The measure passed in the Lower Chamber on Tuesday with 237 votes in favor, drawing support from both the governing right-wing coalition and opposition parties. The vote coincided with the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, observed annually on November 25 and recognized by the United Nations General Assembly.

The legislation follows a series of high-profile cases that prompted widespread public anger and renewed scrutiny of gender-based violence in a country where cultural and legal reforms have been debated for years. While the government has framed the law as a decisive step, critics argue that enforcement and prevention remain unresolved challenges.

A Rare Moment of Cross-Party Consensus

The bill was backed by the conservative government of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and advanced through parliament with unusual cross-party unity. Lawmakers from both the center-right majority and the center-left opposition supported the final version, describing it as a necessary response to the rise in reported violence against women.

Under the new legislation, femicide is legally recognized as the killing of a woman because of her gender, aligning Italy with several Latin American and European jurisdictions that have adopted similar definitions. Courts will be able to impose life sentences in cases of aggravated murder involving domestic partners or former partners, as well as in crimes motivated by gender-based hostility.

The law also expands penalties for related offenses, including stalking and the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, commonly known as revenge porn. These provisions reflect legal trends across Europe, where governments have strengthened digital-abuse laws in response to increased reporting and online harassment.

Public Outcry After High-Profile Killing

The legislative push accelerated after the 2023 murder of 22-year-old university student Giulia Cecchettin, whose killing by a former boyfriend triggered nationwide protests and extensive media coverage. Thousands marched in Italian cities calling for systemic reform and greater support for women facing domestic abuse.

Advocacy groups have long argued that cultural factors—including deeply rooted gender stereotypes—contribute to underreporting and insufficient protection. Italy’s National Institute of Statistics (Istat) recorded 106 femicides in 2024, with 62 committed by partners or former partners, reinforcing concerns about patterns of intimate-partner violence.

In a statement on Tuesday, Meloni said the government had “doubled funding for anti-violence centers and shelters” and expanded an emergency assistance hotline. She added that awareness campaigns and educational initiatives were underway, calling the law “a concrete step forward.”

However, opposition parties said the reforms remained incomplete. Lawmakers from the center-left stressed that criminal penalties alone would not address the economic and social vulnerabilities that often prevent women from leaving abusive situations.

Prevention Debate Intensifies

The discussion around prevention has become one of the most divisive elements of Italy’s policy response. A government-backed proposal would prohibit sexual and emotional education in elementary schools and require explicit parental consent for related instruction in secondary schools.

Supporters argue the measure protects children from what they describe as ideological influence. Critics—including educators, psychologists, and women’s rights organizations—have condemned the proposal as regressive, warning that limiting classroom education could increase misinformation and weaken early-intervention efforts.

Elly Schlein, leader of the center-left Democratic Party, called the bill “medieval,” noting that Italy is one of only seven European countries where sex and relationship education is not mandatory. “Repression is not enough without prevention, which can only start in schools,” she said.

Across Europe, several governments have linked prevention strategies to school-based programs. The Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention—which Italy ratified in 2013—encourages signatory states to integrate gender-equality education, support services, and coordinated law-enforcement responses. While Italy has expanded police protocols and emergency protections in recent years, watchdog groups report gaps in implementation and geographical disparities in service availability.

Broader Regional and Global Context

Gender-based violence remains a significant concern across Europe. Eurostat data shows that more than half of female homicide victims in the European Union are killed by partners or family members, compared with a far lower proportion among male victims. Several countries—including Spain, France, and Portugal—have introduced national strategies focused on prevention, shelters, and judicial reform.

Italy has faced particular criticism from rights organizations for slow legal proceedings and inconsistent enforcement of restraining orders. Advocacy groups say delays can leave women exposed to continued threats even after reporting abuse.

The Italian government has responded by increasing police supervision for high-risk cases and expanding rapid-response protocols. Authorities have also introduced electronic monitoring for offenders under restraining orders, though its use varies by region.

Next Steps and Ongoing Challenges

Despite broad political support for the new law, experts say its impact will depend on implementation. Legal scholars note that adding femicide to the criminal code strengthens sentencing but does not automatically change investigative practices, which often determine how cases are classified and prosecuted.

Shelter networks have welcomed increased funding but warn that demand continues to outpace capacity, especially in smaller cities and rural areas. Many organizations also emphasize the need for long-term housing and employment support, noting that financial dependence remains one of the strongest barriers for victims seeking to leave abusive partners.

Advocates say sustained public investment, education, and cultural change are essential. Without them, they argue, harsher penalties may serve as a symbolic milestone rather than a structural turning point.

For now, the government has signaled that further measures may follow. “We won’t stop here,” Meloni said. “We must continue to do much more, every day.”

