Friday, February 27, 2026
A Billion-Dollar Shield: U.S. And Burkina Faso Ink Massive Health Security Deal
A Billion-Dollar Shield: U.S. And Burkina Faso Ink Massive Health Security Deal
“The U.S. and Burkina Faso signed a five-year bilateral health agreement to strengthen disease tracking and treatment in the Sahel region. The U.S. will provide up to $147 million to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and modernize disease surveillance, while Burkina Faso will contribute $107 million. This partnership aims to build resilient, locally led health systems and enhance global health security.
In a major move to lock down regional health security, the United States and Burkina Faso signed a five-year bilateral health agreement on Wednesday. The deal, formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), aims to overhaul how infectious diseases are tracked and treated in the Sahel, a region often viewed as a critical frontline for global health.
The agreement falls under the America First Global Health Strategy, a framework designed to strengthen health systems abroad as a way to protect the U.S. mainland from potential outbreaks.
Under the terms of the deal, the State Department plans to work with Congress to funnel up to $147 million into Burkina Faso over the next half-decade. This funding is specifically earmarked for the fight against HIV/AIDS and malaria, alongside the modernization of disease surveillance and laboratory networks.
READ: Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman Slams ‘Dancing Frogs’ At Trump’s State Of The Union
Burkina Faso isn’t just a passive recipient in this arrangement. The West African nation has committed to increasing its own domestic health spending by $107 million.
This co-investment is a centerpiece of the strategy, shifting the responsibility toward national ownership. The goal is for the Burkinabé government to eventually integrate U.S.-funded healthcare workers and lab technicians directly into its own national workforce.
“This MOU reflects the commitment to protecting American health security while building resilient, locally led health systems abroad,” said Thomas “Tommy” Pigott, Principal Deputy Spokesperson, in a statement released on February 25.
A significant portion of the budget—roughly $12 million—is dedicated strictly to global health security. This includes digitizing data reporting and boosting the capacity of local labs to identify dangerous pathogens before they can cross borders. By focusing on frontline community health workers, the program aims to create a “tripwire” system for early detection.
READ: Prediction Market Blocks Swalwell Ally From Betting On California Governor’s Race
This latest signing brings the total number of bilateral health MOUs under this strategy to 17. To date, the U.S. has signed similar agreements with nations ranging from Nigeria and Kenya to Rwanda and Ethiopia. Collectively, these deals represent a staggering $18.56 billion in health funding, including over $7 billion in direct co-investment from the partner countries.
For the U.S., the logic is straightforward: by fortifying the medical infrastructure in Burkina Faso today, they reduce the risk of an uncontained epidemic reaching American shores tomorrow.
For Burkina Faso, the infusion of capital and technical support offers a path toward a self-sustaining medical system that no longer relies solely on foreign aid.“
Rising anger over ‘lop-sided’ and ‘immoral’ US health funding pacts with African countries
Rising anger over ‘lop-sided’ and ‘immoral’ US health funding pacts with African countries
“Bilateral health agreements between the US and African countries, part of the Trump administration’s America First global health strategy, are under scrutiny. Critics argue the deals are “lop-sided” and “immoral,” forcing countries to share biological resources and data without guarantees of access to resulting medical innovations. Concerns also center around data privacy, the prioritization of faith-based healthcare providers, and the potential undermining of WHO systems.
Zimbabwe refuses to sign agreement and Kenya faces a court case over data sharing as new aid deals come under scrutiny
A series of bilateral health agreements being negotiated between African countries and the administration of President Donald Trump have been labelled “clearly lop-sided” and “immoral” amid growing outrage at US demands, including countries being forced to share biological resources and data.
It emerged this week that Zimbabwe had halted negotiations with the US for $350m (£258m) of health funding, saying the proposals risked undermining its sovereignty and independence.
A letter sent by Albert Chimbindi, Zimbabwe’s secretary for foreign affairs and international trade, in December that was made public said the president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, “directed that Zimbabwe must discontinue any negotiation, with the USA, on the clearly lop-sided MoU [memorandum of understanding] that blatantly compromises and undermines the sovereignty and independence of Zimbabwe as a country”.
