O presidente dos EUA, Donald Trump, sugeriu nesta terça-feira (27) que a Venezuela poderia se tornar o 51º estado norte-americano.
“O país (Venezuela) se tornará próspero e, quem sabe, talvez em breve ele se torne um próspero 51º estado. É possível. Vamos fazer isso acontecer. Vamos torná-lo o 51º estado. E, em vez de um presidente, teremos uma eleição para governador. O que acha? Pois é”, afirmou durante um comício na cidade de Corpus Christi, no Texas.
Trump também afirmou que a Venezuela possui vastas reservas de petróleo e que grandes empresas do setor estão investindo bilhões de dólares no país.
Leia Mais:
“Quero agradecer à Venezuela, onde nossa relação se tornou muito, muito boa — excelente, na verdade. Bilhões e bilhões de dólares estão sendo investidos agora, por parte das maiores empresas de petróleo — muitas delas vindas do Texas — em todo o território venezuelano”, afirmou o presidente americano.
Trump fez as declarações diante de um navio ancorado ao largo da costa, o qual, segundo ele, transportava um milhão de barris de petróleo provenientes da Venezuela.
O presidente americano acrescentou que o petróleo venezuelano seria refinado no Texas e afirmou que a carga foi obtida sem custo algum para os contribuintes norte-americanos.
Trump também disse que os preços da gasolina e do diesel cairiam para os consumidores dos EUA, e elogiou os militares norte-americanos pelo que descreveu como uma vitória contra a Venezuela.
Cassidy Hutchinson had implicated Donald Trump in US Capitol attack during testimony before House committee
The justice department on Tuesday failed to secure a grand jury indictment against a former White House staffer who provided dramatic but disputed testimony against Donald Trump before a House committee investigating the 6 January 2021 US Capitol insurrection, according to two people familiar with the matter.
A grand jury in Washington rejected prosecutors’ request to return an indictment charging Cassidy Hutchinson, said the people, who spoke to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case. It’s the latest setback in the justice department’s efforts to charge perceived adversaries of the Republican president.
Páginas na internet de jornais de diversos países repercutiram nesta terça-feira (27) a fuga de Flávio Bolsonaro do Brasil. O embarque escondido para os Estados Unidos, menos de 48 horas após perder as eleições presidenciais, foi noticiado pela agência Reuters.
Um dos primeiros veículos a noticiar a fuga foi o Infobae, da Argentina, que disse haver uma suspeita de que o senador teria embarcado com a família em um jato particular, em Puerto Iguazú, com destino aos Estados Unidos. A versão, porém, não foi confirmada pelo governo da Argentina.
O La Nación, também da Argentina, destaca que fontes próximas ao senador afirmaram que os Estados Unidos estariam diretamente envolvidos na fuga.
O periódico diz ainda que, sob o governo de Donald Trump, o país norte-americano tem se tornado o refúgio do clã Bolsonaro e lembra que Eduardo Bolsonaro, irmão de Flávio, também está nos EUA.
O espanhol El País lembrou que o senador se recusou a aceitar a vitória de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva logo após a apuração. O jornal relembra que, em 2022, Jair Bolsonaro também não reconheceu a derrota e que viajou aos Estados Unidos antes da posse de Lula, mas acabou voltando ao Brasil.
O inglês The Guardian afirma que Flávio Bolsonaro estaria a caminho dos Estados Unidos e que sua fuga pode selar o destino da extrema-direita brasileira.
A fuga de Flávio Bolsonaro começou a ser noticiada pela manhã, por jornais argentinos. O coordenador de campanha do senador, Rogério Marinho, chegou a negar a informação.
Depois, Marinho disse que não tinha notícias de Flávio Bolsonaro desde às 8h e que o senador teria dito que “queria dar um tempo”.
America’s mid-term congressional elections on November 3rdwill mark the beginning of the final two years of the Trump administration and thus the nearing of a potentially historic moment of reckoning for that country’s estranged allies. The reckoning may seem like a long way ahead, but in what historians will see as just the blink of […]
O presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, voltou a dizer nesta terça-feira (27), durante um comício no Texas, que as eleições no Brasil foram fraudadas.
“Eles fraudam muito bem (os democratas). São os maiores fraudadores de eleições da história. Embora o Brasil também esteja fazendo um bom trabalho nisso, não é? Eu não tomei partido, não gostei, não me pareceu muito bom”, disse Trump.
O presidente americano está em meio a uma intensa agenda de campanha pelo país antes das Eleições de Meio de Mandato, as Midterms, marcadas para 3 de novembro. Trump tem realizado comícios quase diariamente para incentivar a participação de eleitores em apoio aos republicanos, que tentam manter o controle do Congresso.
Em discursos que chegam a durar 90 minutos, Trump defende suas políticas econômicas, vangloria-se do tamanho das multidões, zomba de manifestantes e chegou a fazer comentários sobre as nádegas de um colega republicano.
Aqui estão cinco pontos principais sobre as aparições do presidente, realizadas, em sua maioria, em áreas de forte apoio republicano pelo país:
O discurso econômico de Trump
No início do mês, Trump afirmou ter feito um “mau trabalho” ao explicar seu desempenho econômico. Ele tem tentado corrigir isso em seus comícios, destacando uma taxa de pobreza em nível historicamente baixo, baixo desemprego, recordes no mercado de ações e preços mais acessíveis para alguns itens alimentícios.
No entanto, seu discurso entra em conflito com as preocupações dos eleitores quanto aos gastos com combustível, compras de supermercado e outras despesas do dia a dia.
Os preços ao consumidor aceleraram em setembro, impulsionados pela disparada no custo da gasolina. O preço médio do combustível nos EUA é de US$ 4,27 por galão (US$ 1,13 por litro) — cerca de 40% mais caro do que há um ano, segundo a AAA. Trump tem prometido, repetidamente, que os preços da gasolina cairão assim que a “guerra com o Irã” terminar.
Esse descompasso ficou evidente do lado de fora de um comício de Trump na zona rural do Kansas, onde Chester Daniel, um veterano militar de 90 anos e apoiador de Trump, afirmou que a economia ainda tem “um longo caminho a percorrer” para ajudar os trabalhadores.
