A US Democratic Congressman challenges UN Ambassador Mike Waltz during a congressional hearing, playing an Al Jazeera video to question troop safety in Jordan. Some lawmakers do not trust the Trump administration to be open about the danger posed by Iranian strikes on US bases.
Published On 24 Jul 2026
The United States and Saudi Arabia have reached a civilian nuclear cooperation deal, but US President Trump said it will only take effect if Riyadh joins the Abraham Accords and normalises relations with Israel.
Published On 23 Jul 2026
UPDATED, with Times and DOJ comment: The Trump administration withdrew its subpoenas to a groups of New York Times journalists who reported on the lack of security features on the new Air Force One, a gift of the government of Qatar that was accepted by President Donald Trump.
The Times reported on Thursday that Sean Buckley of the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan told a federal judge that they were “prepared to unilaterally withdraw the subpoenas at this time.” The judge, Arun Subramanian, later issued an order confirming that the subpoenas were withdrawn.
“As stated by the Government at the hearing, to the extent that a decision is made to renew the subpoenas, the Government will come to the Court in advance of issuance,” the judge wrote.
At a hearing, the judge expressed his opposition to the government’s efforts to obtain testimony from the reporters, including Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, and Eric Schmitt, as the White House launched an investigation into the source of leaks. The DOJ also sought phone records from the reporters and their relatives.
“Subpoenas are the last step, not the first step, but the last step,” the judge said in the hearing, per the AP.
David McCraw, senior vice president and deputy general counsel for the Times, said in a statement, “Today’s proceeding was an important affirmation of our country’s commitment to a free press. We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place. The Times and our journalists will continue to report and seek the truth without fear or favor. We will not be deterred in the face of tactics like these.”
A DOJ spokesperson said, “This judge threatened our attorneys with sanctions unless subpoenas were withdrawn, and blocked us from presenting the meticulous process of this investigation. The grand jury has a right to hear testimony from all material witnesses in a federal criminal investigation. This judge’s conduct overrides clear longstanding principles and common sense—blocking the grand jury from receiving core evidence in a national security investigation.”
The spokesperson added, “Make no mistake, this investigation remains ongoing, and we will pursue justice against those threatening national security by leaking classified information, a serious federal crime.”
The Times sought to quash the subpoenas, arguing that they were “brought in bad faith to punish The Times for its coverage.”
The Times reported that phone record subpoenas were also issued to Adam Goldman and Tyler Pager, two other co-authors of the reports on Air Force One.
The Times reports detailed security concerns about the new Air Force One, as Trump left the NATO summit in Turkey earlier this month in the old aircraft. The report included the lack of antimissile capabilities in the new aircraft, a Boeing 747-8 that was donated by the government of Qatar and later retrofitted.
The case was closely watched by First Amendment and press freedom groups, amid warnings that the issuing of the subpoenas were efforts to intimidate journalists.
Bruce Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, said in a statement, “Targeting reporters to appease the White House has reached a dead end once again in the federal courts. Judge Subramanian saw DOJ’s effort clearly for what it was: a brazen and careless government overreach.”
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says Iran will continue to ‘pay the price’ for what he said was the failure to stick to agreements, telling reporters that President Trump’s policy is ‘a head for an eye’.
Published On 23 Jul 2026
AI, China, ‘dark factories’ and the future of the US auto industry
Economist Mary Lovely dismisses claims that getting automakers to produce more cars in America is proof that tariffs work. She warns the US could end up building more auto plants, but because of automation, employ even fewer workers.
Published On 23 Jul 2026
Strikes from the US on Iran are raining down for the 12th night in a row, as President Donald Trump is reportedly considering expanding US attacks. Shortly before strikes began, the House of Representatives approved $95B in war funding. Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett reports.
Published On 23 Jul 2026
A federal judge is being asked to clarify that Nexstar is prohibited from having its executives serve on the board of Tegna, as plaintiffs claim that it potentially violates an injunction that has put a pause on the merger of the two broadcast station groups.
A coalition of state attorneys general, as well as DirecTV, filed a motion Wednesday in federal court to clarify that the injunction “does not permit Nexstar to appoint its current or recent former employees, executives, consultants, or other personnel to Tegna’s Board.”
In April, U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley issued a preliminary injunction to halt the merger for the time being as the legal proceedings play out. But Nexstar already had closed the Tegna transaction, so the judge required that they keep their operations separate.