Source: CNN – Italy now recognizes the crime of femicide and punishes it with life in prison

The post Italy Introduces Life Sentence for Femicide After Bipartisan Parliamentary Vote appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The U.S. Treasury Department plans to redefine certain refundable tax credits as “federal public benefits.” This change may restrict access for some immigrant taxpayers. Critics warn it could affect DACA recipients, Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders, and other legally authorized workers, even if they pay taxes. The move may also expand immigration enforcement measures.

Proposed Changes to Tax Credit Eligibility

The Treasury’s draft rule would classify refundable portions of several tax credits—including the Earned Income Tax Credit, Additional Child Tax Credit, American Opportunity Tax Credit, and Saver’s Match Credit—as federal public benefits under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

If enacted, eligible immigrants with U.S. work authorization might no longer qualify for these benefits. Foreign students, temporary workers, and families with U.S.-citizen children could also be affected, depending on how the rule is finalized.

Impact on Immigrant Taxpayers

The Tax Policy Center reports that undocumented immigrants contributed nearly $100 billion to federal, state, and local taxes in 2022. Despite these payments, they are often ineligible for benefits like Social Security or Medicare.

Experts warn the new rule could extend these restrictions to legally authorized immigrants who pay taxes. Carl Davis, research director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said the policy would target “people who are really trying to do the right thing,” making life harder for taxpaying immigrants.

Criticism from Policy Experts

Daniel Costa, director of Immigration Law and Policy Research at the Economic Policy Institute, called the proposal “terrible and unfair,” arguing it penalizes immigrants contributing to the U.S. tax system.

Brandon DeBot, policy director at NYU’s Tax Law Center, added that denying tax credits to immigrant families requires explicit congressional approval. He said the Treasury’s reinterpretation “overrides clear provisions of the tax code.” Analysts suggest the administration may bypass Congress because such a policy likely would not gain majority support.

Administration’s Justification

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the rule enforces the law by “preventing illegal aliens from claiming tax benefits intended for American citizens.” The Treasury consulted with the Justice Department to reinterpret the statutes and craft the proposed regulation.

The change aligns with the Trump administration’s broader immigration enforcement strategy, which increasingly involves multiple federal agencies beyond Homeland Security. The final rule is expected to take effect in the 2026 tax year.

Broader Context

Critics argue the approach is a roundabout way to target immigrants, particularly DACA and TPS recipients, who are generally viewed sympathetically by the public. Analysts note it could expand administrative monitoring of immigration status and increase deportation risk, even for authorized workers.

The policy has raised concerns among tax experts and immigrant advocates, highlighting tensions between federal tax administration, immigration enforcement, and social equity.

Source: AP News – Treasury plans to change tax credit eligibility in a move critics say will hurt immigrant taxpayers

The post Treasury Plans Tax Credit Reclassification, Raising Concerns for Immigrant Families appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

California authorities have announced plans to revoke 17,000 commercial driver’s licenses issued to immigrants after determining that the documents carried expiration dates extending beyond the drivers’ legally authorized stays in the United States. The decision follows an internal review launched after concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Transportation, setting off renewed tensions between state officials and the Trump administration over licensing rules for noncitizen workers.

State officials said the revocations are required under California law, which mandates that commercial driver’s licenses must expire no later than the end of the holder’s documented legal status. The move affects workers across logistics, agriculture, shipping, and transportation—sectors where immigrants make up a significant share of the labor force.

The issue gained national attention earlier this year after several fatal crashes involving drivers without permanent legal status sparked wider debate about federal and state compliance with immigration and safety regulations.

Federal Audit Sparks Licensing Review

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sharply criticized California’s decision, calling it confirmation that the state “acted improperly” despite earlier defending its licensing procedures. Duffy said the review began only after federal officials questioned whether the state had accurately matched license expiration dates with immigration records.

“After weeks of claiming they did nothing wrong, Gavin Newsom and California have been caught red-handed,” Duffy said, arguing that the revocations demonstrate that state agencies issued commercial trucking licenses in violation of federal standards. He added that the Transportation Department would continue demanding “proof that every illegal immigrant has been removed from behind the wheel of semitrucks and school buses.”

California denies the allegation of wrongdoing, saying the affected drivers all held valid federal work authorizations at the time of issuance. Officials said the discrepancy stems from how federal immigration status updates were reported to the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles.

State Pushes Back Against Federal Claims

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office initially declined to elaborate on the precise legal basis for the revocations. Later, his administration clarified that the licenses exceeded the end-dates of temporary work authorization records, violating a California statute requiring license validity to match federal immigration status timelines.

Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Newsom, criticized Duffy’s statements, describing them as politically motivated and factually incorrect.

Richards said the state followed issuance guidance it previously received from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security regarding noncitizen commercial licensing. California argues that any inconsistencies resulted from federal updating delays rather than state-level mismanagement.

Deadly Crashes Renew Safety Scrutiny

The policy debate intensified following high-profile accidents involving commercial drivers without legal authorization to remain in the country.