“Preços? Altos demais! Nunca voltaremos aos patamares de quando tudo isso começou, mas eles precisam cair bastante”, disse Daniel. “Não sei como esses jovens conseguem sustentar suas famílias.”
Republicanos na defensiva e o mapa dos comícios
O roteiro de viagens de Trump revela o quão difícil será para os republicanos manterem o controle do Congresso, com o presidente sendo forçado a adotar uma postura defensiva, mesmo em redutos conservadores. Trump viajou duas vezes ao Texas em apoio a Ken Paxton, candidato republicano ao Senado; fez campanha para o senador republicano em exercício Roger Marshall, no Kansas; e esteve duas vezes em Ohio em apoio ao senador Jon Husted.
Trump também participou de comícios para candidatos republicanos em disputas acirradas no Alasca, Iowa, Montana e Carolina do Sul. Ele tem uma visita ao Mississippi programada para segunda-feira (26).
Trata-se de locais onde os republicanos costumam vencer com facilidade — e não de campos de batalha eleitorais onde Trump normalmente dedicaria tempo durante as semanas cruciais que antecedem uma eleição.
Nas pesquisas, Paxton aparece ligeiramente atrás do democrata James Talarico, enquanto Marshall enfrenta um desafio considerável do democrata Adam Hamilton em um estado que não elege um senador democrata há quase um século. Em Ohio, Husted está atrás do ex-senador democrata Sherrod Brown, e, em Iowa, a candidata republicana ao Senado, Ashley Hinson, trava uma disputa acirrada contra o democrata Josh Turek.
Chama a atenção a ausência, até o momento — a menos de duas semanas do dia das Midterms—, de estados como Michigan, Maine, Minnesota e New Hampshire, que também registram disputas acirradas para o Senado. É provável que ele visite alguns desses locais em breve; há uma viagem programada para Michigan no domingo, e ele também mencionou planos de ir ao Maine.
O foco de Trump sobre o tamanho do público nos comícios
Trump transformou o tamanho do público em um tema recorrente de seus comícios durante o ciclo eleitoral de Meio de Mandato, descrevendo arenas lotadas e milhares de pessoas que, segundo ele, teriam ficado do lado de fora — o que ele apresenta como prova de sua popularidade contínua.
No entanto, a adesão real aos eventos de campanha nas últimas semanas tem sido irregular. Alguns comícios atingiram a capacidade máxima, mas sem qualquer sinal da multidão excedente descrita por Trump. Em outros, grandes setores de assentos permaneceram vazios, mesmo em locais de porte modesto.
“Faço isso todas as noites e, não importa aonde eu vá, é sempre a mesma coisa. São multidões enormes”, disse Trump em um comício na Carolina do Norte, na terça-feira. “Temos telões do lado de fora. Milhares e milhares de pessoas. Há algo muito especial acontecendo.”
O local estava lotado, mas não havia sinais de multidões do lado de fora esperando para entrar ou acompanhando o evento pelos telões. Em um comício realizado no dia 7 de outubro em San Antonio, no Texas, Trump afirmou que as filas do lado de fora da arena estendiam-se por duas milhas (aproximadamente 3,2 km), mesmo com grandes áreas vazias no interior do local.
O tamanho do público nem sempre é um indicador preciso de apoio político; contudo, Trump tem utilizado esse dado como um sinal de força, ainda que seu índice de aprovação tenha caído para 31% — o patamar mais baixo de todo o seu mandato presidencial —, segundo uma pesquisa Reuters/Ipsos divulgada na semana passada.
Trump não é candidato nas eleições de 3 de novembro. Para os candidatos republicanos, a questão é saber se o entusiasmo que ele desperta entre seus apoiadores pode se converter em votos para eles.
A França como um exemplo nas Eleições de Meio de Mandato
Trump tem usado frequentemente o presidente francês, Emmanuel Macron, como um contraponto em seus discursos de campanha, alegando ter forçado Macron — por meio da ameaça de impor tarifas sobre o champanhe (um produto de exportação francês muito popular) e outros bens — a aumentar os preços de medicamentos prescritos na França.
No entanto, na última semana, aproximadamente, Trump adotou uma nova narrativa sobre a França, apresentando os violentos distúrbios ocorridos no país nas últimas semanas como um alerta do que, segundo ele, poderia acontecer nos EUA caso os democratas vençam as eleições de meio de mandato. Trump atribuiu a responsabilidade pelos distúrbios a imigrantes e muçulmanos, seguindo uma estratégia já conhecida que tem marcado sua atuação política há mais de uma década.
“Que diabos aconteceu com a França?”, perguntou Trump a uma multidão em uma arena de competições agropecuárias em Clemson, na Carolina do Sul, na quarta-feira.
Vale notar que os protestos na França ganharam mais destaque nos discursos recentes de Trump do que dois outros grandes problemas de política externa que ele não conseguiu solucionar: a invasão da Ucrânia pela Rússia e sua “guerra” contra o Irã.
“Eles vão acabar, de um jeito ou de outro”, disse Trump sobre os dois conflitos durante o comício em Clemson. Ele não explicou como esses conflitos poderiam terminar, mas queixou-se de não ter recebido o Prêmio Nobel da Paz por seus esforços na resolução de conflitos ao redor do mundo.
Trump e o foco no físico
Há muito tempo, Trump demonstra uma fixação pelo físico humano que vai além da metáfora do “corpo político”.
Nesta temporada eleitoral, Trump tem dado atenção especial a Husted, um ex-jogador de futebol americano universitário da Universidade de Dayton, de 59 anos.
Em comícios realizados em Ohio, Kentucky e Carolina do Norte, Trump expressou admiração pelo físico de Husted, chegando a comentar que os glúteos dele parecem “um amontoado de músculos”.
“Depois, olhei para as pernas dele e pensei: ‘Caramba, que pés grandes!’. Em seguida, observei seus ombros e dei um tapinha — cheguei a machucar a mão! Parecia um pedaço de aço. Eu disse: ‘Esse cara é um monstro!'”, relatou Trump.
Na sexta-feira, Trump teceu elogios semelhantes a Robert F. Kennedy Jr., seu secretário de Saúde e Serviços Humanos, declarando em um comício na Flórida que o político de 72 anos “tem o corpo de alguém de 30 anos”.
