the November elections, but on what a Republican-controlled Congress ultimately agrees to authorize.

Reporting Credit: The White House — President Trump’s September 10 announcement of the proposed Trump Dividend; U.S. Constitution and Congressional Research Service — federal appropriations and congressional spending authority.

The post Johnson Says Trump’s $5,000 Dividend Would Need Congressional Approval appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The post Hunter Biden Says Joe Biden’s Cancer Has Spread to Bones and Is Causing Pain appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Burnham told ministers his administration would adopt a “one-team approach” despite removing several senior figures closely associated with Starmer, who resigned after losing the support of his party just two years after leading Labour to a landslide election victory.

The new prime minister said reducing financial pressure on households would be his government’s immediate priority.

“We need to think every day, what can we do just to take that little bit of pressure off people’s shoulders,” Burnham told Cabinet members, adding that the government should give people greater confidence that economic conditions would improve.

Government Unveils First Cost-of-Living Measure

Burnham announced his first major policy initiative by cutting taxes on domestic electricity bills to reduce household expenses.

The government said the measure, scheduled to take effect on Oct. 1, would save the average household about 45 pounds ($60) each year. Officials said the tax reduction would be funded by scrapping a digital identity card program introduced under Starmer’s government.

Burnham also acknowledged that difficult fiscal decisions lie ahead, telling ministers the government would need to reassess spending priorities while pursuing its broader policy agenda.

In his first address after taking office on Monday, Burnham pledged to decentralize political power, revive British industry and eliminate rough sleeping alongside efforts to ease the cost-of-living crisis.

Cabinet Reshuffle Signals a New Direction

Burnham moved quickly to reshape his administration following his appointment.

Former Defense Secretary John Healey replaced Rachel Reeves as finance minister after previously criticizing the Treasury for failing to allocate sufficient funding for defense amid growing international security concerns.

Healey has argued Britain’s defense spending should increase from a projected 2.6% of gross domestic product next year to 3% by 2030.

Former Health Secretary Wes Streeting, whose resignation in May contributed to the political pressure that ultimately led to Starmer’s departure, was appointed defense secretary.

Burnham retained Shabana Mahmood as home secretary, while Ed Miliband became foreign secretary, Angela Rayner was appointed housing secretary and Jonathan Reynolds assumed responsibility for business, innovation and science.

Louise Haigh, a close Burnham ally, was named First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, effectively serving as deputy prime minister.

The reshuffle also removed several prominent Starmer supporters from senior positions, including former Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, former Business Secretary Peter Kyle and former Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones.

International Agenda Begins Immediately

Burnham enters office with limited foreign policy experience as Britain faces continuing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East while managing relations with the United States under President Donald Trump.

The prime minister’s office said Burnham held an “extremely warm” telephone conversation with Trump shortly after taking office, during which he reaffirmed Britain’s commitment to defense and security.

Trump later wrote on social media that the two leaders had “a very good conversation” and expected to meet in the near future.

Burnham also spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and leaders of the European Union and NATO.

During his conversation with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, Burnham said appointing Healey as finance minister demonstrated his government’s commitment to strengthening Britain’s defense capabilities.

Russian Naval Activity Highlights Security Concerns

Britain’s security challenges were underscored on the day Burnham assumed office when a Russian naval vessel conducted a live-fire exercise in the English Channel.

The Ministry of Defence said the frigate Neustrashimy carried out the exercise in international waters about 46 miles (74 kilometers) south of Plymouth while being monitored by the Royal Navy.

The ministry said British forces continued tracking the vessel and remained prepared to safeguard national security.

Defense Secretary Wes Streeting described the Russian exercise as “performative and irresponsible,” saying Britain remained committed to supporting Ukraine and its allies against Russian aggression.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said Russian naval forces operated in full compliance with international maritime law. Asked whether Moscow expected relations with Britain to improve under Burnham, Peskov said Russia had “no such hopes.”

This report is based on reporting by The Associated Press.