Meanwhile, a deal with Zambia – which has been linked to a separate agreement with the US on “collaboration in the mining sector” – has yet to be finalised, with Asia Russell, director of the HIV advocacy organisation Health Gap, accusing the US of “conditioning life-saving health services on plundering the mineral wealth of the country. It’s shameless exploitation, which is immoral.”
At least 17 African countries have signed deals with the US, collectively securing $11.3bn in health aid but raising concerns over concessions made in return.
Critics say there has been a lack of consultation with the community groups that provide a lot of the healthcare in African countries, and have raised concerns over data privacy – the US requests patient record data as part of the deals – and the prioritisation of faith-based healthcare providers.
In Nigeria, US statements suggest the funding is contingent on authorities tackling what the Trump administration refers to as the persecution of Christians in the country.
The Trump administration is negotiating the bilateral agreements with countries as part of its America First global health strategy. The new approach follows the US dismantling what had been the flagship aid body, USAID, and pulling back from large multilateral bodies such as the World Health Organization.
The rapid push for deals is being seen as part of US manoeuvres to establish and entrench power on the continent. The deals also commit African nations to rely on US regulatory approval of new drugs and technologies before rolling them out.
The US-Rwanda deal is explicit that it will bring increased US private sector involvement in the country’s health sector.
A Zimbabwean government spokesperson said on Wednesday that the US had asked for “sensitive health data, including pathogen samples”, but without any corresponding guarantee of access to any resulting medical innovations.
“Zimbabwe was being asked to share its biological resources and data over an extended period, with no corresponding guarantee of access to any medical innovations – such as vaccines, diagnostics or treatments – that might result from that shared data,” he said. “In essence, our nation would provide the raw materials for scientific discovery without any assurance that the end products would be accessible to our people should a future health crisis emerge.”
He said Zimbabwe was also afraid bilateral agreements would undermine WHO systems designed to ensure fairness in any future pandemic response.
“Development aid should empower nations, not create dependencies or serve as a vehicle for strategic extraction,” he said. “When financial assistance is contingent upon concessions that touch upon national security, data sovereignty, or access to strategic resources, it fundamentally alters the nature of the relationship from one of partnership to one of unequal exchange.”
The US ambassador to Zimbabwe, Pamela Tremont, said on X she regretted the country’s decision.
“We believe this collaboration would have delivered extraordinary benefits for Zimbabwean communities – especially the 1.2 million men, women and children currently receiving HIV treatment through US-supported programmes,” she said. “We will now turn to the difficult and regrettable task of winding down our health assistance in Zimbabwe.”
Most of the new US-African deals are not publicly available, although the Guardian has seen a draft template, and a handful of documents that appear to be final agreements are in circulation.
The five-year deals commit African countries to gradually provide a greater amount of domestic funding, including for health-worker salaries and equipment – replacing US investment which will decrease each year. If countries fail to meet those commitments, US funding may be withdrawn.
US drafts also include requests for access to health data and information on new or emerging pathogens for up to 25 years, although many countries appear to have negotiated shorter commitments.
In Kenya, the first country to sign a deal, a court case brought by campaigners over data sharing terms has put the agreement on hold. The Consumer Federation of Kenya (Cofek), one of the groups bringing the case, said Kenya risked “ceding strategic control of its health systems if pharmaceuticals for emerging diseases and digital infrastructure (including cloud-storage of raw data) are externally controlled”.
Uganda’s attorney general, Kiryowa Kiwanuka, sought to downplay similar fears about his country’s deal in an interview hosted on X, saying it was “not true” that citizens’ health data and privacy was at risk.
“We have our data protection and privacy law, and the agreement is riddled with that,” he said.
One reproductive and gender justice campaigner in Uganda questioned whether the increased domestic funding targets were realistic, given African governments’ failure to meet the 2001 Abuja declaration’s 15% minimumnational budget allocation to health.
She said there had been “no public participation” in the negotiation process, and non-governmental organisations were expected to be further sidelined. Specialist clinics offering care to marginalised groups such as the LGBTQ+ community were unlikely to see funding “trickle down” to them, she said.
