Author:

Republicans raise alarm as Biden admin prepares plan to protect wolves nationwide

FIRST ON FOX: House Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee are raising the alarm about a Biden administration initiative they said could lead to expanded protections for the gray wolf species, despite opposition from farmers and western states. Committee Republicans led by Chair Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., informed Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Director Martha Williams that they were probing her agency’s National Dialogue Around Working Landscapes and Gray Wolves and Thriving Communities and Cultures, an initiative unveiled in December. The lawmakers said oversight was necessary given the significant effect of listing the gray wolf. “The facts are clear regarding the listing status of the Gray Wolf in the lower-48 states — the species is recovered, should be delisted, and management should be returned to the states,” Westerman and eight fellow Natural Resources Republicans wrote in a letter to Williams on Thursday. “Delisting the gray wolf in the lower-48 states has traditionally garnered bipartisan support.” “Yet under the vague parameters of the Service’s proposal, the Service could begin to dictate to states what their management approaches should be,” they added in the letter. “Perhaps more concerning, they could utilize this proposal as a proxy to relist wolves in the Northern Rockies without the support of the impacted States.” BIDEN ADMIN PLAN TO RELEASE PREDATOR NEAR RURAL COMMUNITIES FACES WIDESPREAD OPPOSITION: ‘A HUGE THREAT’ On Dec. 13, FWS launched its gray wolf dialogue initiative to “foster the long-term conservation of wolves and address the concerns of varied communities.” The agency said the effort would include discussions involving those who live near wolf populations and those who are interested in preserving the species, and contracting a third-party conflict resolution firm to oversee the initiative. However, while the agency said the initiative would inform its policies and future rulemaking about wolves, it did not offer any additional details about what it specifically hoped to achieve. LOCAL RESIDENTS EXPLODE AT BIDEN OFFICIALS OVER PLAN TO RELEASE GRIZZLY BEARS NEAR THEIR COMMUNITIES “The Committee is concerned that the ‘National Dialogue Around Working Landscapes and Gray Wolves and Thriving Communities and Cultures’ could potentially impact areas where wolves are delisted and currently under state management, like in the Northern Rockies Ecosystem,” the Republicans wrote in their letter. “States in the Northern Rockies Ecosystem have a proven track record of success in managing healthy wolf populations, with current populations being stable and even slightly increasing year to year,” they continued. For years, environmental and conservation nonprofits have advocated, through both public campaigns and litigation, for FWS to maintain federal protections for the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Once a species is listed under the ESA, individuals and groups are prohibited from removing, interfering with, hunting or harming it. According to environmentalists, the gray wolf is vital to ensuring ecosystems are healthy by keeping prey populations in check. However, western states, in addition to agriculture and livestock industry associations, have argued that gray wolves are already recovered and that any recovery plan should be overseen by state officials who are more informed about the wildlife needs within their borders. As such, in 2020, the Trump administration declared the species fully recovered in the U.S. and delisted it from the ESA. CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP “After more than 45 years as a listed species, the Gray Wolf has exceeded all conservation goals for recovery,” former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said in a statement at the time. “Today’s announcement simply reflects the determination that this species is neither a threatened nor endangered species based on the specific factors Congress has laid out in the law.” In early 2022, though, a federal district court reinstated the ESA protections in the lower 48 states, a decision that does not impact the Northern Rockies ecosystem. The Republicans on Thursday expressed concern that FWS would pursue further protections for the gray wolf, including in that region, as a result of its dialogue initiative.

