More stories

  • in

    Tusk Government Wins Confidence Vote in Poland

    Prime Minister Donald Tusk called the vote to seek endorsement of his government after a political opponent won the presidency.Poland’s centrist government won a confidence vote in Parliament on Wednesday, averting political turmoil for the biggest country on the European Union’s eastern flank and a robust supporter of Ukraine.Prime Minister Donald Tusk last week called the vote for legislators to endorse his government, hoping to reassert his authority after the victory of a political opponent, Karol Nawrocki, a nationalist historian, in a presidential election this month.In the vote, 243 lawmakers voted in favor of Mr. Tusk and 210 against, giving him a majority in the 460-member lower house of Parliament.Speaking to Parliament on Wednesday, Mr. Tusk acknowledged that Mr. Nawrocki’s win in the presidential vote would create challenges “greater than we expected.” But, referring to the president’s limited and largely ceremonial duties, he insisted that the result of that election “in no way reduces our responsibility, our duties or the scope of our power or competences.”Mr. Tusk’s victory Wednesday in the confidence vote is a blow for the Law and Justice party, which had been hoping for a possible return to power in the event of early elections. A vote against Mr. Tusk’s government would have required him to resign after about only 18 months in office.Bruised by Mr. Nawrocki’s victory in the presidential poll and under pressure from Law and Justice to resign, Mr. Tusk last week acknowledged the “gravity of the moment,” but, gambling on a confidence vote, he insisted that “we do not intend to take a single step back.”Mr. Nawrocki, like Andrzej Duda, the departing president, is closely aligned with Law and Justice, and his victory over a liberal candidate backed by Mr. Tusk is likely to harden the stalemate between a presidency and a government pulling in opposite directions.The Polish president has no say in setting policy but has veto power over legislation passed by Parliament, a prerogative that has hobbled Mr. Tusk’s government to carry out its agenda. That includes repairing relations with the European Union and reversing changes Law and Justice made during its time in power that compromised the independence of the judiciary and all but banned abortion.Law and Justice lost its parliamentary majority in a 2023 election, but the coalition of legislators that Mr. Tusk put together to form a government has been a fractious alliance made up of liberals, centrists and conservatives that shared little common ground other than opposition to Law and Justice.Anatol Magdziarz More

  • in

    Trump is Pushing Allies Away and Closer Into Each Other’s Arms

    Important U.S. allies are trying to bolster their ties as the Trump administration shifts priorities and reshapes the world order.New trade deals. Joint sanctions against Israel. Military agreements.America’s closest allies are increasingly turning to each other to advance their interests, deepening their ties as the Trump administration challenges them with tariffs and other measures that are upending trade, diplomacy and defense.Concerned by shifting U.S. priorities under President Trump, some of America’s traditional partners on the world stage have spent the turbulent months since Mr. Trump’s January inauguration focusing on building up their direct relationships, flexing diplomatic muscles and leaving the United States aside.This emerging dynamic involves countries such as Britain, France, Canada and Japan — often referred to by international relations experts as “middle powers” to distinguish them from superpowers like the United States and China.“These are industrialized democracies, allies of the United States, supporting multilateral rules and institutions,” said Roland Paris, a professor of international relations and the director of the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.“And as the international order has been disintegrating, and the United States has been indicating that it’s less willing to underwrite it, what we’ve seen is a shift in the role of middle powers,” he added.That role, Professor Paris said, is characterized by the pursuit of “opportunistic and self-interested initiatives that are still collaborative,” including a slew of smaller agreements over trade and defense involving European countries and Canada.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Turned the Oval Office Into “Watch What Happens Live”