In Nigeria, according to a US embassy statement, the agreement for $2.1bn of US funding “places a strong emphasis on Christian faith-based healthcare providers”.
Fadekemi Akinfaderin of Fòs Feminista wrote on Substack that “singling out one religious group in a deeply plural country risks inflaming existing tensions and politicising health”. She also warned that “faith-based facilities are less likely to provide family planning services, STI prevention and some vaccinations, due to ideological beliefs”, urging Nigeria’s health ministry to ensure coverage gaps did not result from the agreement.
Rachel Bonnifield, director of global health policy and senior fellow at the Center for Global Development thinktank, said that despite the criticisms there were good reasons for countries to sign deals including “very substantial amounts of funding – in some cases equivalent to 50% or more of governments’ total domestic spending on health – to support very basic and much needed health services”.
A shift to government control of health funds, rather than distribution through US NGOs, was also likely to be attractive, she said, with the deals seen as a chance to establish new, broader relationships with the US.
“Even transactional negotiations can be seen as treating African governments like peers and partners versus the recipients of American charity,” said Bonnifield.“
Judge Vows to End Trump Administration’s Noncompliance ‘One Way or Another’
Judge Vows to End Trump Administration’s Noncompliance ‘One Way or Another’
“U.S. District Court Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials of noncompliance with court orders related to immigration enforcement. He identified 210 instances of noncompliance in 143 cases, including missed deadlines and unauthorized detainee transfers. Judge Schiltz threatened criminal contempt if the pattern continued, criticizing the Trump administration’s handling of immigration-related lawsuits and the strain it placed on the U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota.
The federal judge identified 210 orders issued in 143 cases in Minnesota in which he said Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials had not complied with court orders.
The chief federal judge in Minnesota accused federal officials of continuing to disobey judicial orders related to immigration enforcement and then mischaracterizing the scope of their missteps.
The judge, Patrick Schiltz, threatened to hold government officials in criminal contempt if the pattern continued, writing in a scathing order on Thursday that, “one way or another, ICE will comply with this court’s orders.”
“The court is not aware of another occasion in the history of the United States in which a federal court has had to threaten contempt — again and again and again — to force the United States government to comply with court orders,” wrote Judge Schiltz, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush.
Across the country, federal judges have repeatedly called out Trump administration officials in recent weeks for testifying dishonestly, representing the law inaccurately and failing to comply promptly with their orders, especially on immigration-related matters. Tensions between the judiciary and the Trump administration have been especially high in Minnesota, where the courts have been overwhelmed with lawsuits stemming from a crackdown on illegal immigration.
On Thursday, Judge Schiltz identified 210 orders issued in 143 cases in Minnesota in which he said Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials had not complied with court orders. Federal officials had previously taken issue with Judge Schiltz’s characterization of their compliance with orders.
In his opinion, the judge quoted from an email that he said was sent to him by Daniel N. Rosen, the state’s top federal prosecutor, that acknowledged some missteps but argued that the judge had overstated their scope.
Judge Schiltz acknowledged in his ruling that federal officials had not disobeyed orders in some cases he had previously cited, but noted dozens of additional examples where he said the government did not obey a judge’s instructions. Among the errors: missing deadlines for releasing detainees, transferring a detainee to Texas against a judge’s order and not filing required updates with the court.
Mr. Rosen declined to comment on Thursday. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Minnesota has seen an exodus of experienced lawyers in recent weeks who said they objected to the Justice Department’s handling of immigration-related matters, including the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a U.S. citizen, by an ICE agent.
In the email that Judge Schiltz quoted from, sent on Feb. 9, Mr. Rosen pledged to “redouble our efforts to achieve compliance,” but complained that “the lawyers in my civil division didn’t deserve” to be criticized by the judge in the way they were.
On Thursday, Judge Schiltz questioned the sincerity of Mr. Rosen’s promise to improve — “This, too, appears to be untrue,” the judge wrote — and noted that the government had continued to fail to comply with orders.
Judge Schiltz also expressed some sympathy for lawyers in the U.S. attorney’s office, saying judges had been patient with them, “recognizing that they have been put in an impossible position by Rosen and his superiors in the Department of Justice.”