California judge blocks gun control law requiring background checks for ammo purchases

A federal judge has ruled that California cannot enforce a law requiring people to undergo background checks to buy ammunition, declaring it unconstitutional. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego said the gun control measure has “no historical pedigree” and violates the Second Amendment rights of citizens. “A sweeping background check requirement imposed every time a citizen needs to buy ammunition is an outlier that our ancestors would have never accepted for a citizen,” wrote Benitez, a President George W. Bush appointee.  The judge also criticized the number of law-abiding gun owners who were rejected after undergoing background checks and prevented from buying ammo. ATF WHISTLEBLOWERS SOUND ALARM ON BIDEN ADMIN PROPOSAL THAT EFFECTIVELY BANS PRIVATE GUN SALES: REPORT “The 2019 rejection rate was 16%. Overwhelmingly, the rejections were either because the state had no record of gun ownership or because of personal identifier mismatches,” Benitez wrote. “One would expect problems and errors in a new system as extensive and ungainly as California’s unprecedented ammunition background check system. Unfortunately, today the background check rejection rate is lower at 11%, but it is still too high.”  Benitez issued a permanent injunction blocking the law from being enforced while the state appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  “These laws were put in place as a safeguard and a way of protecting the people of California, and they work,” said state Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat. “Background checks save lives.” California Gov. Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat, ripped the judge’s decision and accused Benitez of being in the pocket of the gun lobby. TENNESSEE DEM INTRODUCES BILL FOR ‘THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS TAX’ ON FIREARM SALES “Like clockwork, Judge Benitez has yet again put his personal politics and fealty for the gun lobby over the Constitution and common sense,” Newsom said. “California will fight this extremist, illogical, and incoherent ruling as we defend our life-saving measures that are proven to keep our communities safe.” The ammo background check law — which was approved by voters in 2016 as a ballot measure and amended by the legislature in 2019 to include each ammo purchase — was challenged by Kim Rhode, an Olympic gold medalist in shooting events, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. Chuck Michel, the group’s president and general counsel, called the decision a “big win,” saying that California had “blocked many eligible people from getting the ammunition they need, which is the true political intent behind most of these laws.” MARYLAND BILL WOULD BAN GUN CARRY FOR OWNERS WITHOUT INSURANCE POLICY OF AT LEAST $300K California had pointed to dozens of laws dating as far back as 1789 as “historical analogues” for ammunition background checks, including restrictions that prohibited slaves, Indians and others from buying ammunition. The judge rejected that argument, saying, “these repugnant historical examples of prejudice and bigotry” against people who were not afforded constitutional rights do not justify similar restrictions now on people protected by the Constitution.  Benitez’s ruling relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision that expanded gun rights nationwide. In binding precedent, the high court said that judges must assess whether a proposed firearm regulation is “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” when confronted with decisions that can impact gun rights. The case is Rhode et al. v. Bonta.  Reuters contributed to this report.

Terrorist who crossed border allowed to roam US for nearly a year, arrested only after ICE ‘became aware’

President Biden’s acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Patrick Lechleitner, admitted that a terrorist was allowed to roam freely in the U.S. for nearly a year after crossing into the country illegally at the border. At a briefing on Thursday, Lechleitner said the terrorist was arrested within 48 hours, only after ICE “became aware.” Lechleitner confirmed a report by The Daily Caller that federal authorities caught a terrorist illegally crossing into the U.S. via the southern border in March 2023.  However, the terrorist was then released into the U.S. due to a “mismatch” after his name was run through the terror watch list, The Daily Caller reported. DEMOCRATS DENY BORDER CRISIS, PLACE BLAME ON REPUBLICANS AND TRUMP The unnamed terrorist was a member of al-Shabab and was captured last month in Minneapolis, according to the outlet. SPEEDBOAT PULLS UP TO SAN DIEGO SHORE AND DROPS OFF GROUP OF SUSPECTED ILLEGAL MIGRANTS When questioned by Jennie Taer of The Daily Caller about how many other terrorists have been apprehended in the interior after coming through the border, Lechleitner refused to answer her question. Instead, he addressed the capture of the al-Shabab terrorist. “I want to commend our personnel because as soon as we became aware of that — within 48 hours — he was apprehended, and he’s currently in ICE custody,” Lechleitner said. “I think that’s an incredible result — a testament to how professional, quite honestly, how capable our personnel are.” According to the U.S. State Department, al-Shabab is al Qaeda’s largest, wealthiest and most deadly affiliate. The group has murdered thousands of people in Somalia and the region, including Americans.  Fox News Digital has reached out to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for more information.