Comentários desse tipo são recorrentes no repertório de Trump. Na reta final de sua campanha de 2024, ele aproveitou um discurso em um comício na Pensilvânia para contar uma história grosseira sobre as proezas — para além do golfe — da lenda do esporte Arnold Palmer. Ao longo dos anos, Trump tem focado frequentemente nos atributos físicos das pessoas, chegando, inclusive, a zombar do peso e da aparência de seus oponentes.
Trump considera que até alguns de seus amigos carecem de senso de moda — é o caso de Paxton, conhecido por seu visual desleixado.
“Pode ser que alguns não gostem do jeito que ele se veste”, disse Trump sobre ele durante uma convenção republicana em Dallas, em meados de setembro, acrescentando: “Eu não gosto”.
Isso, contudo, não impediu Trump de fazer campanha para Paxton. Ele retorna ao Texas na terça-feira (27) para participar de mais dois comícios.
A rapper Nicki Minaj, 43, pode ter conquistado um cargo na Casa Branca comandada por Donald Trump, 80, atual presidente dos Estados Unidos.
O diretor de comunicação da Casa Branca, Steven Cheung, publicou um vídeo a bordo do Air Force One, o jatinho do presidente, no qual Trump conversa com a rapper. “Eles podem ter encontrado a nova secretária de imprensa da Casa Branca”, escreveu na legenda.
Em meio às eleições de meio de mandato, Nicki viajava com Trump para um comício no Michigan, enquanto o presidente faz campanha para o partido republicano na reta final do período eleitoral.
Logo depois, durante o comício, uma cena chamou a atenção do público, quando o presidente comentou sobre o bumbum da rapper enquanto falava com o público no pleito. No domingo (25), Trump declarou: “Acabei de ver uma bunda incrivelmente linda, Nicki Minaj. É difícil não notar, fique em pé”.
Nicki se declarou uma apoiadora do presidente Donald Trump e se intitulou como sua “fã número 1” recentemente. Já o atual presidente, também trocou elogios com a cantora e a chamou de “grande amiga”.
“Eu nunca pensei em sair do país. Eu vou entregar os passaportes e vou me defender dessa aberração, que é uma clara tentativa de me intimidar”, disse o senador Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ) em vídeo publicado nas redes sociais na última segunda-feira (26), após o ministro do STF (Supremo Tribunal Federal) Alexandre de Moraes conceder 24h para o parlamentar entregar seus passaportes.
A determinação ocorreu após a derrota do filho do ex-presidente Jair Bolsonaro (PL) na disputa pela Presidência da República no último domingo (25) e diz respeito ao inquérito que apura denúncias de lavagem de dinheiro e evasão de divisas junto ao advogado Willer Tomaz.
Apesar da declaração, esta terça-feira (27) começou com rumores de que o senador teria deixado o país rumo a Argentina. O governo brasileiro chegou a acionar autoridades do país sobre um eventual risco de fuga por parte de Flávio.
Ao longo do dia, a PF (Polícia Federal) cancelou os passaportes do parlamentar, que não foram entregues dentro do prazo concedido por Moraes.
A confirmação da fuga, no entanto, veio por parte de aliados do senador, que afirmaram à CNN Brasil que ele deixou o país rumo aos Estados Unidos, de Donald Trump, junto de sua família. Ainda segundo essas pessoas próximas, o governo dos EUA teria apoiado a fuga e sinalizou asilo a Flávio.
President Trump renewed calls for Venezuela to be the 51st U.S. state after touting the barrels of oil coming from the South American country. “It will become a prosperous country, and who knows? Maybe someday soon, it will become a prosperous 51st state,” Trump said of Venezuela. “That’s possible. Let’s make it the 51st state.”…
President Trump renewed calls for Venezuela to be the 51st U.S. state after touting the barrels of oil coming from the South American country. “It will become a prosperous country, and who knows? Maybe someday soon, it will become a prosperous 51st state,” Trump said of Venezuela. “That’s possible. Let’s make it the 51st state.”…
Former White House press secretary Katie Zacharia, who was fired from her role after five days following a rocky debut and scrutiny of her legal background, accused reporters of fueling “Trump Derangement Syndrome” in their coverage of President Trump. While Zacharia has remained relatively quiet since her ouster less than two weeks ago, in an…
Former White House press secretary Katie Zacharia, who was fired from her role after five days following a rocky debut and scrutiny of her legal background, accused reporters of fueling “Trump Derangement Syndrome” in their coverage of President Trump. While Zacharia has remained relatively quiet since her ouster less than two weeks ago, in an…
O vice na chapa de Flávio Bolsonaro (PL), o deputado federal Alfredo Gaspar (PL-AL), disse nesta terça-feira (27) que o filho do ex-presidente sofre uma “perseguição implacável”.
“Diante da perseguição implacável sofrida pelo presidente Flávio Bolsonaro, presto minha solidariedade a ele, a Fernanda e às suas duas filhas, rogando a Deus pela segurança e pelo bem-estar dessa família amada”, publicou em rede social após a confirmação de que Flávio deixou o país rumo aos Estados Unidos.
“Foi uma honra estar ao seu lado nessa batalha. Conte com minha lealdade e amizade“, completou.
Diante da perseguição implacável sofrida pelo presidente Flávio Bolsonaro, presto minha solidariedade a ele, a Fernanda e às suas duas filhas, rogando a Deus pela segurança e pelo bem-estar dessa família amada.
Derrotado nas urnas no último domingo (25), Flávio Bolsonaro não entregou os passaportes ao STF (Supremo Tribunal Federal), conforme solicitado pelo ministro Alexandre de Moraes na última segunda-feira (26), de forma que a PF (Polícia Federal) cancelou os documentos.
Mais cedo, o governo brasileiro tinha acionado autoridades argentinas sobre um eventual risco de fuga do senador. O site Infobae – da Argentina – tinha publicado que o ex-presidenciável havia cruzado a fronteira em um voo privado. A CNN Brasil não confirmou qual foi a rota do avião de Flávio.