In August, a tractor-trailer driver who lacked U.S. authorization made an illegal U-turn in Florida, causing a collision that killed three people. Fatal crashes in Texas, Alabama, and California involving drivers in similar circumstances also heightened concerns over safety, verification, and state compliance with federal requirements.

These incidents have been cited by federal officials as justification for a stricter approach toward licensing noncitizen drivers, particularly those operating heavy commercial vehicles.

Federal Restrictions Tighten Eligibility Rules

Earlier this year, Duffy imposed new nationwide limits on which immigrants may obtain commercial driver’s licenses. Under the revised policy, only three visa categories—H-2A, H-2B, and E-2—are eligible. These visas are primarily granted to temporary agricultural laborers, seasonal nonagricultural workers, and foreign investors, respectively.

The rules require states to verify applicant immigration status through a federal database, and licenses may remain valid for no more than one year or until the visa expires, whichever comes first.

The Transportation Department says roughly 200,000 noncitizens currently hold commercial licenses nationwide, but fewer than 10,000 would qualify under the new system. The changes are not retroactive, meaning existing drivers will retain their licenses until renewal unless separate state actions—like California’s revocations—intervene.

Funding Penalties and Compliance Pressure

Federal officials have tied the licensing controversy to broader compliance issues. Duffy previously revoked $40 million in federal transportation funding after concluding that California failed to enforce English-language proficiency requirements for commercial drivers. He has also threatened to withhold an additional $160 million if the state does not fully invalidate licenses found to be out of compliance and address other audit findings.

California says it is revoking the licenses as part of an effort to comply with state law and respond to audit concerns, despite disagreement over the federal interpretation of those findings. Drivers affected by the action have been notified that their licenses will expire in 60 days.

Duffy said federal investigators found that roughly a quarter of the 145 California licenses sampled in a September review should not have been issued. In several cases, licenses remained valid years after a driver’s temporary work permit had expired.

Ongoing Debate Over State and Federal Standards

California insists that its licensing practices were consistent with federal guidance in place at the time the 17,000 licenses were issued. The state argues that it is now correcting administrative inconsistencies identified in the audit, not validating the federal government’s broader criticisms.

The dispute highlights a long-running tension between state autonomy and federal oversight in immigration-related licensing and workforce regulation. With commercial trucking facing persistent labor shortages, the revocations may also have economic implications for freight and supply chain operations across the region.

For now, California says it will continue reviewing its licensing processes while engaging federal officials on how to align state requirements with evolving national policies.

Source: AP News – California revokes 17,000 commercial driver’s licenses for immigrants

The post California Moves to Revoke 17,000 Commercial Driver Licenses Issued to Immigrants appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Partisan deadlock reaches breaking point

The shutdown, the longest in U.S. history, began as negotiations collapsed over Democratic demands to extend an enhanced health care tax credit that helps reduce costs for millions of Americans purchasing coverage through Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Republicans resisted linking the tax credit to short-term government funding, framing it as a separate policy dispute.

The standoff forced hundreds of thousands of federal employees to miss paychecks, closed national parks, disrupted air travel, and drove growing numbers of workers to food banks across the country.

President Trump signed the funding bill hours after the House approved it by a 222–209 vote, largely along party lines. The Senate had passed the measure earlier in the week.

Addressing the public from the White House, Trump placed blame on Democrats, accusing them of prolonging the shutdown for political gain. “You should not forget this,” he said. “When we come up to midterms and other things, don’t forget what they’ve done to our country.”

A bitter end after weeks of stalemate

Tensions flared during floor debates in both chambers as lawmakers vented frustration over the shutdown’s toll.

Republicans accused Democrats of using the closure as leverage in the health care debate. “They knew it would cause pain and they did it anyway,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson.

Democrats countered that the Republican-controlled House had previously pushed through tax cuts benefiting the wealthy while failing to protect middle-class families facing rising health care costs. “This bill leaves families twisting in the wind with zero guarantee there will ever be a vote to extend tax credits to help everyday people pay for health care,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.

Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries vowed the party would continue fighting for the extension, saying, “This fight is not over. We’re just getting started.”

Inside the deal that ended the shutdown

The final compromise was crafted by a bipartisan group of eight senators after it became clear that neither side would fully prevail. The agreement funds three of the 12 annual federal spending bills through the fiscal year and extends funding for all other government agencies until January 30.

Republicans also committed to holding a Senate vote by mid-December on extending the expiring health care subsidies, though there is no guarantee the measure will succeed.

Key provisions in the legislation include:

• Reinstatement of federal workers dismissed during the shutdown and protection from further layoffs through January.

• Back pay guarantees for federal employees affected by the funding lapse.

• Continued funding for food assistance programs administered by the Agriculture Department, ensuring benefits remain uninterrupted.

