The changes, confirmed in a government notice issued Tuesday, delay the next election from 2028 to 2030, effectively extending Mnangagwa’s tenure by two years. The 83-year-old president had previously pledged to leave office when his second and final term ended in 2028.

The legislation makes Zimbabwe the latest African nation to amend its constitution in a way that allows an incumbent leader to remain in office for a longer period.

Constitutional amendments reshape electoral system

Parliament approved the constitutional amendments in June after they were backed by the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union–Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and supported by some lawmakers from the divided opposition.

Under the revised constitution, Zimbabwe will no longer elect its president through a nationwide public vote. Instead, members of Parliament will choose the country’s head of state.

The amendments also extend the terms of both the president and members of Parliament from five years to seven years while retaining the existing constitutional limit of two presidential terms.

Critics challenge legality of reforms

The constitutional changes have been strongly opposed by human rights lawyers, civil society organizations, opposition politicians and some veterans of Zimbabwe’s 1970s liberation struggle.

Critics argue that extending the length of presidential terms required approval through a national referendum rather than parliamentary action alone.

Supporters of the amendments maintain that Parliament had the constitutional authority to adopt the reforms because the existing two-term limit for presidents remains unchanged, even though each term has been lengthened.

Several legal challenges seeking to overturn the amendments remain before Zimbabwe’s courts, which have not yet ruled on the cases.

Political tensions continue to rise

The constitutional changes have intensified political tensions in the southern African country of about 15 million people.

In recent months, police have prohibited some public gatherings while authorities have arrested and detained critics of the constitutional reforms. Opponents have also alleged harassment and intimidation linked to the political dispute.

Mnangagwa has led Zimbabwe since 2017 after the military-backed removal of longtime President Robert Mugabe, who died in 2019.

This report is based on reporting by The Associated Press.

Topics: Zimbabwe | Emmerson Mnangagwa | Constitutional Reform | Elections | Democracy | ZANU-PF | Africa Politics | Governance

The post Zimbabwe’s president signs constitutional changes delaying elections and extending presidential term appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

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

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

Executive Authority Becomes the Central Political Debate

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

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

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

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

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

Historical Comparisons Fuel Public Debate

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

The debate has also extended into political messaging.

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

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

Courts Continue to Test Presidential Powers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial Interests and Ethics Questions Remain Under Review

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

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

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

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

Justice Department Actions Face Political Scrutiny

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

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

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

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

America 250 Celebrations Coincide With Broader Constitutional Debate

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

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

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

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

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

On nights when the president addresses Congress — whether during a State of the Union or a joint session speech — the visual tableau appears complete: lawmakers, Supreme Court justices, military leaders and Cabinet secretaries assembled under one roof. Yet one figure is conspicuously absent. That absence is intentional.

The designated survivor is a member of the presidential line of succession chosen to remain at a secure, undisclosed location during events where the nation’s leadership is concentrated in a single place. The rationale is straightforward but stark: if a catastrophic attack were to kill or incapacitate everyone else in the line of succession present at the event, someone would remain constitutionally empowered to assume the presidency.

The practice, though dramatized in popular culture, reflects decades of continuity-of-government planning shaped by nuclear anxiety, terrorism threats and constitutional mechanics.

The constitutional logic behind the absence

The U.S. Constitution and subsequent legislation establish a clear order of presidential succession. After the vice president, the line extends to the Speaker of the House, the president pro tempore of the Senate and then Cabinet secretaries in the order their departments were created.

Because many of those officials are present at major national addresses, succession planners ensure that at least one eligible Cabinet member is elsewhere and protected. The chosen official must meet the constitutional qualifications for the presidency — including being a natural-born citizen at least 35 years old and having lived in the United States for 14 years.

The system is less about predicting a specific threat and more about eliminating a single point of failure. Concentration risk — a concept familiar in financial and security planning — applies to governance as well. If too many decision-makers gather in one location, a single catastrophic event could paralyze the executive branch.

Cold War origins and formalization

The idea of preserving leadership in the event of decapitation predates the modern “designated survivor” label, but it was formalized during the late Cold War. According to historical accounts, including research detailed by journalist Garrett M. Graff in “Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government’s Secret Plan to Save Itself — While the Rest of Us Die,” continuity planning intensified during the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

At the time, U.S. defense officials assessed that Soviet submarines positioned off the Atlantic coast could potentially launch nuclear missiles with minimal warning. Washington, as the symbolic and operational center of government, was viewed as a prime target. The prospect of a sudden, leadership-erasing strike forced planners to consider worst-case scenarios in granular detail.