The vote for the 26th Knesset serves as a crucial referendum on the state’s institutions, economy, and military strategy.
The legislative elections for the 26th Knesset, the legislative power, take place at a critical political crossroads for Israel. Scheduled as the first parliamentary contest since the outbreak of hostilities against Gaza following the events of October 7, 2023, these elections serve as a national referendum on the governance model of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The outgoing 25th Knesset became the first Israeli legislature since 1988 to complete its full four-year term without early dissolution, surviving despite severe domestic turmoil, mass protests over judicial reforms, and persistent coalition instability.
However, the upcoming vote occurs under international scrutiny and severe domestic polarization. Official data from the Israeli Central Elections Committee shows the number of ballots needed across the country to fill all 120 seats in parliament.
Political analysts note that the campaign reflects deep fractures within Israeli society regarding military strategy, economic priorities, and the future shape of the state’s institutional structure.
Social and Geopolitical Context of the 2026 Elections
The socio-political environment surrounding the current electoral moment is marked by the prolonged attacks on Gaza and wider regional escalations involving Lebanon and Iran.
These conflicts have heavily strained the Israeli economy, accelerated militarization across public life, and deepened existing social divides.
Economic pressures, driven by soaring military expenditures and disruptions across key industrial sectors due to a labor crisis resulting from the movement of Palestinians, the trade blockade, and the brain drain, have intensified Israeli public debate concerning state budgets and resource allocation.
Simultaneously, domestic divisions have intensified around long-standing structural issues, most notably the military conscription exemptions granted to the ultra-Orthodox Haredi population, generating coalition crises and widespread friction between secular citizens and religious factions.
On the diplomatic front, the state faces unprecedented international isolation, underscored by ongoing proceedings at the International Court of Justice and arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, former Israeli Defense Minister, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Despite mounting global pressure and civil society accountability campaigns, the political establishment continues to rely heavily on strategic diplomatic and military backing from Western allies, maintaining an insular focus on security doctrines as voters head to the polls.
Netanyahu escalates racist incitement with false claims of ballot raids by Muslim Brotherhood —— Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intensified his election-day rhetoric, publishing inflammatory claims on social media that supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood were… pic.twitter.com/Oq6hWpSDku
The Electoral System: Proportional Representation and Coalition Dynamics
Israel uses a closed-list nationwide proportional representation system to elect the 120 members of the Knesset. The entire country forms a single electoral district.
Voters select a political party slate rather than individual constituency representatives. To gain representation in parliament, a party list must clear an electoral threshold of 3.25 percent of the total valid votes.
Because no political party in Israeli history has ever won an absolute majority of 61 seats on its own, every administration requires a multi-party governing coalition.
Following the Central Elections Committee, official vote tallies determine seat allocations using the d’Hondt method, which allocates parliamentary seats among the various candidate lists based on the votes received.
Parties frequently enter formal surplus vote-sharing agreements before election day to capture remaining unallocated seats.
Once results are certified, the President of Israel holds consultations with elected party leaders before tasking a chosen candidate, typically the head of the largest faction or coalition bloc, with forming a government within a 28-day timeframe.
This framework gives smaller sectoral and single-issue parties significant leverage during post-election negotiations. Far-right, religious, and nationalist slates often demand key ministerial posts, policy concessions, or budget allocations in exchange for their critical coalition votes.
Political analysts note that institutional features of the system, combined with state policies, impact electoral participation among Palestinian citizens of Israel. Electoral threshold adjustments and legal challenges against Arab-led party slates continuously shape voter turnout in Palestinian municipalities.
While Palestinian citizens account for roughly 20 percent of the population, their representative parties face ongoing systemic exclusion from executive coalition agreements, restricting their influence within the parliamentary framework.
As Arab voter turnout rises, Israel’s far-right leaders are sounding the alarm. War criminal Netanyahu accused “supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood” of raiding polling stations and “stealing the elections,” saying Israel is “in a war for the home.”
The candidate field for the 26th Knesset reflects a fragmented political landscape divided into distinct ideological camps, which we will detail:
The Right-Wing and Religious Coalition
• Likud: Led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the ruling party centers its platform on national defense, state security, and maintaining its long-standing parliamentary dominance.
• Otzma Yehudit: Headed by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, this far-right faction advocates for expanded settlements, strict law-and-order policies, and hardline security measures.
• Religious Zionist Party–Zehut: Led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich alongside Moshe Feiglin, this nationalist alliance focuses on West Bank administration, land policies, and conservative social programs.
• Ultra-Orthodox Parties: Shas, led by Aryeh Deri, and United Torah Judaism (UTJ), led by Yitzhak Goldknopf, prioritize state funding for religious institutions and maintaining draft exemptions for Haredi seminary students.
The Opposition Alliances
• Together (Beyachad): A political alliance formed by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid. The joint platform focuses on institutional stability, economic reform, and governance changes.
• Yashar: A new political movement launched by former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot. The party presents a technocratic platform focused on national security, military management, and state administration.
• Yisrael Beiteinu: Headed by Avigdor Lieberman, this right-wing secular nationalist party focuses on mandatory military conscription for all demographic groups and civic policy reforms.
• The Democrats: Formed through the merger of the Labor and Meretz parties under the leadership of former IDF Deputy Chief of Staff Yair Golan, this unified center-left party emphasizes judicial independence and social-democratic domestic policies.
Arab-Majority Parties
• Joint List: Re-established by Hadash, Ta’al, and Balad under the leadership of Yousef Jabareen, the alliance campaigns on civil rights equality, an end to house demolitions, legal recognition for unrecognized Bedouin villages, and opposition to military occupations.
• United Arab List (Ra’am): Led by Mansour Abbas, this pragmatic Islamist faction focuses on securing municipal development funds, infrastructure investments, and crime-reduction programs for Arab communities.
Netanyahu: Governance Record, Systemic Corruption, and Legal Jeopardy
Benjamin Netanyahu, with more than 15 years, is the longest-serving Prime Minister in Israel. Netanyahu governance has consistently centered on maintaining military administration over occupied Palestinian territories, expanding West Bank settlements, and privatizing state assets.