Article Topics: United Kingdom | Andy Burnham | Labour Party | UK Politics | Cabinet Reshuffle | Cost of Living | Foreign Policy | Russia

The post Andy Burnham Forms New UK Cabinet After Replacing Starmer as Prime Minister appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The former mayor of Greater Manchester succeeds Keir Starmer after winning the Labour Party leadership and returning to Parliament through a special election last month. He now leads a country of about 70 million people while confronting a series of domestic and international challenges expected to shape the early months of his premiership.

Among his immediate priorities are reviving the economy, easing cost-of-living pressures, strengthening public services and responding to continuing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

Economy Tops Domestic Priorities

Burnham is expected to outline his government’s domestic agenda this week, focusing on economic growth, investment and living standards.

After becoming Labour leader, he described the transition as an opportunity to build a fairer economy by spreading investment more evenly across the country and making everyday life more affordable.

His administration inherits an economy that had begun recovering before renewed conflict involving Iran weakened global growth expectations. Economists now expect slower economic expansion alongside higher inflation over the coming year.

A central part of Burnham’s programme is devolving more powers to regional governments. He has proposed giving local authorities greater control over funding, transport and economic development while returning some previously privatized services to public ownership.

The approach, often described as “Manchesterism,” draws on policies developed during his time leading Greater Manchester, where public and private investment were combined to expand transport, housing and infrastructure.

Supporters argue the model could reduce regional inequalities. Critics, however, question whether it can generate the long-term economic growth Britain needs after Brexit and years of weak productivity.

Public finances may also limit the government’s ambitions.

Labour’s previous election manifesto ruled out increases to Britain’s main tax rates, leaving limited room for additional spending unless those commitments change.

Burnham has not ruled out a wealth tax. Speaking on Gary Lineker’s Goalhanger podcast before taking office, he said the government “might be having to ask for a little more.”

Foreign Policy Faces Early Test

Although Burnham has extensive domestic political experience, he enters office with a comparatively limited foreign policy record.

He has pledged to maintain Britain’s support for Ukraine, preserve the country’s nuclear deterrent and continue meeting its commitments to NATO.

Relations with the United States are expected to become one of his first diplomatic challenges.

President Donald Trump initially maintained cordial relations with Starmer before later criticizing Britain’s position on the conflict involving Iran.

Burnham has previously criticized Trump but has said he intends to maintain a respectful working relationship while remaining prepared to disagree when British interests require it.

Defense spending is also expected to remain under scrutiny.

Trump has repeatedly urged NATO allies to increase military spending, placing additional pressure on Britain to expand defense investment beyond plans announced under the previous government.

Current defense plans include a £15 billion ($20 billion) increase in military spending, although critics argue the proposal remains insufficient and lacks long-term funding certainty.

Gaza Policy Remains Politically Sensitive

Burnham has criticized the previous government’s handling of the war between Israel and Hamas, arguing Britain waited too long before calling for a ceasefire.

He has condemned Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel while also supporting stronger measures against violence by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.

The conflict remains politically sensitive within Labour.

The party spent years addressing allegations of antisemitism before Starmer became leader. At the same time, it relies on support from constituencies with large Muslim populations.

Burnham has faced criticism from Jewish organizations over some of his comments while also drawing criticism from pro-Palestinian campaigners for declining to describe Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as genocide.

Migration Continues to Shape Politics

Immigration is expected to remain one of the defining domestic issues facing the new government.

Although Burnham devoted little attention to the subject during his leadership victory speech, he has largely supported Labour’s existing migration policies.

Britain continues to experience migration driven by conflict, political instability, economic hardship and humanitarian crises overseas.

Public concern over migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats has contributed to growing support for Reform UK, whose gains in recent local and regional elections intensified pressure on Labour’s leadership.

Government figures indicate net migration fell from more than 900,000 in 2023 to about 171,000 last year.

Crossings of the English Channel have also declined compared with the same period in 2025.

Burnham has said his government will continue efforts to reduce net migration while expanding legal migration pathways and strengthening measures to curb unauthorized Channel crossings.

A Difficult Start to a New Premiership

Burnham begins his premiership at a time when economic uncertainty, geopolitical instability and domestic political pressures are converging.