Beginning in 1980, responsibility for certain continuity preparations was coordinated through the White House Military Office, working alongside what is now the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The aim was not merely symbolic succession, but operational continuity — ensuring that someone could command the armed forces, communicate with allies and maintain constitutional authority in the immediate aftermath of catastrophe.

After September 11: a changed threat landscape

Before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, designated survivors often retained greater flexibility about where they would wait out a presidential address. Former Cabinet officials have described relatively low-key arrangements, including travel to other U.S. cities during the event.

The attacks on New York and Washington reshaped that posture. Continuity planning became more formalized and security-driven, reflecting the reality that mass-casualty attacks were no longer theoretical. Designated survivors are now typically escorted to secure locations, sometimes airborne, accompanied by military aides and representatives from key agencies.

They receive briefings on emergency procedures, constitutional protocols and national security contingencies. While dramatizations suggest instant transformation into a wartime president, former participants have described the experience as more procedural than theatrical — punctuated by moments of sobering reflection.

What the role feels like

Officials who have served as designated survivor often describe a mixture of routine bureaucracy and existential gravity. The day begins much like any other. Then, shortly before a major address, security arrangements intensify.

In some cases, the official is transported by military aircraft. In others, they are taken to a secure facility equipped for crisis command. Accompanying staff may include representatives from defense, intelligence and emergency management agencies, carrying briefing materials outlining lines of authority and decision-making frameworks.

The psychological dimension appears to be the most striking. Former Cabinet members have described the moment when it becomes clear that, in an unthinkable scenario, they would be required to assume the presidency immediately — potentially after a national tragedy that has claimed colleagues and friends.

That realization is compounded when family members attend the event from which the designated survivor is absent. The role, by design, isolates one individual from both the symbolic unity and potential vulnerability of the gathering.

Public awareness and cultural portrayal

The public did not always know which official had been chosen. Early in the 1980s, the identity of the designated survivor was disclosed only after the event concluded. Over time, increased media coverage and live television broadcasts made absences more visible, and news outlets now often identify the official in advance or shortly thereafter.

The concept entered popular culture through novels and television, most prominently the ABC series Designated Survivor starring Kiefer Sutherland. The show imagined a mid-level Cabinet secretary suddenly elevated to the presidency after an attack destroys the Capitol.

While fictional portrayals heighten drama, they reflect genuine public fascination with contingency governance. As historians have noted, the scenario combines two compelling elements: existential threat and democratic resilience. The idea that constitutional order can persist even after devastation speaks to institutional durability.

Continuity beyond symbolism

The designated survivor is only one component of a broader continuity-of-government architecture. Federal agencies maintain relocation sites, redundant communication systems and succession plans within their own leadership ranks. Military exercises routinely simulate catastrophic scenarios, testing command structures under extreme stress.

Recent reporting has noted that some military training missions are explicitly tied to continuity objectives. These exercises aim to ensure that the federal government can function even if physical infrastructure in Washington is compromised.

The system’s persistence suggests that U.S. officials view low-probability, high-impact events as requiring constant preparation. The logic mirrors risk management principles used in other sectors: while the likelihood of total leadership loss is remote, the consequences would be so severe that preventative measures are considered essential.

Why it still matters

The existence of a designated survivor underscores an uncomfortable truth: modern governance must plan for scenarios that would once have seemed unimaginable. Nuclear tensions, terrorism, cyber threats and emerging technologies have all shaped continuity planning over decades.

Yet the role is deliberately unglamorous. It involves waiting, briefing books, secure communications and, often, anticlimax. When the president finishes speaking and the assembled leaders exit safely, the designated survivor returns quietly to regular duties.

That anticlimax is the point. The system is designed to be invisible in success and indispensable only in failure.

Whether the threat environment is defined by Cold War nuclear standoffs or contemporary security concerns, the logic remains consistent: democratic systems endure not just through elections and debate, but through contingency planning. The designated survivor is a reminder that constitutional order depends as much on preparation as on ceremony.