• Security enhancements, including $203.5 million for congressional protection and $28 million for Supreme Court justices’ security.

The bill also contains a controversial clause allowing senators to sue if their electronic records are searched by federal agencies without notice, with potential damages of up to $500,000 per violation. The language, reportedly added late in negotiations, drew criticism from both parties.

“That was dropped in at the last minute, and I did not appreciate that, nor did most of the House members,” Speaker Johnson said, promising a separate vote on the provision next week.

Health care subsidies remain the major sticking point

The sharpest division remains over the enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credit, which Democrats argue is essential to prevent millions from losing coverage. Republicans contend that the pandemic-era subsidies are no longer necessary.

“It’s a subsidy on top of a subsidy,” said Rep. Tom Cole, Republican chair of the House Appropriations Committee. “COVID is over. They chose the date those subsidies would run out.”

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected that framing, saying the credit was designed to expand access to health care. “All they have done is try to eliminate access to health care in our country,” she said. “The country is catching on to them.”

Without the extension, the Congressional Budget Office projects that premiums could more than double for millions of Americans, while over 2 million people could lose coverage entirely next year.

Senate faces renewed health care battle

Attention now shifts to the Senate, where debate over the tax credits will resume ahead of the December deadline. Some moderate Republicans, including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, have signaled openness to extending the subsidies with new income caps to limit eligibility.

“I support continuing the credits, but with sensible adjustments,” Collins said earlier this week. “We must ensure the assistance reaches those who truly need it.”

Democrats have expressed cautious interest in such revisions but remain skeptical that the Republican-led House will follow through. “Republicans have wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act for 15 years,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. “That’s where they’re trying to go.”

For now, federal agencies are reopening, employees are returning to work, and basic services are resuming nationwide. But with the health care subsidy fight unresolved, Washington faces the possibility of another funding confrontation early next year—an outcome both parties insist they want to avoid, but few seem confident they can prevent.

Source: AP News – President Trump signs government funding bill, ending shutdown after a record 43-day disruption

The post President Trump Signs Funding Bill, Ending Historic 43-Day Government Shutdown appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Source: AP News – Senate approves bill to end the shutdown, sending it to the House

The post U.S. Senate Passes Bill to End 41-Day Government Shutdown appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Funding Deal Gains Bipartisan Support

The legislation passed a procedural vote in the Senate on Sunday by a 60–40 margin, with eight Democrats joining Republicans to advance the bill. The package provides short-term funding to reopen government agencies through January 30, while also including full-year appropriations for agricultural programs, military construction, and veterans’ affairs through September 2026.

Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, described the vote as a long-overdue breakthrough. “This shutdown has gone on far too long,” Collins said, noting that securing yearlong appropriations for veterans’ programs ahead of Veterans Day was a significant achievement.

The bill ensures that states will be reimbursed for expenses incurred to keep the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition programs operational during the shutdown.

Health Care Subsidies Deferred for Later Vote

A central point of contention remains the expiration of federal health care subsidies that help millions of Americans afford insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Democrats had pushed to include an immediate extension of these subsidies, arguing that rising premiums would place additional strain on families.

While the current deal promises a Senate vote on the issue in December, the delay has frustrated several Democratic lawmakers. “The American people want us to stand and fight for health care,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who voted against the bill.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer also opposed the measure, saying it failed to address the subsidies that millions depend on. Despite this opposition, the bill is expected to move forward, reflecting broad bipartisan desire to end the shutdown’s economic and social disruptions.

Relief for Federal Workers

The package offers long-awaited relief to federal employees, many of whom have gone weeks without pay. It reinstates workers who were furloughed or faced layoff notices and guarantees retroactive pay once the government reopens.

The Trump administration had previously signaled that back pay was not guaranteed, creating uncertainty for federal staff. The new measure eliminates that ambiguity, reaffirming the traditional commitment to compensate workers for missed wages during shutdowns.

Ongoing Political Challenges in Congress

Although Sunday’s procedural vote marked progress, several hurdles remain before the legislation can reach President Donald Trump’s desk. Lawmakers are attempting to fast-track the process to avoid another week of delays.

Some Republican senators have raised objections to specific provisions. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky opposed the measure due to concerns about a hemp-related clause, while a small group of conservative Republicans temporarily delayed proceedings as they sought to advance their own policy priorities.

Democrats in both chambers remain divided over how to handle the bill’s omission of health care funding. In the House of Representatives, Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York criticized the proposal, signaling that his caucus may refuse to support it.

“We will not support spending legislation advanced by Senate Republicans that fails to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits,” Jeffries said. “Donald Trump and the Republican Party own the toxic mess they have created.”

Next Steps Toward Reopening the Government

If the Senate passes the package, the measure will move to the House, where members are being recalled from recess to vote. Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, who holds a narrow Republican majority, may need nearly all GOP members to approve the bill given Democratic resistance.