Texas Education Agency takes over La Joya ISD after investigating school board for fraud and conflicts of interest

The TEA appointed a “board of managers” to replace the district’s school board trustees and named a new superintendent.

Hollywood moguls, billionaires flood Biden’s victory fund with six-figure donations

Hollywood moguls and other deep-pocketed billionaires came out in full support of President Biden’s re-election during the last quarter by pushing millions of dollars into his victory fund, filings show. Several of his affluent supporters cut six-figure checks to the Biden Victory Fund — a joint fundraising venture comprising Biden’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee, all 50 state Democratic parties, and Washington, D.C.’s Democratic committee — between October and December. The setup allows wealthy backers to give up to $929,600 each to the Biden Victory Fund per election cycle. Joint fundraising committees have become commonplace with both political parties in recent years, allowing individuals to contribute far more to one entity, which then takes the cash and moves it among the groups involved in the initiative. BIDEN’S TOP SUPER PAC RECEIVES MILLIONS IN NEW DARK MONEY FUNDS, FILINGS SHOW According to the Biden Victory Fund’s year-end filings, director Steven Spielberg and his wife, Kate Capshaw, each cut the maximum $929,600 checks to the committee between October and December. Biden began making a push among Hollywood donors for his re-election efforts with a massive Los Angeles fundraiser co-hosted by the couple late last year. Billionaire George Soros added $653,000 in donations. His money came on the heels of the $250,000 he gave to the fund in the third quarter, bringing his total to $903,000 and putting him just thousands of dollars away from maxing out donations to the endeavor. Filmmaker J.J Abrams and former Alphabet executive chairman Eric Schmidt, who worked closely with Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 campaign, each provided $500,000. The Biden Victory Fund raised $70 million last quarter and currently has $37 million cash on hand. SOROS PUSHED $15M TO NONPROFIT LINKED TO BIDEN SUPER PAC TO TEST ‘CRITICAL’ POLICY ISSUES, TAX DOCS REVEAL Other notable billionaires previously bankrolled Biden’s joint fundraising committee during the third quarter of last year.  Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Steve Jobs, provided the fund with the maximum $929,000 contribution in September.  During that time, the Biden Victory Fund also received maxed-out $929,600 donations from sports executive Casey Wasserman, casino magnate Neil Bluhm, real estate mogul Kurt Rappaport, businessman Haim Saban and philanthropist Ellen Bronfman Hauptman. 

GOP senators demand the FBI ‘repair the damage’ to it’s ‘credibility’ over anti-Catholic memo debacle