In practice, the chosen official almost always resumes the role of Cabinet secretary by the end of the evening. But for a few hours, in a secure and undisclosed location, the full weight of presidential authority rests — hypothetically — on their shoulders.

Source: AP News – From Cabinet secretary to doomsday president: What being the designated survivor is like

The post From Cabinet Secretary to ‘Doomsday President’: How the Designated Survivor System Works appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump has once again stirred controversy by refusing to rule out a third term in the White House, despite the clear restrictions of the 22nd Amendment. In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Trump suggested that there are ways to bypass the constitutional limit, emphasizing that he was “not joking” about the possibility.

During a Sunday-morning phone interview, Trump claimed that many of his allies have encouraged him to seek a third term.

“A lot of people want me to do it,” he said. “But I basically tell them we have a long way to go. It’s very early.”

While insisting that his current focus is on his ongoing administration, Trump didn’t shy away from acknowledging the possibility of returning to office for a third term.

When directly asked if he was serious about pursuing another term, Trump reaffirmed, “I’m not joking.” However, he admitted, “It is far too early to think about it.”

Pressed on whether any specific plans had been presented to him that would enable a third term, Trump responded cryptically: “There are methods which you could do it.”

NBC News then inquired whether one such method could involve Vice President JD Vance running for office and then handing power back to Trump. “That’s one,” Trump confirmed, before adding, “But there are others, too.”

When asked to elaborate, he declined, simply saying, “No.”

Under current U.S. law, a third presidential term would require amending the Constitution, an arduous process demanding a two-thirds majority in Congress or a constitutional convention initiated by two-thirds of the states. Any amendment would then need ratification by three-quarters of the states, making such a change highly improbable.

Despite these challenges, Trump’s strong polling numbers bolster his confidence. “A lot of people would like me to” serve another term, he asserted.

Trump’s remarks come amid renewed discussion among his allies about extending presidential term limits. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) has proposed a resolution to alter the existing restrictions, potentially opening a pathway for Trump to run again.

Meanwhile, longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon fueled speculation in a recent News Nation interview, predicting that Trump would “run and win again in 2028.” He hinted at multiple possible strategies to circumvent the current two-term limit, though he did not specify them.

The White House recently played into Trump’s self-styled regal image by posting a mocked-up magazine cover of him wearing a crown. This came in response to his administration’s decision to block congestion pricing in New York City. The official White House X account quoted Trump’s earlier Truth Social post, proclaiming: “LONG LIVE THE KING!”

Trump’s latest comments are sure to fuel further debate over his future political ambitions and the implications for American democracy. Whether these “methods” for a third term hold any real weight remains to be seen, but for now, the speculation continues.

Source: NBC News – Trump won’t rule out seeking a third term in the White House, tells NBC News ‘there are methods’ for doing so

The post Trump Hints at a Third Term: ‘There Are Methods’ to Make It Happen appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Donald Trump’s latest move to assert executive power – temporarily halting federal aid – has triggered widespread confusion and alarm across the nation. The decision, which affected vital programs like Meals on Wheels and low-income housing assistance, marked a dramatic shift from the structured early days of his second presidency to a chaotic reality, reminiscent of the turmoil that characterized his first term. More than just a political misstep, this action ignited a pivotal legal battle over the limits of presidential authority, one that is poised to reach the Supreme Court.

While Trump has long cultivated an image as a disruptive force against Washington’s establishment, his push for near-unlimited presidential power is becoming increasingly evident. The funding freeze, along with other controversial early moves such as firing DOJ prosecutors and challenging birthright citizenship, has sparked fears that Trump’s view of presidential power could dangerously overshadow the Constitution.

A Memo That Sparked Chaos

The storm began when the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo on Monday night, calling for a temporary suspension of “all activities related to obligation or disbursement of federal financial assistance.” While Medicare benefits were exempt, the memo left many wondering whether essential programs, from Pentagon funding to local community assistance, were at risk. This created a wave of uncertainty, leaving lawmakers, state governments, and non-governmental organizations scrambling for clarity.

Trump’s team struggled to contain the fallout. Despite attempts to reassure the public that the freeze was intended to target only certain programs, the lack of clear answers made the situation worse. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, initially unclear on whether Medicaid was impacted, later clarified that it was not, though many states experienced disruptions. By the end of the day, a federal judge imposed a temporary halt on the freeze, underscoring the confusion and urgency surrounding the decision.