“What those attorneys ‘didn’t deserve’ was the administration sending 3,000 ICE agents to Minnesota to detain people without making any provision for handling the hundreds of lawsuits that were sure to follow,” the judge added.
The relationship between a district’s chief judge and its top federal prosecutor is normally a collegial one, and the order from Judge Schiltz marked an extraordinary break between Minnesota’s federal judiciary and Mr. Rosen’s office.
This year, two judges on the court that Judge Schiltz leads, including one of President Trump’s appointees, have found the administration in civil contempt for disobeying judicial orders, a remedy that judges have only used against the executive branch a handful of times.
Civil contempt rulings are intended to encourage compliance by imposing a penalty. On Thursday, Judge Schiltz threatened to go further and potentially sanction government officials with criminal contempt, which punishes willful defiance of the courts with fines or imprisonment.
Judge Schiltz, who decades ago clerked for Justice Antonin G. Scalia, had in recent weeks showed flashes of growing frustration and anger with the Trump administration, emerging as an unexpected new critic of the administration’s tactics in court. A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security referred to the concerns expressed in one of his previous orders as a “diatribe from this activist judge.”
In a court filing late last month, Mr. Rosen said that the flood of lawsuits filed by immigrants contesting their detention had strained his office, forcing prosecutors to put off other cases.
“The Court is setting deadlines within hours, including weekends and holidays,” Mr. Rosen wrote. “Paralegals are continuously working overtime. Lawyers are continuously working overtime.”
The office is contending with a severe staff shortage that worsened early this year as several of the office’s most experienced litigators resigned in protestover aspects of the immigration crackdown.
At the end of the Biden administration, the office had 64 prosecutors, Mr. Rosen said during a news conference on Wednesday. As of this week, it had 36. Among the lawyers who recently departed was Ana Voss, who had been the head of the civil division, which handles lawsuits filed by immigrants.
Also, Jim Stolley, the chief counsel for ICE in the state, retired early this month.Mr. Stolley, a veteran of the agency, did not publicly address the timing of his departure.
On Wednesday, Mr. Rosen said that his office was hoping to add several new attorneys soon. “We’re hiring at a good clip,” he said.
Mitch Smith is a Chicago-based national correspondent for The Times, covering the Midwest and Great Plains.
Ernesto Londoño is a Times reporter based in Minnesota, covering news in the Midwest and drug use and counternarcotics policy. He welcomes tips and can be reached at elondono.81 on Signal.“
In Trump’s Case for War, a Series of False or Unproven Claims
In Trump’s Case for War, a Series of False or Unproven Claims
“The Trump administration’s claims justifying military action against Iran are false or unproven. Iran has not restarted its nuclear program, does not have enough enriched uranium to build a bomb quickly, and is not close to developing missiles capable of reaching the United States. Despite the administration’s assertions, intelligence reports and international assessments contradict these claims.
Key elements of the Trump administration’s arguments this week for another military campaign against Iran do not hold up.
As they made their public case this week for another American military campaign against Iran, President Trump and his aides asserted that Iran has restarted its nuclear program, has enough available nuclear material to build a bomb within days, and is developing long-range missiles that will soon be capable of hitting the United States.
All three of these claims are either false or unproven.
American and European government officials, international weapons monitoring groups and reports from American intelligence agencies give a far different picture of the urgency of the Iran threat than the one the White House has presented in recent days.
Iran has taken steps to dig out the nuclear facilities hit during strikes last June by Israel and the United States, and it has resumed work at some sites long known to American spy agencies. But the officials said that there isn’t evidence that Iran has made active efforts to resume enriching uranium or trying to build a mechanism to detonate a bomb.
The stockpiles of uranium that Iran has already enriched remain buried after last year’s strikes, making it nearly impossible for Iran to build a bomb “within days.”
Iran has a large arsenal of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles capable of hitting Israel and American military bases in the Middle East, but American intelligence agencies believe Iran is probably years away from having missiles that can hit the United States.