FIRST ON FOX – A group of Republican senators are demanding that the Federal Bureau of Investigation “repair the damage” to its credibility after a series of errors surrounding the origin of the anti-Catholic memo that targeted traditional Catholics as potential “terrorists.” The memo, which has since been retracted by its creators in the FBI Richmond field office, was a focus in congressional oversight action and hearings last year and garnered significant criticism by Republican lawmakers.  In a letter obtained by Fox News Digital, Senators Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. and 14 of their senate colleagues, demanded FBI Director Christopher Wray give a “coherent and complete response” to the Senate after its apparent failures in reviewing how the memo was ever created and the agency’s compliance with congressional oversight on the matter.  We are writing about the FBI’s failure to provide information requested by members relating to the now infamous Richmond memo while misleading this body with what little information it did provide,” the senators wrote.  SEVERAL FBI OFFICES CONTRIBUTED TO ANTI-CATHOLIC MEMO, REFUTING WRAY’S TESTIMONY, GOP SAYS “We recently also learned that the FBI permanently deleted critical records related to the memo, and one of the authors of the Richmond memo prepared a second, external report in coordination with headquarters that was intended to be circulated outside the Richmond office to the full FBI,” they said.  According to the lawmakers, the FBI “for months used its internal review of the Richmond memo as an excuse not to provide records or respond to members’ questions.” “Despite the completion of what we now know was a very narrow internal review, limited to only certain aspects of this single internal analyst report, FBI has repeatedly ignored member requests for records that would enable Congress to conduct its own investigation. This includes FBI’s repeated failure to fulfill the March 1, 2023, request by the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, Charles Grassley, and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member, Lindsey Graham,” the letter states.  The Ranking Members asked the agency for copies of the correspondence between the intelligence analysts who drafted the Richmond memo and anyone of higher rank related to the report, an unredacted copy of the Domain Perspective memo, and a copy of all reports issued within FBI or DOJ within the past five years alleging a link between any primarily-religious or conservative association or entity and violent extremism. “Now we know that information related to the Richmond memo wasn’t provided to Congress because the FBI deleted the records as soon as the incident became public,” the lawmakers stated, citing a report released by the House Judiciary Committee on December 4, in which Deputy Director Paul Abbate ordered Richmond Special Agent in Charge Stanley Meador to “take [the memo] down” as soon as it became public.  FBI INTERVIEWED PRIEST, CHURCH CHOIR DIRECTOR AHEAD OF ANTI-CATHOLIC MEMO, HOUSE GOP FINDS According to Agent Meador, there was then a “follow-up call” from Tanya Ugoretz, the FBI’s Assistant Director of the Directorate of Intelligence, which ordered Agent Meador to notify the Deputy Director and Ms. Ugoretz, “‘when [he] had taken the necessary steps’ to remove the memorandum, and anything referring to the document, from FBI systems,” the senators note.  “FBI must provide an immediate explanation for its order to delete records related to this incident, which not only obstructs congressional oversight, but also means the FBI’s internal review itself did not have access to documents that may have provided critical information on the incident. The FBI must also explain why it withheld this information from the Senate, despite repeated requests for records,” they said.  The senators said that based on now-available information, Wray’s claims under oath before congress that the memo was “a single product by a single field office” was “misleading, and that other offices had significant contributions to the memo. HEAVILY REDACTED RECORDS SHOW FBI’S TARGETING OF CATHOLICS WENT BEYOND WHAT IT CLAIMED: WATCHDOG “Despite the internal memo’s obvious flaws, it was approved by layers of FBI bureaucracy, including the Chief Division Counsel and the Special Agent in Charge (SAC),” the senators wrote.  “Indeed, FBI’s October 27 letter indicated that a total of seven individuals were involved in the drafting, review, and approval of the memo,” they said.  “That a product this defective was reviewed by seven FBI employees and senior agents is evidence of a cultural problem at FBI that points well beyond a single report,” they said. “This broader crisis of FBI leadership is part of an ongoing pattern of weaponization of federal law enforcement against ordinary citizens that we have warned you about at length, and which the FBI must address,” they said.  The FBI must respond to the senators by Feb. 14. 

‘We need to rein them in’: Lawmakers rail against social media CEOs, but is there any regulation in sight?