His ability to translate his regional governing record into national leadership is likely to shape not only Labour’s political future but also Britain’s economic direction and international role in the years ahead.

This report is based on reporting by The Associated Press.

Article Topics: Andy Burnham | Labour Party | UK Economy | Foreign Policy | Migration | Gaza War | NATO

The post Andy Burnham Takes Office as UK Prime Minister Facing Economic, Foreign Policy and Migration Challenges appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Gov. Henry McMaster announced the appointment Monday during a news conference at the Statehouse in Columbia. He said Nordone will serve the remainder of Graham’s current Senate term, which expires in January. Senate Majority Leader John Thune later said she is scheduled to be sworn in Tuesday afternoon.

Nordone will become the first woman to represent South Carolina in the U.S. Senate.

“It is such an honor,” Nordone said. “Lindsey has always been there for me. And now, I will be there for him.”

Graham died Saturday at age 71. According to a preliminary medical examiner’s report, he suffered an aortic dissection, a tear in the aorta.

McMaster said he contacted Nordone in the early hours after Graham’s death to ask whether she would accept the temporary appointment.

“I had wondered what you would say, and I was humbled by your quickness to see the duty that you had to serve,” the governor said.

McMaster also said President Donald Trump supported the appointment after being informed of the decision. Earlier Monday, Trump publicly endorsed Nordone to temporarily fill the Senate vacancy.

Nordone previously worked as an optician and later held positions with the South Carolina Commission for the Blind and the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce. She lives in Lexington, graduated from the College of Charleston and earned a master’s degree in rehabilitation counseling.

She remained close to Graham throughout his political career. After their parents died when they were young, Graham became her legal guardian and helped raise his younger sister. Nordone frequently joined him at campaign events and public appearances.

Speaking emotionally during Monday’s announcement, Nordone addressed her late brother directly.

“To Lindsey, I miss you more than I can even put into words,” she said. “But I’m going to do this. I got it.”

Special Election Process Begins

South Carolina law requires a special election after Graham died while seeking reelection to a fifth Senate term.

Candidate filing opens July 21, the second Tuesday after Graham’s death. Republicans will hold a special primary on Aug. 11, followed by a runoff on Aug. 25 if no candidate wins a majority.

The Republican nominee will then have just over two months to campaign before the Nov. 3 general election.

The compressed timetable also raises questions about compliance with federal law requiring military and overseas ballots to be distributed at least 45 days before federal elections. For the special primary, that deadline would have fallen on June 27. According to The Associated Press, federal election officials did not immediately respond to requests for clarification.

Republicans Consider Potential Candidates

Graham’s death leaves one of South Carolina’s rare open Senate seats, prompting speculation about who may seek the Republican nomination.

Potential candidates include Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, Rep. Nancy Mace, Rep. Ralph Norman and Rep. Russell Fry. Businessman Mark Lynch, whom Graham defeated in this year’s Republican primary, has also been mentioned, along with former Gov. Mark Sanford.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has received inquiries about entering the race. However, a person familiar with the discussions, speaking on condition of anonymity because the conversations were private, said Bessent is not interested and intends to remain in the Trump administration.

General Election Outlook

South Carolina has not elected a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in decades, and Republicans have consistently won statewide Senate races by comfortable margins.

Graham defeated Democrat Jaime Harrison by 10 percentage points in the 2020 election.

This year’s Democratic nominee, Charleston pediatrician Annie Andrews, has raised more than $8 million for her campaign and reported nearly $3 million in cash on hand at the end of May, according to federal campaign filings. Before his death, Graham had raised about $6 million and reported just over $4 million remaining.

After Graham’s death, Andrews urged South Carolinians to set aside political differences and express gratitude for his public service.

Harrison also paid tribute on social media, saying that despite their political differences, the two shared a deep respect for South Carolina and the institutions they served.

This report is based on reporting by The Associated Press.

Article Topics: U.S. Senate | South Carolina | Lindsey Graham | Darline Graham Nordone | Special Election | Republican Party | Henry McMaster

The post Darline Graham Nordone appointed to temporarily fill Lindsey Graham’s U.S. Senate seat appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Graham, the South Carolina Republican who died unexpectedly Saturday at age 71, initially appeared to draw a firm line following the Capitol riot.