The Pentagon for weeks has been moving ships, planes and air defense units to the Middle East as part of the largest American military buildup in the region in more than two decades. This escalation, along with Mr. Trump’s threats, has brought criticism that the White House has made no public case to justify a second American military conflict in Iran in less than a year.
Now, top Trump administration officials have begun to make the case, and key elements of their arguments do not hold up under close scrutiny. They have even contradicted each other in their public statements.
Mr. Trump’s statements about the urgency of the threat posed by Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities in his State of the Union address this week had echoes of 2003, when President George W. Bush used the State of the Union to build a case for war in Iraq. During that speech, he asserted that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa to fuel a nascent nuclear weapons program. That claim, like so many other Bush administration assertions about Iraq’s weapons programs, was later proved to be false.
“I’m very concerned,” Representative Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on Tuesday after a closed-door meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “Wars in the Middle East don’t go well for presidents, for the country, and we have not heard articulated a single good reason for why now is the moment to launch yet another war in the Middle East.”
Iran is believed to have some 2,000 short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Experts said that the country appears to have largely replenished this arsenal since firing hundreds of missiles at Israel — and more than a dozen at a U.S. military base in Qatar — last June.
Iran has steadily increased the range of its ballistic missiles, and its most powerful missiles can hit Central and Eastern Europe.
But in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Mr. Trump made a new claim, saying Iran was “working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.”
The following day, Mr. Rubio repeated the president’s assertion about Iran’s work on intercontinental ballistic missiles, although he used different language about how quickly Iran could be capable of hitting the United States. While Mr. Trump said it would be “soon,” Mr. Rubio said it would be “one day.”
“You’ve seen them increasing the range of the missiles they have now, and clearly they are headed in the pathway to one day being able to develop weapons that could reach the continental U.S.,” he told reporters on Wednesday.
Three American officials with access to current intelligence about Iran’s missile programs said that Mr. Trump exaggerated the immediacy of the threat posed to the United States. One official said some intelligence analysts were concerned that top aides have inflated the threats or that intelligence was being selectively presented or distorted as it was sent upward.
A report by the Defense Intelligence Agency last year concluded that Iran did not have ballistic missiles capable of hitting the United States, and that it might take as long as a decade for it to have up to 60 intercontinental ballistic missiles. Even to reach that number of missiles on that timetable, the intelligence agency found, Iran would need to make a determined push to develop that technology.
When asked on Wednesday about the Defense Intelligence Agency report, Mr. Rubio declined to comment.
Concern over Iranian missiles is hardly new for the U.S. government. As far back as 2010, a classified assessment released by WikiLeaks revealed that the U.S. government was secretly monitoring missile technology aid that North Korea was giving to Iran.
The missiles in question were medium-range, able to travel more than 2,000 miles, enough for Iran to hit parts of Europe. Iran obtained 19 of the missiles from North Korea, according to a diplomatic cable dated Feb. 24, 2010. At the time, American officials warned that the advanced propulsion could speed Iran’s development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
But 16 years later, there is still no evidence that Iran has made its long-range missile program a top priority.
Instead, Iran has put far greater focus on building up its arsenal of short- and medium-range missiles, believing it could be the most effective deterrent against Israeli or American efforts to overthrow the government in Tehran.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, has authorized government officials to negotiate with the United States over the country’s nuclear program. The missile program, he insists, is not negotiable.
Steve Witkoff, the White House’s lead negotiator in those discussions with the Iranians, said on Fox News on Saturday that Iran is “probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb making material.”
But American officials and international weapons inspectors said that was not the case, largely because the U.S. and Israeli strikes last June badly damaged Iran’s three main nuclear sites, Natanz, Fordo and Isfahan.
Those attacks made it far more difficult for Iran to access the near-bomb-grade fuel it would need to produce a nuclear weapon quickly. Even if it were to dig it out, experts said, it would take many months — perhaps more than a year — to turn it into a warhead.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, most of the nearly 1,000 pounds of Iran’s 60 percent enriched uranium is buried at Isfahan. There is little evidence that the Iranians are digging out the deep-underground containers in which the uranium is stored.
And without that stockpile, which would have to be further enriched to 90 percent purity before it could be fabricated into a bomb, it is nearly impossible for the Iranian military to produce a weapon.