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agreed that Big Tech CEOs haven’t done enough to protect children using social media and that platforms need to be reined in to protect kids from indoctrination and exploitation.  “Tech CEOs have utterly and completely failed to act adequately to protect children online, and that’s the reason why they lost trust,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal told Fox News. “They completely squandered their credibility.” WATCH MORE FOX NEWS DIGITAL ORIGINALS HERE  “Everyone agrees, Republicans and Democrats, that we need to move forward with rules and safeguards for kids that are in the law and not rely on them to do the right thing,” the Connecticut Democrat said. The chief executives of TikTok, X, Meta, Snap and Discord testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday during a hearing considering what liability the platforms should face if harmful content they host targets or exploits children. The audience included victims and families of victims of eating disorders, self-harm, suicide and drug-related deaths allegedly stemming from harmful social media content.  PARENT OF FENTANYL VICTIM SUING SNAPCHAT REJECTS CEO’S DEFENSE: THEY ONLY HELPED AFTER MEDIA PRESSURE “The problem gets worse, not better,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, the committee’s top Republican, told Fox News. During the hearing, he said Meta CEO Mark Zuckerburg had blood on his hands and accused him of defending “a product that’s killing people.” “I think we need a system where we have a digital regulatory commission,” Graham told Fox News after the hearing. Zuckerberg apologized to victims’ families during the hearing after Sen. Josh Hawley pressed him. The tech giant leader stood up and said “no one should have to go through the things that your families suffered” while facing the audience. But Rep. Mike Garcia said free speech protections, including Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, have prevented Congress from taking more action to regulate social media. He said Congress needs to work with Big Tech CEOs to establish better protection from “nefarious” content without violating the First Amendment.  “I don’t think we can ever do enough to safeguard our children on social media,” the California Republican said. “We got to make sure the protections are in place while still honoring the Constitution.” Rep. Jim Clyburn said Big Tech hasn’t protected children and that regulations need to be put in place. “We need to rein them in,” the South Carolina Democrat said.  PARENTS OF TEENS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT INTERNET ADDICTION THAN DRUG USE, STUDY FINDS: ‘PROBLEMATIC PATTERNS’ Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy released an advisory last year, “Social Media and Youth Mental Health,” about social media’s potential harmful effects on children and adolescents. Increased social media use among 14-year-olds, for example, correlated to poor sleep, poor body image, low self-esteem and higher depressive symptoms, according to a 2022 study cited in the report.  Meanwhile, social media platforms have become increasingly used among teenagers, according to a Pew Research Center survey of over 1,400 13 to 17-years-olds conducted last fall. Nearly all teens surveyed – 95% – used YouTube, over two-thirds – 67% – used TikTok and more than half had Instagram and Snapchat.  FLORIDA HOUSE PASSES BILL BANNING CHILDREN UNDER 16 FROM SOCIAL MEDIA: ‘KIDS CAN’T STAY OFF THE PLATFORMS’ “There are obviously a lot of concerns, particularly with the way young children are being targeted for advertising, for indoctrination,” Rep. Nicole Malliotakis said, adding that she had elevated concerns about Chinese influence on TikTok.  “We need to see more protection for our children on the internet so they’re not targeted in ways that can hurt them mentally, emotionally or physically,” the New York Republican said.  Blumenthal and Sen. Marsha Blackburn, co-sponsors of the Kids Online Safety Act, met with families of cyberbullying and online child exploitation victims on Thursday before the group began a day of advocacy to push lawmakers to enact legislation to safeguard children on social media. The bipartisan Kids Online Safety Act — one of several Senate bills introduced to protect kids from online harm — would give tech companies requirements to keep kids safe from harmful content on social media. “We have a responsibility to respect children of course, but it starts with parents,” Rep. Rich McCormick said. “It’s a slippery slope.”

Consumer group reveals left-wing groups increasingly using courts to push Green New Deal