    On Thursday, right around the time of the online breakout of a feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump that resembled a “Real Housewives” reunion show, we were treated to another episode of what has become the president’s favorite reality TV reboot. Call it “The Apprentice: World Leaders,” and in this latest installment, the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, appeared alongside Mr. Trump, displaying a sophisticated instinct to hold his ground and emerge unscathed during his visit to the gilded zoo of the Oval Office.We’re becoming all too used to watching this new kind of presidential meet-and-greet. What traditionally had been a low-stakes and highly choreographed government function has this year been reinvented by Mr. Trump as “Watch What Happens Live” set in the Oval Office (with JD Vance on hand to play the supporting role of the bartender).For many of us, watching these affairs offers the same queasy experience as the most car-crash-reminiscent reality shows, but with geopolitical consequences. We brace ourselves for the inevitable moments of skirmish and bluster, of braying rudeness and the possible surprise reveal straight out of “Punk’d” or “Jerry Springer.” We grimace in preparation for the next big cringe moment before the show goes to commercial. We watch — often through eyes shielded in dismay — as the president falls just short of resorting to his favorite catchphrase: “You’re fired!”It’s natural to conflate these moments with the worst — and most addictive — elements of reality TV. Maybe it’s a remnant of my early career writing public-television program guide listings, or perhaps my childhood spent within reach of the Bronx Zoo, but I have come to understand, or at least to tolerate, these diplomacy-shattering displays of ginned-up drama as more like episodes of classic nature programs.For me, they often recall “The Living Planet,” that grand adventure in BBC travel-budget largess, narrated by David Attenborough, from the 1980s — right around the time a self-styled real estate developer from Queens was buying up New Jersey casinos that would go bankrupt.Admittedly, I might be overly influenced by the news that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a recent most-favored autocracy, will be sending two rare Arabian leopards to the Smithsonian’s National Zoo in Washington. Brandie Smith, the director of the zoo, said that Mr. Trump was most interested in learning about the leopards’ “personality.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Russia Launches Broad Assault on Kyiv and Other Cities in Ukraine

    Air defense crews in the capital were racing to combat a large-scale bombardment before dawn on Friday, officials said. Explosions rocked Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, before dawn on Friday as air defense crews raced to combat a large-scale Russian bombardment, the authorities said. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russia had begun launching ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones at the capital and other cities overnight. Multiple fires were reported across Kyiv, including at a 16-story apartment block. Mayor Vitali Klitschko said at least three people had been injured, and officials cautioned that the toll could rise as the attack was still underway. Russia has launched more than 1,000 drones per week at military and civilian targets in Ukraine in recent months, including more than 300 in a single night last week. On Wednesday, Russia’s leader, Vladimir V. Putin, warned President Trump that his country would retaliate against Ukraine for its audacious drone attack last weekend on airfields across Russia, according to Mr. Trump. On Thursday, Mr. Trump compared Russia and Ukraine to two fighting children who needed to work out their differences before their bloody war could end. “Sometimes you’re better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart,” he said in the Oval Office as Germany’s chancellor, Friedrich Merz, urged him to leverage the power of the United States to end the conflict. Mr. Trump avoided answering a question about whether he was willing to increase pressure on Russia. The Kremlin has repeatedly resisted his calls for an unconditional cease-fire. Since the beginning of this year, the Russian military has carried out attacks against Ukraine using nearly 27,700 aerial bombs, almost 11,200 Shahed drones, around 9,000 other attack strike drones and more than 700 missiles, including ballistic ones, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine said on Thursday. “This is the pace of Russian strikes, and they deliberately set this tempo from the very first days of the full-scale war,” Mr. Zelensky said. “Russia has restructured its entire state, society, and economy to be able to kill people in other countries on a massive scale and with impunity.” Before the overnight bombardment, Russia launched high-explosive aerial bombs at the center of the southern Ukrainian city of Kherson on Thursday morning, partially destroying the Regional State Administration building and damaging several surrounding structures. On Wednesday night, the Russians attacked the city of Pryluky in the northeastern Chernihiv region, killing at least five people, including a 1-year-old baby, Ukrainian officials said. More

  • in

    Trump’s New Travel Ban Is Rife With Contradictions

    The Trump administration appears to have relied on a variety of considerations as it put together its latest restrictions.President Trump said on Thursday that his new travel ban against a dozen mostly African and Middle Eastern countries “can’t come soon enough.” He argued the ban would help prevent terrorist attacks and keep out those who overstay their visas.But even by that logic, Mr. Trump’s ban is rife with contradictions.“There’s no consistent set of criteria that would lead you to these 19 countries,” said Doug Rand, a former immigration official in the Biden administration, referring to the 12 countries and seven others that face restrictions but not a full ban. “You have a bunch of countries that seem to be politically motivated and then a bunch of random countries with a fig leaf of data to support their conclusion.”The order, which goes into effect on Monday, bans travel to the United States by citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. And it limits travel from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. It includes some exemptions, including people with existing visas.Mr. Trump argued that the timing of the ban was spurred by a recent attack in Colorado on a group honoring hostages being held in Gaza in which an Egyptian man has been arrested and charged.But Egypt — which is both a military partner and a critical mediator in negotiations between Israel and Hamas — was not on the travel ban list. Also omitted were nations that national security officials have long treated as pariahs, including Syria, where Mr. Trump has recently sought to improve relations.Mr. Rand and other immigration experts noted that nations home to a higher number of people who overstay visas were left off the list.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    What to Know About China’s Halt of Rare Earth Exports