The Fallout: Confusion, Political Damage, and Constitutional Concerns

The day’s events had immediate political ramifications, overshadowing the early, carefully crafted agenda of Trump’s second term. The administration’s shock-and-awe approach, characterized by a flurry of presidential orders and directives, has made it difficult for critics to focus on individual policies, let alone their implications. But the haste with which these actions were implemented seems to have caught the OMB off guard, with disastrous consequences.

Though Trump’s core support remains strong, particularly following his victory in all seven swing states, the chaos raises questions about the sustainability of his approach. Despite his desire for dramatic changes, Trump’s political capital is not unlimited. The uncertainty caused by the funding freeze only highlighted the crucial role many government programs play in American society – a reminder that slashing federal spending could have far-reaching impacts.

A Direct Challenge to Congressional Power

At the heart of the funding freeze lies a fundamental challenge to the Constitution’s separation of powers. By seeking to freeze and redirect funds already approved by Congress, Trump is effectively asserting that the executive branch has the authority to override the legislative process. This move directly undermines Congress’s constitutional “power of the purse” – its exclusive right to allocate government spending.

White House officials defended the freeze, claiming it was necessary to prevent bureaucrats from distributing funds for what they called “wicked and pernicious” policies. Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, argued that this move was aligned with the will of the American people. However, winning an election does not grant a president the right to ignore the law, particularly when it comes to federal spending approved by Congress.

This disregard for legal and constitutional boundaries is not limited to the funding freeze. Trump has repeatedly shown a willingness to challenge established laws and norms, from firing career prosecutors to proposing drastic changes to immigration policy that contradict constitutional principles. His recent dismissal of over a dozen government watchdogs without following the required 30-day notice to Congress further reflects his tendency to act unilaterally, dismissing legal requirements he deems inconvenient.

A Growing Threat to Democracy

The growing pattern of constitutional overreach raises deep concerns about Trump’s vision for the presidency. According to constitutional law experts, the president’s actions are increasingly pushing the limits of executive power, with potentially authoritarian consequences. Corey Brettschneider, a political science professor at Brown University, argues that democracy cannot function if presidents believe they can simply override laws that were passed by previous administrations or Congress.

“What democracy requires isn’t that as soon as the president comes into power, they could wipe away everything that came before,” Brettschneider explains. “The idea of a democracy is that when laws are passed – whether it’s the 1964 Civil Rights Act or environmental protections – those laws bind not just citizens, but even the president.”

Looking Ahead: Trump’s Unchecked Ambition

Tuesday’s events signal that Trump is just beginning to test the limits of his presidential power. There are growing concerns that his administration is deliberately engaging in political battles and legal fights to expand the scope of the presidency, particularly with the backing of a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. The current political environment, where checks on presidential authority have weakened, may give Trump the opportunity to achieve his goal of consolidating power.

Republican support in Congress and the growing influence of Trump’s Supreme Court appointees could provide him with the leverage needed to reshape the balance of power in the executive branch. However, as constitutional experts warn, this vision of an unchecked presidency poses a grave threat to democratic governance.

“The presidency is supposed to be limited by the law and by the Constitution,” says Brettschneider. “But Trump sees it quite differently – that he is empowered to do whatever he wants. And that really is a vision of authoritarian control.”

As his presidency unfolds, the stakes are high: the struggle over the proper scope of executive power will not only define Trump’s second term but could reshape the very foundations of American democracy.

Source

The post The Chaos Behind Trump’s Power Play: Is He Overstepping His Bounds? appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

South Korea is reeling from a political and legal storm after the arrest of its former defense minister, Kim Yong Hyun, over his alleged involvement in a controversial martial law decree. Authorities revealed that Kim attempted suicide while in detention, further escalating tensions in a case that has paralyzed the nation’s political landscape.

Failed Suicide Attempt in Detention

Kim’s suicide attempt occurred late Tuesday night at a Seoul detention center, according to Shin Yong Hae, Commissioner General of the Korea Correctional Service. Officials intervened in time, and Kim is now in stable condition. Justice Minister Park Sung Jae confirmed the incident during a parliamentary session.