President Trump, returning to the White House on Sunday evening after attending a football game, signaled optimism about a resolution. “It looks like we’re getting close to the shutdown ending,” he told reporters.

Should both chambers approve the deal, federal agencies could resume operations within days, ending more than a month of stalled services, delayed paychecks, and mounting economic costs. The agreement would mark a temporary truce in Washington’s broader budget battles but leaves unresolved the deeper partisan divisions over health care, spending priorities, and fiscal governance.

Source: AP News – What’s in the legislation to end the federal government shutdown

The post U.S. Senate Advances Bipartisan Deal to End Historic Government Shutdown appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The incident unfolded early Tuesday as officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), assisted by the U.S. Marshals Service, attempted to detain 44-year-old Carlitos Ricardo Parias, a Mexican national who has lived in the United States for years without legal status.

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), agents opened “defensive fire” after Parias rammed his car into two law enforcement vehicles while trying to escape. He was struck in the elbow and later taken to a hospital under federal custody.

Federal Operation Turns Confrontational

Authorities said the officers had an administrative immigration warrant for Parias, who had previously evaded arrest. During Tuesday’s operation, agents used multiple vehicles to block his car during a traffic stop. When they approached, Parias allegedly accelerated, crashing into the vehicles in front and behind him.

An agent attempted to break the driver’s window, but Parias continued to accelerate, causing the car to fishtail. Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said one agent then fired to prevent further harm to officers.

A deputy U.S. Marshal was injured in the hand by a ricochet bullet. The U.S. Marshals Service confirmed the injury was non-life-threatening and that the officer remained in stable condition.

Essayli stated that Parias now faces a federal charge of assault on a federal officer, a serious felony that can carry lengthy prison terms. He is expected to appear in court next Tuesday.

Community Reactions and Background

Parias, who operated a small TikTok account called Richard Noticias LA, was known locally for posting short citizen-journalism videos about immigration enforcement in Southern California. His attorney, Carlos Jurado, told local outlets that Parias is “a calm man” with two U.S.-born children and no prior criminal record.

Los Angeles City Councilmember Curren Price’s office confirmed that Parias had lived in the community for decades and was recently recognized with a certificate of appreciation for his local reporting. Supporters gathered outside the hospital following the incident, expressing concern over the use of force.

Federal Officials Defend Use of Force

Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin defended the officers’ actions, describing them as a necessary response to a dangerous situation.
“Vehicles are deadly weapons,” Acting U.S. Attorney Essayli wrote in a statement. “Anyone who uses them against federal agents risks arrest, imprisonment, and life-threatening injuries.”

McLaughlin also criticized what she described as “rhetoric from sanctuary politicians and activists who urge illegal aliens to resist arrest,” saying such messages have increased risks for both officers and suspects.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) said its officers were not directly involved in the federal operation but provided traffic control at the scene.

Tensions Over Immigration Enforcement in California

California, which has some of the nation’s most protective sanctuary policies, often limits local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration agencies. This has led to repeated clashes between state and federal officials over how immigration laws are enforced.

In Los Angeles and other major California cities, ICE officers frequently conduct arrests without local police participation. Activist groups have criticized what they call “militarized” enforcement tactics, while federal authorities say such operations are vital for national security and immigration control.

The confrontation involving Parias follows a series of recent enforcement-related incidents that have drawn scrutiny. Last month, an ICE officer fatally shot a man who allegedly drove his car at agents, dragging one before being killed. In August, another suspect died on a Southern California freeway after fleeing ICE officers on foot.

Rising Assaults on Immigration Officers

According to ICE data, reported assaults on immigration officers have risen sharply this year. Between January 21 and October 1, the agency recorded 172 reported assaults, compared with just 15 during the same period last year.

ICE has attributed the rise to what it describes as “activist rhetoric” encouraging individuals to resist arrest.
Activists and civil rights organizations, however, argue that the agency’s aggressive tactics and unannounced operations contribute to panic and confrontation.

Calls for Oversight and Transparency

The use of force in immigration operations has long been a contentious issue, with lawmakers and advocacy groups calling for more oversight and independent review.
Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have repeatedly urged federal agencies to increase transparency about when and how lethal force is used during arrests.

Immigration policy analysts say the Los Angeles incident underscores the growing tension between federal enforcement priorities and local sanctuary commitments. While the Biden administration has emphasized a more targeted approach to immigration arrests, critics contend that operations like this show little difference from previous hardline policies.

For now, Carlitos Ricardo Parias remains in federal custody, recovering from his injury. His legal team is expected to contest the assault charge and challenge the circumstances of the arrest.

Broader Implications for Immigration Enforcement

Analysts say the case could reignite debate over the federal government’s role in local jurisdictions that maintain sanctuary protections. It also highlights how immigration enforcement operations are increasingly documented and discussed in real-time through social media, including by community reporters like Parias himself.