In their filing, the plaintiffs, which include the states of California and New York, cited the judge’s order that Tegna had to operate as a “separate and distinct, independently managed business unit from Nexstar,” and that Nexstar “must place and maintain internal controls and procedures to prevent the sharing of competitively sensitive information.”
In claiming a potential violation of the injunction, the plaintiffs pointed to the presence of Nexstar CEO Perry Sook and others on the board of Tegna.
“These Nexstar executives have already taken part in managing Tegna’s strategy: They have approved Tegna’s budget, which was developed from forecasts that surely contain Tegna’s competitively sensitive information and which would not have been shared with Nexstar is the two companies were independent competitors.” The plaintiffs also wrote that Sook has “openly touted” that Tegna operates as a “subsidiary of Nexstar,” which “in his view means that Tegna senior management must ‘report to the Board’ and can ‘have conversations’ with Nexstar executives.”
In response to the filing, Nexstar said in a statement that it “has scrupulously complied with the Court’s hold-separate order. Tegna continues to operate independently, and Nexstar has no involvement in Tegna’s retransmission consent negotiations, content decisions, staffing, or other day-to-day operations. Nexstar’s executives’ service on Tegna’s Board is consistent with the Court’s order and is critical to ensuring that Nexstar can continue to satisfy its financial reporting obligations while the hold-separate requirements are in place.”
Nexstar is appealing the preliminary injunction, but the Ninth Circuit has yet to set a date for oral argument.
The merger would give Nexstar nearly 260 stations covering 80% of the country, or the largest station group. The FCC signed off on the transaction on March 19, and the company announced the deal had closed shortly after that. The approval came less than a day after DirecTV and the state attorneys general each sued to block the transaction.
In their filing, plaintiffs argue that “antitrust law prohibits executives of one company from serving on the board of a competing company because doing so would enable a company to influence its competitor and access its confidential information — exactly what this Court’s preliminary injunction seeks to prevent.”
The plaintiffs also want to judge to require that Nexstar to submit regular reports on its compliance with the injunction, and that it responds to requests for what type of information Tegna’s board has reviewed, among other things.
Paramount is proposing that a federal judge hold a three-day evidentiary hearing later in August as she weighs whether to issue a preliminary injunction that would halt its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery as legal proceedings play out.
U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin issued a temporary restraining order on Monday, halting the transaction for two weeks, while she set a hearing for Aug. 3 on a lengthier preliminary injunction. The order was issued in response to an antitrust lawsuit brought by California and 11 other states last week.
In a filing on Wednesday, Paramount’s legal team is seeking essentially a mini-trial, to be held the week of August 17 or August 24. They also said that the company would consent to an extension of the TRO “to cover the period through a decision by the Court.”
Paramount’s lawyers wrote that the state AGs are seeking an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” — a preliminary injunction that would pause the merger for at least eight months — without giving the company “an opportunity for a full and fair hearing.”
They wrote that the judge “has already recognized Defendants’ proof ‘creates disputes regarding the facts’ that need to be resolved to fully analyze the competitive effects of the transaction. … An evidentiary hearing would allow the Court to do so regarding critical factual issues including market definition, real-world competitive dynamics, barriers to expansion, and incentives. Resolving these factual disputes is essential to answering the fundamental question of whether Plaintiffs have carried their burden to prove that the proposed transaction substantially lessens competition. It does not.”
Hanging over all of this is the date of Sept. 30, after which Paramount will owe a $7 million per day “ticking fee” to Warner Bros. Discovery if the deal is not closed by then. Paramount’s legal team, led by Jeffrey Kessler, noted that in their latest brief, writing that a preliminary injunction would
create “commercial uncertainty regarding the transaction and cost Paramount well over $1 billion in ticking fees and other additional costs.”
The judge set a briefing schedule in which the state AGs opening brief due on Thursday, and the company response is due on Monday. The state AG reply is due on July 30. Paramount’s legal team proposed a schedule in which opening briefs would be filed on July 28, the company reply on August 7 and the AG response on August 12.
A spokesperson for California attorney general Rob Bonta said, “We are reviewing the filing and will respond as appropriate.”
At the hearing on a TRO last week, the attorney for the state AGs, James Weingarten, opposed an earlier Paramount scheduling proposal, which he said was intended to speed up the proceedings. “Having two experts in a food fight in a month will just waste everyone’s time and resources, if it’s even possible,” he said.
The Writers Guild of America filed its own motion for a preliminary injunction as part of is separate lawsuit, and is seeking to align its hearing with the states on August 3. Paramount’s legal team wrote that such a schedule was “not feasible,” but that it would be possible for a later date in August.