EXCLUSIVE: Left-wing advocacy nonprofits, aided by trial law firms and Democrats, are increasingly turning to the legal system to push Green New Deal policies, according to a new consumer report shared with Fox News Digital. The report, published Thursday by the Alliance for Consumers, details how advocacy groups have looked to wage public nuisance lawsuits to remove products and services, such as fossil fuels and firearms, from the market that “do not align with the progressive agenda.” Public nuisance laws prohibit activities that harm people or property nearby and are generally enforced by government entities. “Public nuisance cases aren’t about putting money in the hands of victims,” Alliance for Consumers Executive Director O.H. Skinner told Fox News Digital in an interview. “Public nuisance cases are about creating a big pot of money to ‘abate the nuisance.’ And that money doesn’t go to victims or consumers or any of the traditional people who you would think would be the good guys in a lawsuit against a giant company.” “There’s been far too little attention to that. So, we’ve really been spending a lot of time highlighting that these are really ideological weapons, because public nuisance is a unique tool to generate billions of dollars for pet causes and bankrupt, or risk bankrupting, somebody you don’t like,” Skinner continued. “If you want to end firearm manufacturing in America, if you want to cripple fossil fuels or energy companies, this is a very unique tool.” MAJOR ‘CLIMATE DECEPTION’ LAWSUIT AGAINST BIG OIL VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED According to the report, public nuisance cases are generally pursued using a similar “playbook” where left-wing interest groups identify an issue impacting people, identify corporations within that industry, then file a claim for “indirect harm.” They then leverage political and public pressure to force a settlement in the case, the Alliance for Consumers concluded.  In addition to fossil fuels and firearms, the nuisance cases have targeted chemicals, plastics, vaping and automakers. TOP REPUBLICANS LAUNCH PROBE INTO LEONARDO DICAPRIO-FUNDED BLUE STATE LAWSUITS AGAINST BIG OIL Overall, Skinner said, public nuisance cases focused particularly on climate change are designed to “stitch together” a large pool of money to replace the Green New Deal. That legislation, which proposed trillions of dollars in spending to force an economy-wide transition to green energy, was first introduced years ago by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., but it has yet to receive a floor vote. The Alliance for Consumers report further highlights several federal lawmakers and governors who have sought to boost public nuisance cases and, in some cases, filed or involved themselves in such cases. The group points to Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Ed Markey, D-Mass., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Govs., Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., and Phil Murphy, D-N.J., in particular. “A long line of progressive United States Senators have used their offices to urge additional use of public nuisance lawsuits or to provide formal legal support to existing public nuisance lawsuits,” the report states. “Understanding more about these United States Senators who are boosting public nuisance litigation — from their core policy priorities to the role they are playing in these public nuisance lawsuits — goes a long way to helping illustrate the goals of the modern public nuisance movement,” it adds. LEFT-WING CLIMATE GROUP IS QUIETLY PREPARING JUDGES FOR GLOBAL WARMING CASES For example, Whitehouse has long supported public nuisance litigation dating back to his time as attorney general of Rhode Island when, in 1999, he filed such a case against manufacturers accused of mixing lead into their products. But he has since supported broader cases against the fossil fuel industry, filing briefs in cases filed in his home state and California. The other lawmakers listed in the report have similarly filed briefs in such cases or offered public support for such efforts.  OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PERMITTING PLUMMETS TO 2-DECADE LOW UNDER BIDEN “They are stepping in time and time again to use their official office to weigh in,” Skinner said. “Sheldon Whitehouse, who rails about dark money, has come out and is publicly filing briefs and issuing statements supporting his home state attorney general, who is using Sher Edling, a dark money-fueled progressive climate change law firm to accomplish progressive goals.” “That just kind of reveals that this is a no-holds barred attack because he talks about dark money all the time, but then, when that progressive dark money is financing the lawsuits, even in his home state, he’s right there filing legal briefs and saying how this must prevail,” he continued. Over the last several years, the California-based trial law firm Sher Edling has filed numerous climate-related public nuisance lawsuits nationwide. The firm — which argues in the novel cases that oil companies are financially responsible for global warming and, therefore, weather events that impact people, property and communities — has filed cases on behalf of Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Minnesota, New York City, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Baltimore, Honolulu and many local governments across the country. Sher Edling, which was founded in 2016 with the goal of spearheading such litigation, states on its website that its climate practice seeks to hold oil companies like Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell accountable for their alleged “deception” about climate change. The firm has raised millions of dollars from liberal dark money nonprofits to fund its pursuits. While the entirety of Sher Edling’s funding structure is unknown, the firm has for years taken donations from a pass-through fund managed by the left-wing New Venture Fund, whose individual donors are obscured from public view, meaning donors are able to remain anonymous. The arrangement, as a result, has attracted scrutiny from watchdog groups and lawmakers, including Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky. “As I’ve warned, it’s clear radical, left-wing dark money groups are footing the bill for Sher Edling’s climate crusade with the goal of bankrupting American energy employers,” Cruz previously told Fox News Digital. “New Venture