As the investigation continues, the Department of Homeland Security has not disclosed whether agents’ use of force will undergo an internal review — a common procedure after shootings involving federal officers.

Source: AP News – Immigration agents shot a suspect after he rammed their vehicle during a LA stop, DHS says

The post Immigration Officers Open Fire During Los Angeles Arrest Attempt appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

As the U.S. government shutdown stretches into its third week, a new AP-NORC poll finds that most Americans view the standoff as a major national issue. The survey reveals that both President Donald Trump and members of Congress—Republican and Democrat alike—are being widely blamed for the ongoing impasse that has left federal workers unpaid and critical services disrupted.

Public Frustration Grows Amid Prolonged Stalemate

According to the Associated Press–NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, six in ten Americans say President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans bear “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of responsibility for the shutdown. Meanwhile, 54% assign similar blame to Democrats in Congress.

The findings underscore a broad sense that no political group has effectively avoided responsibility for the crisis. At least three-quarters of respondents believe all parties deserve at least “a moderate” share of blame.

The survey was conducted as the shutdown entered its third week, with little progress toward a resolution. Lawmakers from both sides have accused each other of intransigence, while millions of Americans face growing uncertainty about the economic fallout.

Competing Agendas Over Health Care Funding

At the heart of the dispute is a deadlock over extending federal tax credits that help millions of Americans afford health insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Democrats insist on preserving the credits, arguing that without them, insurance premiums will rise sharply. Republicans, however, have refused to negotiate until Congress passes a funding bill to reopen the government.

The AP-NORC poll shows that around four in ten Americans support extending the ACA tax credits, while only about one in ten oppose them outright. The remaining 42% expressed no opinion—an indication that many Americans may not be closely following the specific policy debate driving the shutdown.

Jason Beck, a Republican and self-employed insurance agent from Utah who relies on the ACA marketplace, said he supports keeping the credits in place. “I’d rather just keep it the same way it is now,” Beck said, noting that he blames both parties equally for the impasse.

Blame and Responsibility Shared Across Party Lines

Public opinion suggests slightly more frustration with the party in power. About half of respondents said Trump bears “a great deal” of responsibility—the highest proportion among all figures measured in the poll. Roughly the same share fault congressional Republicans, while 40% point to Democrats as equally culpable.

Sophia Cole, a 38-year-old Republican mother from St. Louis, said she believes both sides should “come together” to reach a compromise but ultimately views the president as responsible for breaking the deadlock. “We’re dependent on him to get everyone to the table,” Cole said.

The prolonged stalemate mirrors the 2018–2019 shutdown, which lasted a record 35 days. Then, as now, public sentiment leaned toward blaming the administration in power, though overall confidence in Congress remained low.

Americans See Shutdown as Major National Problem

The latest poll indicates that 54% of U.S. adults view the shutdown as a “major issue,” while just 11% say it is “not a problem at all.” Among Democrats, 69% call it a major issue, compared with 59% of independents and 37% of Republicans.

The impacts are increasingly visible. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees are either furloughed or working without pay. Flight delays and service disruptions are being reported nationwide.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., warned that the U.S. is “barreling toward one of the longest shutdowns in American history.” The White House echoed that concern, saying the economic toll could exceed that of previous shutdowns.

Legal Challenges and Economic Strain

Federal workers are already feeling the pinch. Although roughly 2 million U.S. service members were paid on time this week, other employees face uncertainty as the administration carries out temporary layoffs.

A federal judge in California temporarily halted additional layoffs on Wednesday, ruling that the firings appeared politically motivated and were implemented without sufficient planning.

Angie Santiago, a 60-year-old Democrat from Miami who relies on disability benefits, said she worries the crisis will deepen existing economic hardship. “If people like me are struggling, I can’t imagine what federal workers are going through,” she said. Speaking from a local food bank, she added, “You’re going to see more of these lines popping up. It’s going to get bad.”

Political Fallout Ahead of 2026 Midterms

The government shutdown has evolved into a political messaging battle, with both parties hoping the public will assign greater blame to the other side. Democrats, currently out of power, view the standoff as a potential rallying point ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

However, the poll suggests neither party is seeing a significant boost in public favorability. Roughly 30% of Americans hold a favorable view of the Democratic Party, while about 40% view the Republican Party positively—figures that have remained largely unchanged since September.

Confidence in Congress remains strikingly low: only 4% of Americans say they have “a great deal” of confidence in its leadership, while nearly half report “hardly any.”

Health Care: A Possible Advantage for Democrats

Despite overall frustration, health care policy may offer Democrats a modest advantage in the long term. According to the poll, 38% of Americans trust Democrats to manage health care more effectively, compared with 25% who trust Republicans. Another 25% said they trust neither party, while 10% expressed equal trust in both.