Netanyahu administrations restructured national tax policies, deregulated key economic sectors, and prioritized defense spending over social welfare initiatives. Netanyahu’s political trajectory remains deeply entwined with ongoing legal proceedings across both domestic and international courts. In domestic tribunals, he faces active criminal charges across three separate indictments known as Cases 1000, 2000, and 4000.
– Case 1000 involves charges of fraud and breach of trust regarding allegations that he received expensive gifts from wealthy business figures in exchange for political favors.
– Case 2000 includes fraud and breach of trust charges related to negotiations with media publishers to secure favorable press coverage in return for legislation restricting competing news outlets.
– Case 4000 contains the most severe charges, bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, alleging that Netanyahu granted regulatory concessions to telecom giant Bezeq in exchange for positive coverage on the Walla news platform.
Netanyahu consistently denies all allegations, maintaining that the investigations represent a politically motivated campaign by law enforcement authorities. In early 2023, his government introduced a major judicial reform initiative designed to restructure judicial appointments and limit Supreme Court oversight over executive decisions.
Opposition figures and legal experts argued that these proposals aimed to undermine judicial independence and stall his ongoing trial, prompting widespread domestic protests and deep institutional instability.
On the international stage, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, determining that reasonable grounds exist to hold him criminally responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
The court cited specific charges, including the deliberate use of starvation as a method of warfare and intentional attacks directed against civilian populations.
Although the Israeli government rejects the jurisdiction of the tribunal, the warrants impose severe diplomatic constraints and travel limitations on Netanyahu across states parties to the Rome Statute.
Voter turnout in Israeli elections as of 16:00 GMT surpassed all votes cast in the 2022, as per data released by the Central Elections Committee.
The final distribution of seats in the 120-member Knesset will determine whether the incumbent coalition or opposition alliances secure the 61-seat majority required to govern.
If the right-wing and religious coalition retains power under Netanyahu’s leadership, the administration is expected to immediately revive paused judicial reform packages to restructure judicial selection processes and restrict legal oversight of executive actions.
Under this outcome, state policy would focus on expanding West Bank settlement infrastructure, maintaining long-term military control over Gaza, and preserving military conscription exemptions for the ultra-Orthodox population to maintain internal coalition stability.
Alternatively, if an opposition alliance formed by figures such as Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, or Yair Lapid captures a parliamentary majority, executive authority would shift toward institutional stabilization. An opposition-led government would likely halt proposed judicial overhauls, reinstate traditional oversight mechanisms, and launch official state inquiries into military and intelligence failures.
Regarding military service, an opposition government would attempt to implement universal conscription policies that include Haredi citizens, a move likely to provoke significant resistance from religious sectors.
Striped of executive protections, Netanyahu’s domestic criminal trials would proceed without executive delays, while international legal pressures stemming from International Criminal Court warrants would remain active.
In the event that neither political bloc achieves a clear 61-seat threshold, the Knesset would enter a state of severe parliamentary deadlock. Under Israeli electoral law, Netanyahu would remain in power as caretaker Prime Minister while political factions negotiate prospective coalition agreements or initiate procedures for new legislative elections, extending the prevailing political uncertainty.
Sources: TeleSUR – Al Jazeera – Al Mayadeen – Press Tv – Anadolu Agency – TRT World – RT – The Times of Israel – Reporteros Sin Fronteras – BBC – DW – EFE – AP News – AFP
O ministro da Secretaria de Relações Institucionais, José Guimarães (PT), afirmou à CNN Brasil nesta terça-feira (27) que o governo brasileiro espera que o presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, reconheça a vitória do presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT).
O mandatário estadunidense é, segundo Guimarães, o único chefe de Estado “importante” que ainda não ligou para Lula após a vitória.
“Ele fez uma declaração que respeita e gosta muito do Lula. A nossa expectativa é que ele, a curto prazo, possa reconhecer o resultado, porque todos os chefes de Estado importantes já ligaram para o Lula, inclusive aqueles que possuem configurações políticas diferentes do Lula”, disse Guimarães.
Segundo Guimarães, a vitória de Lula desafiou às injustiças de Trump, que acenou ao adversário bolsonarista durante e após pleito.
“Aliás, diga-se de passagem, que todos os países da América Latina, o Brasil resistiu a tudo e a todos: às injustiças do Trump, tudo aquilo que ele fez ao Brasil o Brasil deu uma resposta à altura. Temos que comemorar muito porque foi uma eleição atípica”, disse o ministro.
Questionado por repórteres sobre sua avaliação do pleito, realizado no domingo (25), Trump disse que achou “terrível”. Flávio Bolsonaro (PL), que foi derrotado por Lula, anunciou que não reconhecerá o resultado da votação e que pedirá anulação.
“Não tomei partido, mas a imagem que passou para o mundo foi péssima; é mais uma eleição — e você sabe, eleições precisam ser inquestionáveis —, por isso, para mim, a situação pareceu muito ruim”, adicionou.
“Não apoiei ninguém nem nada, mas acompanhei a eleição e ela pareceu tão corrupta”, acrescentou.
Em outro momento, o presidente dos Estados Unidos foi questionado se faria algo a respeito da eleição brasileira, respondendo que não comanda o Brasil e que tem bom relacionamento com Lula.
“Eu gosto do Lula, me dou muito bem com ele. Só acho que a forma como a apuração foi feita passou uma impressão muito ruim”, disse.
A little more than a year ago, President Donald Trump publicly demanded that Pam Bondi, then the attorney general, find a crime to pin on former FBI Director James Comey. Trump's underlings have repeatedly tried to do that, first charging Comey with lying to Congress and then accusing him of threatening to assassinate the president. But the first indictment was dismissed because Trump had illegally appointed the prosecutor who obtained it, and the second was doomed right out of the gate because it aimed to punish constitutionally protected political speech.
The Justice Department's latest attempt to follow Trump's marching orders was revealed on Monday, when U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden unsealed a "criminal information" that claims Comey illegally shared classified information with The New York Times on October 5, 2016. In an attempt to meet the statutory deadline for that charge, prosecutors filed it exactly 10 years after the alleged disclosure. But Comey's lawyers argue that federal law required the government to obtain a grand jury indictment within 10 years of the alleged offense, which it failed to do.