In a sign of commitment, EU unlocks aid for Ukraine as it fights off Russia

European Union leaders have overcome objections from Hungary to approve a 50 billion euro ($54bn) plan to support Ukraine for the next four years. The unanimous decision came on Thursday, as Ukraine continues its struggle to repel a full-scale Russian invasion that began nearly two years ago. Lawmakers and experts hailed the deal as an important buttress for the continued stability of the war-torn Eastern European country, whose economy is heavily reliant on Western aid. “The EU showed commitment to the continuous support of Ukraine under difficult geopolitical and internal circumstances … and despite alleged public impatience with this support,” European Institute lecturer George Tzogopoulos told Al Jazeera. Thursday’s deal, known as the “Ukraine Facility“, consists of 17 billion euros ($18.5bn) in grants and 33 billion euros ($35.8bn) in loans, designed to help Ukraine rebuild and recover from the war. The funding is also expected to help Ukraine make reforms on its path to eventual EU membership. EU leaders officially invited Ukraine to become a member in December, but around the same time, Hungary vetoed the aid package, saying Ukraine funding should not be grafted onto the EU multi-annual budget. The aid’s eventual passage on Thursday was met with cheers from Ukrainian officials. Deputy Prime Minister Yuliya Svyrydenko wrote on Facebook that, with the funding, Ukraine had “come one step closer to economic stability for the next four years”. Ukraine faces a $43bn budget deficit this year and expects the EU aid will cover just under half of it. Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, left, has been seen as the primary hurdle to passing a $54bn Ukraine funding package [Geert Vanden Wijngaert/AP Photo] EU leaders applaud breakthrough EU leaders, meanwhile, hailed the aid package as a means of ensuring stability and democracy in Eastern Europe. “This locks in steadfast, long-term, predictable funding for Ukraine. EU is taking leadership & responsibility in support for Ukraine; we know what is at stake,” European Council President Charles Michel wrote on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen likewise called it “a good day for Europe”. Thursday’s agreement also marked a moment of relative unity for EU members, some of whom, like the Baltic states, are rearming against Russia. Others, like Italy, have been more wary of alienating Russia. “The EU stands behind you long-term, until victory,” wrote Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas. “Ukraine’s security is Europe’s security,” Italian prime minister Roberta Metsola echoed on social media. Leaders also agreed on an addition to the EU budget of two billion euros ($2.17bn) for border security, 7.6 billion euros ($8.26bn) for regional aid and 1.5 billion euros ($1.6bn) for the European Defence Fund, an initiative to ensure cooperation among member countries’ armed forces. Hungary’s beef with Ukraine Key aspects of the Ukraine aid deal, however, remained murky. It was not clear if EU leaders had also approved a separate military aid fund for Ukraine worth 20 billion euros ($21.7bn), proposed last July. Nor was it clear if they would move forward with the five billion euros ($5.43bn) in military aid proposed by Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign policy chief. Questions also linger over what concessions were made to Hungary in order to lift its veto of the Ukraine funding package. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has consistently questioned the continued support for Ukraine, downplaying the threat Russia poses and calling for an annual review of any expenditures. “We need to closely monitor the details of the compromise because the EU does not need to show that it accepted Orban’s demands, given how sensitive an issue the rule of law remains,” Tzogopoulos, the European Institute lecturer, said. Hungary was indeed offered some concessions in exchange for its support, in the form of an opportunity to veto the spending deal next year if Ukraine fails to live up to its conditions. Those conditions require Ukraine to uphold “effective democratic mechanisms”, such as multi-party parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and respect for minorities. In the days leading up to Thursday’s deal, though, tensions between Hungary and EU leaders had reached a boiling point. Earlier this week, media reports emerged that the European Commission threatened to “sabotage” Hungary’s economy if it persisted in vetoing Ukraine aid. There has also been backlash against what critics consider Hungary’s democratic backsliding. EU leaders had suspended 20 billion euros ($21.7bn) in support funds to Hungary over concerns about media freedom and the rule of law in Hungary. They also suspended 10 billion euros ($10.8bn) due to concerns about judicial independence, but released those last December. The European Parliament wants EU leaders to reconsider that decision. Prisoners of war return to Ukraine in a swap at an unknown location on January 31 [Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Reuters handout] A history of Hungary tensions The impasse over Ukraine funding has been further exacerbated by ethnic tensions with Hungary, its neighbour to the west. An estimated 150,000 ethnic Hungarians live in western Ukraine. But in 2017 and 2019, Ukraine passed laws forbidding the teaching of minority languages in schools and their use in local government, leading to outcry in the Hungarian community. “It was, of course, directed against the Russian language but … all minorities suffered,” Katalin Miklossy, an expert on Eastern Europe at the University of Helsinki, told Al Jazeera. Hungarian Prime Minister Orban decried the measures as impinging on Hungarian rights in Ukraine, a factor that contributed to his decision to veto military aid for the country. For its part, Ukraine attempted to quell any concerns with reforms to the laws, as it sought membership in the EU. “Ukraine in 2023 backed off the minority laws as a favour to Hungary, to facilitate its application to the EU,” said Miklossy. “They reframed the law so that it was again possible to study minority rights in schools.” Romania also protested the language laws: More than 100,000 ethnic Romanians live in Ukraine. But experts say that Romania’s overall reaction to Ukraine has served as a counterpoint to