Independent voter Rob Redding, 49, from New York, said he supports extending ACA subsidies and commended Democrats for holding firm on the issue. “It’s one of the most valiant and gutsy things I’ve seen them do,” he said. “And I think it’s the right call.”

A Nation Divided but United in Discontent

The AP-NORC findings reflect a rare moment of bipartisan agreement—at least in dissatisfaction. With both major parties sharing in the blame, public patience appears to be thinning as the shutdown stretches on.

While neither side shows signs of yielding, the political cost of inaction is mounting. For millions of Americans facing missed paychecks and stalled services, the question is no longer who is to blame, but how soon the government can return to work.

Source: AP News – Who’s winning the blame game over the shutdown? Here’s what a new AP-NORC poll shows

The post Most Americans Blame Both Parties as U.S. Shutdown Deepens, AP-NORC Poll Shows appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published: September-28-2025, 19:15 EDT

Former President Donald Trump announced plans to send U.S. troops to Portland, Oregon, authorizing what he described as “Full Force, if necessary” to confront what he called “domestic terrorists.” His statement, delivered on social media Saturday, drew immediate rejection from state and local officials who argue the city is stable and does not require military intervention.

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, Portland’s mayor, and local business leaders said Trump is overstating conditions and attempting to exert federal authority over a city they say is managing its public safety effectively.

Trump’s Announcement on Social Media

In his post, Trump said he directed the Department of Defense to “provide all necessary troops to protect war-ravaged Portland,” alleging that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the city were “under siege from Antifa and other domestic terrorists.”

The White House and Department of Defense did not immediately provide details about the scope, timing, or type of forces that could be deployed. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell later said only that the military stood “ready to mobilize” if directed.

Governor Kotek Rejects Federal Intervention

At a Saturday afternoon news conference, Governor Tina Kotek said she told Trump directly, as well as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, that Oregon does not need troops.

“We can manage our own local public safety needs. There is no insurrection. There is no threat to national security,” Kotek said.

She added that Trump gave no timetable for a deployment and that she does not intend to call up the Oregon National Guard. “This is an American city. We do not need any intervention,” said Portland Mayor Keith Wilson, echoing her remarks.

Concerns Over Federal Authority

Kotek stressed that she believes the president does not have the legal authority to send federal troops into Portland without state approval. Her comments follow earlier disputes between states and the Trump administration over the use of federal forces in domestic settings.

Trump previously deployed National Guard units and active-duty Marines to Los Angeles in defiance of California Governor Gavin Newsom, a move later challenged in court. A federal judge ruled the action unlawful, but the decision remains under appeal.

Kotek urged residents to stay calm and avoid escalation. “Let’s not take the bait. Let’s not respond to what the president is trying to do,” she said.

Portland Residents Express Doubt

While Trump characterized the city as unstable, life in Portland on Saturday appeared routine. Residents jogged along the Willamette River, relaxed near fountains, and biked under clear skies.

“Where’s the emergency?” asked Allen Schmertzler, 72, who said he was “disgusted” by Trump’s decision.

Another local, John McNeur, 74, called Trump’s statement “ridiculous” while strolling downtown. “This place is not a city that’s out of control. It’s just a beautiful place,” he said.

Protests and Troop Deployments in Other Cities

Portland is not the only city on Trump’s list. He has also named Chicago and Memphis as potential deployment sites. While he previously threatened to send National Guard units into Chicago, no troops have been dispatched.

In Memphis, however, a deployment is expected soon involving about 150 troops—significantly fewer than the numbers sent to Los Angeles or Washington, D.C., during earlier protests. On Saturday, between 80 and 100 Memphis residents marched to City Hall to oppose the move, holding signs that read “Resources Not Task Forces” and “Memphis Don’t Need No Occupation.”

Protest organizers said the city needs investments in education, healthcare, and youth services rather than federal enforcement actions.

Portland’s Protest History

Portland, with a population of 636,000, became a national focus during the 2020 racial justice demonstrations following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Some of those protests involved clashes between demonstrators and federal officers sent by the Trump administration to protect federal property.

In recent months, protests have been smaller and largely centered around the ICE building outside downtown. Its windows have been boarded up, and security has been reinforced following prior vandalism. Federal Protective Services currently oversee security there.

Police Chief Bob Day emphasized that local police do not participate in immigration enforcement and would only act in cases of vandalism or criminal activity near the facility.

Federal and Local Dispute Over Authority

A spokesperson for the Oregon National Guard, Lt. Col. Stephen Bomar, confirmed that “no official requests have been received” for Guard deployment. He said any requests would need to be approved by the governor.

Meanwhile, Oregon’s congressional delegation—except Republican Representative Cliff Bentz—sent a letter condemning Trump’s announcement. “This unilateral action represents an abuse of executive authority, seeks to incite violence, and undermines the constitutional balance of power,” the lawmakers wrote.