Whatever you make of that dispute, the president has made it clear that he wants to imprison Comey, a longtime nemesis because of his role in the "Russiagate hoax" during Trump's first term, and does not much care about exactly how that happens. Justice Department officials, meanwhile, are keen to pursue Trump's personal vendetta by using their prosecutorial powers as an instrument of his revenge.
The new case "would almost be funny if it weren't such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice," Comey said in an online video on Monday. "I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid of these people, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary."
In the New York Timesstory at the center of the case, Charlie Savage and Nicole Perloth reported that Yahoo had adapted "a system intended to scan emails for child pornography" to comply with a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order seeking "messages containing a computer 'signature' tied to the communications of a state-sponsored terrorist organization." Savage and Perloth cited "two government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity."
Dustin Farahnak, a special U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, says that story included "first-time disclosures of classified information not intended for the public domain." According to Farahnak, the government has evidence that Comey "directed staff" to discuss "specific accuracy concerns" about a prior Reuters report on the same subject with Savage. In the process of doing that, Farahnak says, those FBI officials "illegally transferred classified information."
Comey's attempt to set the record straight, according to Trump's henchmen, was a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison under 18 USC 793(d), an Espionage Act provision that applies to an official who "willfully" shares "information relating to the national defense" with an unauthorized recipient when he "has reason to believe" it "could be used to the injury of the United States." Comey also faces a charge of conspiring to violate Section 793, which likewise carries a maximum 10-year sentence.
If Comey's alleged disclosure was such a grave crime, you might wonder, why did it take a decade to charge him? Because two prior investigations of the same incident concluded that criminal charges were not warranted.
Beginning in March 2017, John Durham, the U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut, looked into the genesis of the Times article. The investigation found that James Baker, then the FBI's general counsel, was one of the anonymous sources. Baker said he had acted under instructions from FBI Chief of Staff James Rybacki, whom he understood to be conveying Comey's wishes. Durham's investigation included interviews, emails, phone records, and consideration of the relevant statutes. In December 2018, Comey's lawyers note, Durham "wrote a classified memorandum outlining the investigation and recommending 'NO prosecution for Baker or anyone else.'"
The following month, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia "opened an investigation into the same subject matter," Comey's lawyers say. That investigation "was closed without any charges in February 2020" after the office "declined to prosecute."
Given the outcomes of those two investigations, the decision to charge Comey now stinks of desperation to slake Trump's thirst for revenge. According to Comey's lawyers, the tardiness of the charges also fatally undermines the case.
Federal law generally requires that prosecutors file charges within five years of the alleged crime. But the Internal Security Act of 1950 made an exception for Section 793, saying "an indictment for any violation" of that provision "may be found at any time within ten years next after such violation shall have been committed."
The charges against Comey "should be dismissed as time barred," his lawyers argue: "Section 19 of the Internal Security Act gives the government an extended ten-year limitations period in which to charge Section 793 offenses. But as Section 19 unambiguously states, the government may invoke that extended period only by obtaining a grand jury indictment. A criminal information—which the government can issue unilaterally without grand jury involvement—does not suffice. Because the default five-year statute of limitations for federal felonies has long since elapsed on the alleged offenses, and the government's information does not meet the express statutory requirement for an extended ten-year limitations period, the information is untimely and must be dismissed."
Whichever side prevails on that issue, no one should have any illusions that the Justice Department is pursuing the mission suggested by its name. "It remains unclear what [McFadden] will do with the matter and whether DOJ will even be able to secure an indictment—as required by the Constitution," Cato Institute legal fellow Mike Fox says in an emailed press release. "Should the matter proceed, it is unequivocally clear that this case is a vindictive prosecution—a classic case of lawfare by a weaponized Justice Department."
If ever enacted, proposals by Marine Le Pen and the AfD leader, Alice Weidel, to hollow out EU institutions would be a continental act of self-harm
Following the Brexit referendum in 2016, Marine Le Pen was in a predictably celebratory mood. Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, she told one interviewer, was the first breach in the “Brussels Wall”. Ms Le Pen’s Front National party was at that point committed to taking France down the same path, given the chance. But as the UK’s self-inflicted economic wounds became a cautionary tale for the rest of Europe, the notion of Frexit was put on ice.
Instead, Ms Le Pen now hopes to lead far-right allies in hollowing out the EU from within. This month, both she and the leader of Alternative für Deutschland, Alice Weidel, outlined their visions of a “Europe of nations” in which EU institutions would be stripped of both cash and power. Ms Weidel’s “new deal for Europe” would abolish elections to the European parliament, and seek German opt-outs in areas such as migration, defence and common borrowing. Ms Le Pen’s party, now called National Rally, proposes slashing French contributions to the EU budget by 60% over a five-year presidential term, and ending the role of Brussels in proposing common policies for the 27 member states.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Vladimir Putin’s insistence that Ukraine surrender its remaining positions in Donetsk is not simply a dispute over territory. It is a demand that could dismantle Ukraine’s principal defensive barrier in the east, hand Moscow a military advantage it has struggled to achieve through years of fighting, and establish a precedent for further territorial concessions. The latest diplomatic contacts with European leaders have brought this question back to the centre of negotiations.
There are two ways for Russia to capture the remaining Ukrainian-held cities of Donbas. One is to fight its way through heavily fortified defensive positions, accepting substantial casualties, equipment losses and an uncertain timetable. The other is to secure their evacuation through diplomatic negotiations.
The second would achieve an important Russian military objective without requiring Moscow to bear the full cost of a prolonged offensive.
This distinction helps explain why Vladimir Putin continues to insist that Ukrainian forces withdraw from the remaining government-controlled territory of Donetsk region before a comprehensive settlement can be negotiated.
It also raises a more consequential question: would surrendering Donbas bring the war closer to an end, or would it improve Russia’s position in any subsequent confrontation?
A diplomatic opening without a strategic concession
The issue returned to prominence on 27 October when Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre held a rare telephone conversation with Putin.
According to the Finnish president’s official statement, the call followed discussions in Oslo on 20 October involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff.
The Nordic leaders sought to advance preparations for renewed American-mediated negotiations, expected in Abu Dhabi in November. They emphasised that they were acting on behalf of their respective countries rather than representing Europe collectively.