Addressing the Senate after lawmakers reconvened to certify the 2020 presidential election, Graham said the events of Jan. 6 marked a breaking point in his relationship with Trump.

“Trump and I, we’ve had a hell of a journey. I hate it to end this way,” Graham said. “All I can say is count me out. Enough is enough.”

The break, however, proved brief. Within months, Graham concluded that the Republican Party’s future remained closely tied to Trump and resumed his role as one of the president’s most steadfast allies.

“Can we move forward without President Trump? The answer is no,” Graham said in May 2021. “I’ve determined we can’t grow without him.”

Following news of Graham’s death, Trump paid tribute to the senator in a social media post, calling him a “true American Patriot.” Speaking later on NBC’s Meet the Press, Trump said he was stunned by Graham’s sudden passing.

“I just can’t believe it,” Trump said. “He was like a member of the family.”

From Presidential Rival to Trusted Adviser

Graham’s relationship with Trump began with sharp political clashes during the 2016 Republican presidential primary.

He repeatedly criticized Trump during the campaign, calling him “unfit for office” and condemning his attacks on the late Sen. John McCain, Graham’s longtime friend and fellow Republican from Arizona.

Their feud escalated when Trump publicly revealed Graham’s cellphone number. In response, Graham released a widely viewed video in which he destroyed several mobile phones.

As Trump’s campaign gained momentum, Graham warned that nominating him would be politically damaging and declined to support him in the 2016 general election.

The relationship shifted after Trump entered the White House. The two developed a personal friendship, frequently played golf together and found common ground on judicial appointments, legislative priorities and national security issues.

Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina said their bond deepened over years of spending time together away from Washington, including more than 100 hours on the golf course.

During Trump’s first administration, Graham emerged as one of the president’s most influential allies in Congress, helping advance judicial nominations — including Supreme Court appointments — while backing major elements of the White House’s legislative agenda.

Jan. 6 Break Gave Way to Renewed Alliance

The Capitol attack briefly appeared to bring the partnership to an end.

Following the riot, Graham said he had “never been so humiliated and embarrassed” for the United States, remarks widely viewed as one of the strongest Republican rebukes of Trump after the attack.

That political distance narrowed within weeks after Trump invited Graham to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida for golf and dinner, helping rebuild their alliance.

Throughout Trump’s successful 2024 presidential campaign, Graham became one of the president’s most visible surrogates, frequently defending his policies during television appearances.

Although Graham continued to hold more traditional Republican views on foreign policy, including strong support for Ukraine following Russia’s invasion, he remained one of Trump’s closest advisers on international affairs.

He regularly advised the White House on issues involving Israel, Ukraine and Iran and was a frequent visitor to the Oval Office.

Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said meetings involving Graham were marked by close personal relationships and energetic policy discussions.

Foreign Policy Influence Remained a Hallmark

Graham remained one of the Senate’s most outspoken advocates of an assertive U.S. foreign policy, even as portions of Trump’s political base increasingly favored a less interventionist approach.

Following U.S. and Israeli military strikes against Iran in February, Graham strongly defended the operation, arguing that it advanced American security interests.

In a June 19 social media post, Graham rejected suggestions that Iran had emerged stronger after the attacks, describing those claims as an inaccurate assessment of the country’s military and economic condition.

His close relationship with Trump remained evident until the final weeks of his political career.

After winning the South Carolina Republican primary last month, Graham thanked God before joking that Trump ranked immediately afterward in the order of his appreciation.

The remark underscored a political alliance that survived years of public disagreements, criticism and reconciliation, ultimately becoming one of the defining relationships within the modern Republican Party.

This report is based on reporting by The Associated Press.

Article Topics: Lindsey Graham | Donald Trump | Republican Party | U.S. Senate | Jan. 6 Capitol Riot | Foreign Policy | Political Leadership

The post Lindsey Graham’s Political Legacy Was Defined by His Alliance With Trump Despite Public Breaks appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.