City Recovery and Public Safety Data

Despite Trump’s description of Portland as “war-ravaged,” city officials say the area has made significant strides in recovery since the height of the 2020 protests.

This summer marked the busiest pedestrian season downtown since before the pandemic, according to city reports. A recent study by the Major Cities Chiefs Association showed a 17 percent drop in violent crime in Portland between January and June 2025 compared with the same period the year before.

Homeless encampments downtown have also decreased, part of broader city initiatives to improve public safety and quality of life.

National Political Context

Trump’s decision comes after the September 10 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, which he has cited as part of his renewed focus on what he calls the “radical left.” In remarks at the Oval Office earlier this week, Trump vowed to “do a pretty big number on those people in Portland,” describing protesters as “professional agitators and anarchists.”

The comments underscore the sharp divide between federal rhetoric and local accounts of the situation. For many Portland residents, the city is experiencing recovery rather than crisis. Whether troops will ultimately arrive—and how their presence might affect local dynamics—remains uncertain.

Source: AP News – Trump says he will send troops to Portland, Oregon, in latest deployment to US cities

The post Trump Authorizes Troop Deployment to Portland, Oregon appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published: September-23-2025, 14:30, EDT

President Donald Trump used his speech at the United Nations General Assembly to underscore his foreign policy record and to argue that international institutions have weakened global stability. While highlighting his administration’s approach to ongoing conflicts and U.S. priorities abroad, Trump emphasized his “America First” agenda and questioned the effectiveness of multilateral organizations.

Trump’s Return to the United Nations

Speaking in New York, Trump addressed world leaders at a time of heightened global tensions. He argued that “globalist institutions have significantly decayed the world order,” a sentiment that has shaped his administration’s policies since his return to office.

Trump’s remarks built on his long-standing skepticism of multilateral bodies. Early in his second term, he ordered the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization and ended participation in the U.N. Human Rights Council. He also directed a review of U.S. involvement in hundreds of international organizations to assess whether they align with his foreign policy priorities.

A Volatile Global Context

This year’s UN session comes at a turbulent moment, with conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan dominating the agenda. Leaders are also grappling with economic uncertainty, the implications of artificial intelligence, and concerns about Trump’s strained relationship with international institutions.

“By far the most stressed the U.N. system has ever been in its 80 years,” said Anjali K. Dayal, professor of international politics at Fordham University, highlighting the fragile state of global diplomacy.

U.S. Military Actions Raise Debate

Trump has faced scrutiny over his recent use of military force. In June, he ordered airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, followed by strikes this month on boats in the Caribbean suspected of drug smuggling.

Some lawmakers and human rights advocates criticized the latter operations, which reportedly resulted in fatalities, arguing that suspects should face legal proceedings rather than lethal force. Venezuelan officials have speculated that the strikes may signal U.S. support for regime change efforts targeting President Nicolás Maduro.

Meetings with Global Leaders

After his address, Trump scheduled one-on-one meetings with U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres and leaders from Ukraine, Argentina, and the European Union. He also convened a group discussion with officials from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan.

The White House said Trump aimed to showcase “the renewal of American strength around the world” and progress in efforts to resolve conflicts. His evening schedule included hosting a reception for more than 100 invited world leaders.

Gaza and Ukraine Conflicts Remain Central

The wars in Gaza and Ukraine featured prominently in discussions around Trump’s address. While Trump has campaigned on promises to end both conflicts quickly, tangible progress has been limited.

France’s recognition of Palestinian statehood earlier this week intensified debate at the UN, adding pressure on the U.S. and Israel, which oppose such moves. Trump has focused on negotiating a ceasefire to secure the release of hostages held by Hamas, though challenges remain.

On Ukraine, Trump has pushed European nations to reduce their reliance on Russian oil while encouraging direct dialogue between Kyiv and Moscow. His June summit in Alaska with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was followed by calls for negotiations, but Russia has escalated its military actions since then.

Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize Ambitions

Despite criticism of his handling of current conflicts, Trump continues to link his foreign policy legacy to aspirations for a Nobel Peace Prize. He has claimed credit for mediating between nations including Israel and Iran, India and Pakistan, and Rwanda and the Democratic Congo.

Experts note that while his administration facilitated dialogue, the long-term outcomes remain uncertain. Still, Trump’s pursuit of global recognition may influence his rhetoric at international forums.

“His speech is going to be driven by how much he really believes he has a chance of getting a Nobel Peace Prize,” said Mark Montgomery of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “If he thinks that’s possible, then he knows not to antagonize the U.N. unnecessarily.”

Source: AP News – Trump to take aim at ‘globalist institutions,’ make case for his foreign policy record in UN speech

The post Trump Targets ‘Globalist Institutions’ in UN Address, Highlights Foreign Policy Agenda appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.