    Since early April, China has stopped almost all shipments of critical minerals that are needed for cars, robots, wind turbines, jet fighters and other technologies.China has suspended almost all exports since April 4 of seven kinds of rare earth metals, as well as very powerful magnets made from three of them. The halt has caused increasingly severe shortages that threaten to close many factories in the United States and Europe.Why are these metals so needed, why has China stopped exporting them and, crucially, what happens next?What are rare earths?There are 17 types of metals known as rare earths, which are found near the bottom of the periodic table. Most of them are not actually very rare — they are all over the world, though seldom in large enough ore deposits to be mined efficiently.They are called rare because it is very difficult to separate them from each other. Breaking the chemical bonds that bind them in nature can require more than 100 stages of processing and large quantities of powerful acids.A close-up of a gram of terbium.Romain Rabier/Hans Lucas, via ReutersWhy does China control so much of the rare earth supply?China mines 70 percent of the world’s rare earths. Myanmar, Australia and the United States mine most of the rest. But China does the chemical processing for 90 percent of the world’s rare earths because it refines all of its own ore and also practically all of Myanmar’s and nearly half of U.S. production.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Blow to Biden-era Program Plunges Migrants Into Further Uncertainty

    A Supreme Court ruling on Friday ended temporary humanitarian protections for hundreds of thousands of people. But it is unclear how quickly many could be deported.For thousands of migrants from some of the world’s most unstable countries, the last several months in United States have felt like a life-or-death legal roller coaster.And after a Supreme Court ruling on Friday in favor of a key piece of the Trump administration’s deportation effort, hundreds of thousands of migrants found themselves plunged once again into a well of uncertainty. They face the prospect that after being granted temporary permission to live in the United States, they will now be abruptly expelled and perhaps sent back to their perilous homelands.“One court said one thing, another court said another, and that just leaves us all very confused and worried,” said Frantzdy Jerome, a Haitian who lives with his partner and their toddler in Ohio.Immigration lawyers reported that they had been fielding calls from families asking whether they should continue to go to work or school. Their clients, they say, were given permission to live and work temporarily in the United States.Now, with that permission revoked while legal challenges work their way through lower courts, many immigrants fear that any encounter with the police or other government agencies could lead to deportation, according to lawyers and community leaders.“Sometimes I have thought of going to Canada, but I don’t have family there to receive me,” said Frantzdy Jerome, who came to the United States from Haiti and lives in Ohio.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    F.B.I. Memo on Sheds Light on Dispute Over Venezuelan Gang

    The remaining intelligence agencies disagree with the F.B.I.’s analysis tying the gang, Tren de Aragua, to Venezuela’s government.An F.B.I. intelligence memo unsealed on Wednesday offers new details on why the bureau concluded that some Venezuelan government officials were likely to have had some responsibility for a criminal gang’s actions in the United States, pitting it against other intelligence agencies in a heated dispute over President Trump’s use of a wartime law.The memo, whose conclusions the remaining intelligence agencies have rejected, was submitted by the administration to a federal judge in Texas before a hearing on Thursday. It is part of a proliferating array of lawsuits over Mr. Trump’s use of the law, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport people accused of being members of that gang, Tren de Aragua, to a notorious Salvadoran prison without due process.“The F.B.I. assesses some Venezuelan government officials likely facilitate the migration of TdA members from Venezuela to the United States to advance the Maduro regime’s objective of undermining public safety in the United States,” the memo said, using an abbreviation for the gang.It added that the bureau also thinks some officials in the administration of Venezeula’s president, Nicolas Maduro, “likely use TdA members as proxies.”The submission of the memo opens the door to greater judicial scrutiny of a key basis for Mr. Trump’s assertion that he can invoke the rarely used law to summarily deport people accused of being members of the gang. It also offers a glimpse of the claims put forth by several detained migrants that formed the basis for the F.B.I.’s assessment.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More