Kim was arrested on allegations of orchestrating a rebellion and abusing power. His arrest marks the first formal detention related to the Dec. 3 martial law declaration by President Yoon Suk Yeol, a move that has drawn widespread condemnation.

Martial Law Sparks Political Crisis

President Yoon’s martial law decree, the first in South Korea in over 40 years, has been criticized as a power grab that froze the country’s political system, disrupted foreign policy, and unsettled financial markets. Yoon justified the decree as necessary to eliminate “anti-state forces,” a veiled reference to his liberal political opponents.

The Democratic Party, South Korea’s main opposition, plans to reintroduce a motion to impeach Yoon after a previous attempt failed. The president has since apologized for the decree but pledged to face any legal or political consequences.

Deployment of Troops and Police Under Scrutiny

Kim is accused of recommending martial law to Yoon and ordering troops to block lawmakers from voting on the decree. Despite these efforts, enough lawmakers managed to convene and reject the decree, forcing its repeal before dawn on Dec. 4.

Authorities are investigating whether Yoon, Kim, and others involved in the martial law violated laws against rebellion, a charge that carries a potential death sentence. Two senior police officials, National Police Agency Commissioner General Cho Ji Ho and Seoul Metropolitan Police Chief Kim Bong-sik, have also been detained for deploying forces to obstruct lawmakers’ votes.

Constitutionality in Question

Opposition leaders and experts argue that the martial law decree was unconstitutional, citing that such measures can only be enacted during wartime or national emergencies. Deploying military forces to disrupt parliamentary proceedings has been labeled as an act of rebellion.

In a parliamentary hearing, Army Special Warfare Command leader Kwak Jong-keun testified that President Yoon personally ordered troops to “break down the doors and remove lawmakers” from the National Assembly chamber. Kwak admitted he did not follow through with the directive.

Legal and Political Ramifications

Prosecutors now have 20 days to determine whether to indict Kim. Meanwhile, police have begun searching President Yoon’s office for evidence, though legal barriers related to state secrets could limit their investigation.

If the impeachment motion succeeds, Yoon’s powers would be suspended pending a decision by the Constitutional Court. If removed from office, South Korea would face an early presidential election. However, Yoon’s conservative party has proposed a “transition plan” to manage state affairs during an early election, a move criticized as unconstitutional.

National Fallout

The martial law decree and its aftermath have shaken South Korea’s democratic foundation. Observers worry about the long-term impact on governance, legal integrity, and the country’s reputation as one of Asia’s strongest democracies.

This developing case continues to dominate national headlines as South Korea awaits the next chapter in its unfolding political crisis.

Source

The post Former South Korean Defense Minister Attempts Suicide After Arrest in Martial Law Case appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

SEOUL, Dec 4 (Reuters) – President Yoon Suk Yeol’s declaration of martial law on Tuesday night has sparked one of the most significant challenges to South Korea’s democracy since the 1980s. Lawmakers quickly rejected the declaration in a vote, and protests erupted outside the parliament building.

Yoon justified his declaration as a response to opposition parties, but it was met with strong resistance from key figures, including the speaker of parliament and Han Dong-hoon, the leader of Yoon’s own party. Han had previously criticized the president over his handling of recent scandals.

Under South Korean law, the president must immediately lift martial law if parliament demands it by a majority vote. Tensions escalated when live television footage showed helmeted troops, seemingly ready to enforce martial law, attempting to enter the National Assembly building. Parliamentary aides fought back by spraying fire extinguishers to block their way.

In a televised address, Yoon accused opposition parties of taking the parliamentary process hostage and vowed to eliminate what he called “shameless pro-North Korean anti-state forces.” He argued that martial law was necessary to protect constitutional order.

The opposition Democratic Party strongly condemned the move, calling it “illegal” and a violation of the Constitution. The party described it as “essentially a coup d’état.”

As soon as Yoon made his announcement, protesters began to gather outside the parliament building, demanding the withdrawal of martial law. Some chanted, “Arrest Yoon Suk Yeol,” while others called for an end to the emergency measure.

Im Jin-soo, a 66-year-old protester, expressed his concern for his children’s safety but decided to join the demonstration after hearing the news.

Source

The post South Korea Rejects President Yoon’s Martial Law Declaration appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.