Even some of Mr. Trump’s allies in Congress have seemed to question Mr. Witkoff’s assertion that Iran could build a bomb so quickly.
“I can’t speak for Steve. I haven’t got those reports, and I’ve been read in on some of those programs,” Senator Markwayne Mullin, Republican of Oklahoma and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said on CNN this week. “I’m not saying he’s wrong or he’s right, I just haven’t seen those reports.”
Mr. Rubio acknowledged on Wednesday that there was no evidence the Iranians were currently enriching nuclear fuel.
In his State of the Union speech, Mr. Trump reiterated his claim that the strikes last June completely destroyed Iran’s nuclear program — “we wiped it out,” he said — but asserted that Iran had restarted the program.
“They want to start it all over again and are at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions,” he said.
American officials who have been briefed on U.S. intelligence assessments said that Iran has not built any new nuclear sites since last June. In recent months, however, Iranian activity has been detected at two still-incomplete nuclear sites that were not struck in last year’s war.
One is near Iran’s Natanz nuclear enrichment site, which both Israel and the United States struck. Another is near Isfahan, where most of Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium is now buried after the June attack.
Iranian engineers also appear to be exploring how to burrow further underground. U.S. intelligence reports have indicated that Iran could be excavating as a way to build new facilities that would be out of the reach of the most powerful conventional U.S. weapon, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, which the Pentagon used last June against the Fordo nuclear site.
The Fordo facility remains inoperable, according to American officials.
Eric Schmitt, William J. Broad and Helene Cooper contributed reporting.
Mark Mazzetti is an investigative reporter based in Washington, D.C., focusing on national security, intelligence, and foreign affairs. He has written a book about the C.I.A.
Edward Wong reports on global affairs, U.S. foreign policy and the State Department for The Times.
David E. Sanger covers the Trump administration and a range of national security issues. He has been a Times journalist for more than four decades and has written four books on foreign policy and national security challenges.
Julian E. Barnes covers the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security matters for The Times. He has written about security issues for more than two decades.“
Thursday, February 26, 2026
Trump Live Updates: U.S. and Iran Resume Nuclear Talks as Risk of War Looms - The New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: U.S. and Iran Resume Nuclear Talks as Risk of War Looms
8 minutes ago
What We’re Covering Today
"Iran: Officials from the United States and Iran began another high-stakes round of nuclear talks in Geneva on Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said. Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, who is mediating the talks, said the sides were “exchanging creative and positive ideas.” The outcome could determine whether they go to war or strike a deal. The U.S. has built up a massive military presencearound the Middle East and near Iran’s borders, while Iran has vowed retaliation if attacked. Read more ›
Epstein Files: Hillary Clinton is set to appear in front of a House committee for a closed-door deposition as part of its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender with whom her husband, former President Bill Clinton, once associated. Though Mrs. Clinton had no dealings with Mr. Epstein, she is once again under pressure to answer for the actions of her husband.
Feb. 26, 2026, 10:42 a.m. ET
Democratic leaders in the House say they plan to force a vote on a war powers resolution which would require the president to seek authorization from Congress before carrying out military strikes in Iran. The resolution is expected to face bipartisan resistance, as a number of Democrats have already come out against it.
“We maintain that any such action would be unconstitutional without consultation with and authorization from Congress,” Representative Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement signed by fellow Democratic leaders.
Feb. 26, 2026, 9:37 a.m. ET
Erika Solomon and Farnaz Fassihi
Mediated talks involving Iranian and American negotiators in Geneva have paused as the sides break to consult with their capitals, according to two officials involved in the discussions. Esmail Baghaei, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, said negotiations would reconvene at 5:30 p.m. local time, or 11:30 a.m. Eastern. The pause suggests the sides’ representatives feel enough has been raised to warrant continuing the negotiations later in the day.
The United States and Iran began high-stakes nuclear talks in Geneva on Thursday that could determine whether the two countries go to war or strike a deal.
Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, who is mediating the talks, said the two sides were “exchanging creative and positive ideas,” and would resume again after a break. “We hope to make more progress,” he wrote in a post on social media.