Stubb described the exchange as “frank and substantive”, arguing that direct communication with Moscow was necessary to address the security consequences of the war.
However, the Kremlin’s account offered little indication of movement on the fundamental disagreements.
Moscow insisted that any durable peace must fully accommodate Russian interests. A source close to the Kremlin told Reuters that Putin had reiterated his refusal to compromise on the objective of controlling the entire Donbas.
Following the conversation, Zelenskyy confirmed that the Nordic leaders had briefed him and stressed to Putin the need for concrete measures to reduce attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure.
The diplomatic process has therefore resumed without resolving the territorial dispute at its centre.
The military significance of the remaining Donbas
The territory Russia is demanding includes some of Ukraine’s most important surviving defensive positions.
Since fighting began in eastern Ukraine in 2014, Ukrainian forces have constructed and reinforced an extensive defensive system centred on Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka and Kostiantynivka.
Known as the fortress belt, this network combines urban areas, industrial facilities, transport infrastructure, prepared defensive positions and terrain that complicates offensive operations.
The military importance of this system extends far beyond the administrative boundaries of Donetsk.
According to the Institute for the Study of War, surrendering these positions would allow Russian forces to occupy heavily defended territory without undertaking the prolonged operations otherwise required to capture it.
In its 26 October battlefield assessment, the institute continued to identify the capture of this defensive belt as Russia’s principal military objective in Donetsk. Ukrainian forces retained positions in parts of Kostiantynivka, while Russian operations towards other major cities remained contested.
The implications of a negotiated Ukrainian withdrawal would be substantial.
Russia could occupy the fortified urban corridor, reorganise its forces, establish new logistics routes and potentially redirect formations towards other sectors.
Ukraine, meanwhile, would have to construct or reinforce defensive positions further west, potentially under pressure and in less favourable terrain.
The resulting military imbalance would not necessarily lead to another Russian offensive. But it would change the conditions under which any renewed hostilities might take place.
That is why territory cannot be assessed solely by its surface area. A relatively small section of the front can possess strategic value disproportionate to its size.
Why Moscow prefers a negotiated withdrawal
Russia’s insistence on Donetsk also reflects the limits of what its military has achieved.
Despite years of fighting, Moscow has not secured complete control of the region. Successive offensives have produced territorial gains, but at considerable cost and without the rapid breakthrough originally anticipated.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently acknowledged the central importance of the remaining Ukrainian-held territory.
In an interview published by the US State Department, Rubio characterised the dispute as centred on territory Russia wants but has been unable to capture militarily, while recognising Ukraine’s sovereignty and long-term security concerns.
His remarks demonstrate how Donbas has become the principal territorial obstacle in Washington’s diplomatic calculations.
For Moscow, however, concentrating negotiations on this specific demand offers an additional advantage.
If Ukraine refuses to withdraw, the Kremlin can argue that Kyiv is preventing progress towards peace. If Ukraine agrees, Russia obtains strategically valuable territory without the military costs associated with conquering it.
The demand therefore serves a dual purpose: it establishes a public explanation for the absence of an agreement while offering Russia an immediate military benefit should negotiations succeed on its terms.
The problem with treating Donbas as the final concession
The central weakness in any settlement built around a Ukrainian withdrawal is the assumption that control of Donbas represents the limit of Russia’s territorial ambitions.
Moscow’s previously declared objectives suggest a more complicated picture.
In June 2024, Putin demanded Ukrainian withdrawal from four regions claimed by Russia: Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Moscow does not fully control these regions, despite claiming to have annexed them in September 2022.
Russia has also demanded restrictions on Ukraine’s military capabilities and future security relationships.
As EU Today previously reported, renewed diplomatic engagement has not produced a clear abandonment of the Kremlin’s wider objectives.
Consequently, transferring the remaining territory of Donetsk would not necessarily satisfy Moscow’s other demands.
There is a significant difference between conceding territory as part of an enforceable settlement and withdrawing from defensive positions as a precondition for negotiating one.
In the first case, territorial arrangements form part of a wider agreement establishing obligations, verification procedures and security guarantees.
In the second, one party makes a potentially irreversible military concession before knowing whether an agreement will ultimately be reached.
This asymmetry is particularly important where the proposed concession directly affects the withdrawing country’s ability to defend itself.
The strategy of incremental gains
One interpretation of Moscow’s approach is that it reflects a strategy of incremental territorial expansion rather than an attempt to achieve all its objectives through a single decisive offensive.
After Russia failed to capture Kyiv in 2022, its military campaign increasingly concentrated on taking territory through successive, often prolonged operations.
The diplomatic equivalent would involve securing one concession, consolidating the resulting advantage and subsequently presenting additional demands.
Under such a scenario, Russia could obtain control of the remaining Donetsk territory, establish new positions closer to Dnipropetrovsk region and later argue that further territorial or security arrangements were necessary to protect its newly acquired frontier.
Moscow has already used the language of protective buffer zones to justify military operations elsewhere in Ukraine.
There is no evidence establishing that such a sequence would inevitably follow a Donbas settlement. Nevertheless, the possibility must be considered when assessing the military consequences of a withdrawal.
The concern is not merely that Russia might violate a future agreement. It is that the agreement itself could alter the strategic balance in ways that make renewed military pressure more effective.
There is also an internal Ukrainian dimension.
An agreement requiring the evacuation of cities defended for years would create substantial political controversy. Disagreements over territorial concessions, security guarantees and the credibility of Western commitments could complicate domestic political stability.
For Moscow, such divisions might provide another means of influencing Ukraine without immediate military escalation.
Donbas and the wider question of Ukrainian sovereignty
Donbas has considerable political significance for Putin beyond its military value.
The conflict in eastern Ukraine began in 2014, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Donetsk and Luhansk became central to the Kremlin’s justification for intervention, and their incorporation into Russia was later proclaimed as part of the 2022 annexations.
Control of the entire region would allow Putin to present a tangible achievement after years of warfare.
Yet the Kremlin’s objectives have never been confined exclusively to Donbas.
Putin has repeatedly questioned Ukraine’s historical and political independence, while Russian negotiating demands have extended to the country’s military posture, international alliances and internal political arrangements.