A federal judge is being asked to clarify that Nexstar is prohibited from having its executives serve on the board of Tegna, as plaintiffs contend that it violates an injunction that has out a pause on the merger of the two broadcast station groups.
A coalition of state attorneys general, as well as DirecTV, filed a motion in federal court on Wednesday to clarify that the injunction “does not permit Nexstar to appoint its current or recent former employees, executives, consultants, or other personnel to Tegna’s Board.”
In April, U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley issued a preliminary injunction to halt the merger for the time being as the legal proceedings play out. But Nexstar had already closed the Tegna transaction, meaning that they were required to hold their operations separately.
In their filing, the plaintiffs, which include the states of California and New York, cited the judge’s order that Tegna had to operate as a “separate and distinct, independently managed business unit from Nexstar,” and that Nexstar “must place and maintain internal controls and procedures to prevent the sharing of competitively sensitive information.”
The plaintiffs pointedto the presence of Nexstar CEO Perry Sook and others on the board of Tegna.
“These Nexstar executives have already taken part in managing Tegna’s strategy: They have approved Tegna’s budget, which was developed from forecasts that surely contain Tegna’s competitively sensitive information and which would not have been shared with Nexstar is the two companies were independent competitors.” They also said that Sook has “openly touted” that Tegna operates as a “subsidiary of Nexstar,” which “In his view means that Tegna senior management must ‘report to the Board’ and can ‘have conversations’ with Nexstar executives.”
In response to the filing, Nexstar said in a statement that it “has scrupulously complied with the Court’s hold-separate order. Tegna continues to operate independently, and Nexstar has no involvement in Tegna’s retransmission consent negotiations, content decisions, staffing, or other day-to-day operations. Nexstar’s executives’ service on Tegna’s Board is consistent with the Court’s order and is critical to ensuring that Nexstar can continue to satisfy its financial reporting obligations while the hold-separate requirements are in place.”
FCC chairman Brendan Carr said that he expected that ABC’s decision not to carry President Donald Trump’s speech last week to be part of the agency’s early review of its broadcast licenses.
During the speech itself, Trump said that ABC and NBC, which did not carry the address, should lose their broadcast licenses. They did telecast the speech on their streaming channels.
“I think when you have the president of the United States standing inside the White House delivering an important speech, I think that’s something that broadcasters should be carrying. And so, obviously, this is an issue,” Carr told reporters Wednesday. “There have been lots of concerns raised, including by members of Congress, about whether broadcasters and their decisions there comply with the public interest.”
The FCC does not license broadcast networks. It does license their affiliated stations, including those that the networks own.
The FCC already has ordered an early review of ABC broadcast station licenses for eight outlets, citing an investigation into its diversity, equity and inclusion practices. But the review looks into public comments on whether broadcasters have met their public interest obligations more generally. No such early review has been ordered yet for NBC.
Carr pointed to the FCC’s current proceeding on the early renewal of ABC-owned broadcast station licenses.
“I’m sure that there are going to be points raised in that proceeding that relate to Disney’s decision” not to carry the speech, he said. “Again, we’re going to hold all broadcasters to the public interest obligations, and we’re always looking to make sure they do exactly that.”
The network has objected to the FCC’s order that it submit its licenses for early renewal, calling it “an extraordinary demonstration of power and coercion directed at disfavored editorial voices which sends a clear warning to every broadcaster in America.”
The networks declined to carry certain speeches by Trump’s predecessors, Joe Biden and Barack Obama, even after time was requested by the White House. The topic of Trump’s speech — election security — raised concerns that it would be overly political and that he would repeat unfounded stolen election claims.
Carr also cited a report that “one or more of the networks have been in communication with … Democrat[ic] aides about their decision not to carry the president’s remarks.”
A spokesperson for ABC did not immediately return a request for comment.
A spokesperson for NBC did not have an immediate comment. The network also did a broadcast special report on the speech and offered the streaming feed to affiliates to take live if they wanted. Sinclair-owned network affiliated stations did that evening.
Commissioner Anna Gomez, the sole Democrat on the FCC, said that the agency “has no authority to punish broadcasters for exercising their First Amendment right to choose what is newsworthy. They made these decisions under presidents of both parties without any complaints, and in this case, the remarks were freely available online to anyone who wanted to watch them.”
She added that the “vague public interest standard is being used just to punish speech this administration doesn’t like, and to reward speech that it does like, and that’s inappropriate, and it is contrary to the law and the Constitution.”