Feb. 26, 2026, 10:51 a.m. ET
Speaking to reporters ahead of Hillary Clinton’s deposition, Representative James R. Comer of Kentucky, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, appeared defensive about why the committee was investigating Clinton, a Democrat who has said she never met or spoke to Jeffrey Epstein. He noted that Democrats on the committee had voted to hold the Clintons in contempt if they did not appear to testify. He also reiterated his claim that Hillary Clinton was of interest to the committee because Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime companion of Epstein, attended Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.
Feb. 26, 2026, 10:18 a.m. ET
Representative James R. Comer of Kentucky, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is expected to speak to the news media ahead of Hillary Clinton’s closed-door deposition, which is scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. Eastern. The committee called Clinton as part of its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, with whom her husband, former President Bill Clinton, once associated.
The deposition, which is being held behind closed doors at a performing arts center in Chappaqua, N.Y., near the Clintons’ home, comes after a monthslong battle during which the Clintons tried to fight the congressional subpoenas forcing them to testify. They argued that the purpose was to harass and embarrass them and distract from President Trump’s involvement and handling of the Epstein files.
News Analysis
It was Jan. 26, 1992, and Hillary Clinton was seated on a couch next to her husband, answering probing, personal questions about her marriage after a former local newscaster from Arkansas, Gennifer Flowers, claimed she had a 12-year affair with Bill Clinton.
Mr. Clinton, then a young governor running for president, did most of the talking in that now-famous “60 Minutes” interview. But it was Mrs. Clinton’s feisty, defensive response to the crisis that was credited with saving her husband’s campaign and career — and cementing her complicated place in the national consciousness for the next three decades.
The Trump administration’s proposed new rules for Obamacare plans next year would shift more health care costs to Americans, with much higher deductibles that could lead to greater medical bills.
Under the proposal, people who rely on the Affordable Care Act for their health insurance coverage could choose plans with much lower monthly premiums. But that could leave them exposed to medical expenses totaling thousands of dollars more than A.C.A. plans do now before their insurance would kick in.
A federal judge in Boston on Wednesday found that the Trump administration’s policy of summarily deporting immigrants to so-called third countries — nations other than their countries of origin — is unlawful.
In an 81-page ruling, Judge Brian E. Murphy of the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts wrote that the government must first try to deport detained immigrants to their home countries — or to countries designated by an immigration judge when the immigrants were ordered removed from the country. After that process, immigration detainees must be given “meaningful notice” before being deported to another country, to allow them the opportunity to raise any fears they have that they might be persecuted or tortured there.
Representative Ilhan Omar on Wednesday condemned the arrest of a guest she brought to the State of the Union, saying that being charged with a crime for standing up in the gallery during the president’s address “sends a chilling message about the state of our democracy.”
Aliya Rahman, a U.S. citizen who was dragged from her vehicle after an ICE agent shattered its window during President Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis, attended the president’s speech on Tuesday night at the invitation of Ms. Omar. As Mr. Trump was speaking, Ms. Rahman was seen being escorted from the gallery above the House floor by Capitol Police officers. She could be heard shouting for someone to call Ms. Omar, and that all she had done was stand up.
Trump administration officials announced on Wednesday that the federal government would withhold $259 million in Medicaid funds to Minnesota, the latest effort by the federal government to pull funding from Democratic-led states as President Trump rails against a major welfare fraud scandal there.
Federal judges have blocked most of the Trump administration’s efforts to claw back funds from states like Minnesota, New York, California, Illinois and Colorado. The states have decried the cuts as politically motivated, adding that they would harm hundreds of thousands of people. The Trump administration has pointed to allegations of fraud to justify the cuts.
About 10 F.B.I. employees, some veteran agents, were dismissed this week for their work on the investigation into President Trump’s retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, his residence in Florida, according to five people with knowledge of the move.
The firings are part of a rolling barrage of retribution aimed at those who worked on the two federal prosecutions of Mr. Trump after his first term in office. They came hours after Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, told Reuters that as part of the documents inquiry, the bureau had subpoenaed phone metadata for himself and Susie Wiles, currently the White House chief of staff."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)