These positions suggest that territorial control forms part of a broader attempt to determine Ukraine’s strategic orientation.
A settlement that ends fighting in Donetsk without resolving these wider disagreements might therefore suspend the conflict rather than settle its underlying causes.
What the next negotiations must establish
The planned talks in Abu Dhabi will test whether Moscow is prepared to distinguish between its territorial demands and the conditions necessary for a sustainable ceasefire.
An immediate halt to hostilities along existing lines would preserve the military status quo while allowing negotiations to proceed.
Russia has resisted this approach, arguing that a temporary ceasefire could enable Ukraine to rebuild its forces without resolving the conflict.
Ukraine, by contrast, argues that withdrawing from fortified territory without credible guarantees would expose it to renewed attack.
Neither side can be expected to disregard the military implications of the proposed arrangements.
For European governments, the principal question is consequently not simply whether Ukrainian and Russian representatives can be brought back to the negotiating table.
It is whether any agreement can prevent the territorial settlement from becoming the starting position for another war.
Stubb and Støre’s conversation with Putin demonstrated that diplomatic communication remains possible. It did not establish that Moscow is prepared to abandon its existing territorial objectives.
The distinction matters.
Putin’s demand for Donbas offers Russia two potential advantages: a justification for continuing the war if Kyiv refuses, and a substantial military gain if Kyiv accepts.
That does not prove the Kremlin has already decided to resume hostilities after a negotiated withdrawal. It does, however, explain why the terms, sequencing and enforceability of any agreement are as consequential as the territory itself.
The essential question facing negotiators is therefore not only whether Russia can obtain Donbas through diplomacy rather than force.
It is whether the price of that concession would be a lasting peace — or a weaker Ukrainian defensive position if peace fails.
President Trump said Tuesday that he was banning the term artificial intelligence “in all relevant documents and everything else.” “In short order, we will be officially BANNING the term, ‘AI/Artificial Intelligence,’ in all relevant documents, and everything else, due to its inaccuracy,” he wrote on Truth Social. Trump hit on The Wall Street Journal for…
Come Tuesday, will there be a blue wave like the establishment media want the country to think? Or do the pollsters have it wrong yet again? Next week’s midterms will determine whether President Trump receives two more years to govern or will spend the remainder of his administration defending against radical Democrats and their impeachment agenda.
A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed as President Donald Trump speaks after signing an executive order.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
The Trump administration has changed the names of buildings, a mountain, and bodies of water.
An executive order renamed Lake Ontario as "Lake America" amid the trade war with Canada.
The president has since floated the idea of renaming the Atlantic Ocean as "American Ocean."
First, the Gulf of Mexico, then Lake Ontario. Now, President Donald Trump has said an ocean could be next.
At a Mississippi rally on Monday, the president floated the idea of renaming the Atlantic Ocean the "American Ocean" and said he thinks "Europe will be thrilled."
He first raised the idea at a Tennessee rally in early October, pitching "Trump Ocean" or "Ocean of the Americas" for either the Atlantic or Pacific. At a South Carolina rally in mid-October, he said Google CEO Sundar Pichai told him "no" to changing the ocean names on Google Maps because they touch a lot of countries.
The White House referred Business Insider to the president's comments.
It wouldn't be the first name change Trump has made or suggested in his second non-consecutive term in office.
In August, he signed an executive order to rename Lake Ontario — one of the five Great Lakes, bordering both Canada and the US — to Lake America. He's also renamed a gulf and a mountain, and has mused about renaming a river, calling New Mexico "New America," and rebranding the Strait of Hormuz as the "Trump Strait."
Besides renaming numerous government programs and buildings after Trump himself, here's a look at other places the administration has renamed — so far.
January 2025: Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico and Denali.
A "Gulf of America" poster behind President Donald Trump in the Oval Office.
Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
On the first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order titled "Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness."
It directed two actions: rename the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America," and restore Alaska's Denali, the highest mountain in North America, to its former federal name, Mount McKinley. President Barack Obama previously restored the mountain's Native Alaskan name, meaning "the high one" in the Koyukon language, in 2015.
Trump's executive order acknowledged that "congressional action is required to establish a renaming in public law," but called for federal agencies to use the new names in the interim.
Both Google and Apple have since updated their map features to reflect the name change. The Associated Press continued to refer to the body of water as the Gulf of Mexico, leading the White House to bar AP from some press events.
February to June 2025: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reversed the renaming of nine Army bases.
Fort Bragg in North Carolina.
US Army Photo by Pfc. Joshua Cowden / 22nd Mobile Public Affairs Detachment
In 2023, the Biden administration changed the names of Army bases named after Confederate leaders, renaming them after Medal of Honor recipients, military leaders, and other war heroes, including women and people of color.
Hegseth reversed the changes in a series of orders in 2025, restoring the names of Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Benning, Fort Pickett, Fort Lee, Fort Gordon, Fort Hood, Fort Polk, Fort Rucker, and Fort Bragg.
August 2026: Trump signed an executive order renaming Lake Ontario to Lake America.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order renaming Lake Ontario to "Lake America."
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
The change came amid rising tensions over the trade war with Canada. In August, the US imposed new 50% tariffs on about $20 billion in Canadian goods after negotiations fell apart, prompting Canada to announce retaliatory tariffs of up to 50%. Trump has since reversed some of those tariffs.
Canadians were already calling for boycotts of US products and travel before the August executive order. Carney said in his X response to Lake Ontario's name change that the US "is changing."
"Their trade relations, their foreign policy, their national monuments, their hydronyms," he wrote. "Canadian women and men also know that things must be called by their name, and this lake is called Lake Ontario — today and forever."
Google Maps and Apple Maps show the new name to US users. The change applies only to US federal use.
At the time, Trump also floated renaming an ocean after the US — something he has since repeatedly pitched at recent rallies. The insistence comes despite Trump saying that Pichai told the president "no" when asked to change the Atlantic Ocean's name on Google Maps.
"This time I'm not doing it," Trump said at the South Carolina rally, referring to Pichai's response. "Oceans are different, sir. They cover really a lot of countries. Please don't ask us to do that."
Login