Preview: CAF AFCON 2023 quarterfinals

The 2023 Africa Cup of Nations has been a tournament of upsets with favourites Morocco, defending champions Senegal and record-winners Egypt all out of the competition before the quarterfinals. Here’s our run down of the tournament’s last-eight stage, which is set to take place across Friday and Saturday: 1. Nigeria vs Angola: Friday, February 2 at 17:00 GMT After the scything down of African footballing giants in the group stage and round of 16, Nigeria stand as clear favourites to claim a fourth AFCON title. It’s been far from plain sailing for the Super Eagles after a draw in their opening match with Equatorial Guinea set up a tense second match with host Ivory Coast. Nigeria’s 1-0 win set them on the way to second spot in the group, which was later confirmed by a 1-0 win against Guinea-Bissau in the third game. The last-16 encounter with Cameroon was a repeat of the 1984 final and was billed as the best striker Victor Osimhen vs the best goalkeeper Andre Onana. As it was, Onana was benched again by coach Rigobert Song while Ademola Lookman bagged both goals to send Nigeria through. Osimhen was praised for his “fantastic” performance, however, and it was his tireless running that set up the first goal. However, it’s just one goal in four matches as the tournament for the African Footballer of the Year, and whether he finds his goalscoring touch in tighter games could be the balance between success or failure for the Super Eagles. Meanwhile, Angola are only the minnows quickly becoming a force. The 2019 champions Algeria were the Southern African nation’s biggest test in the group stage. A 1-1 draw with them served the Angolans better as they topped the group with victories against Burkina Faso and Mauritania, while the Algerians finished bottom. As fine a run as Angola have had, anything other than a victory for Nigeria would be the biggest shock of a tournament that has already sprung plenty of surprises. Soaring Eagle @victorosimhen9 in the midst of Lions. Add your own caption#SoarSuperEagles #letsDoItAgain #ourAfcon #africanfootball #afcon2023 pic.twitter.com/RF0ROoXraA — 🇳🇬 Super Eagles (@NGSuperEagles) January 29, 2024 2. DRC vs Guinea: Friday, February 2 at 20:00 GMT Although former winners in 1968 and 1974, DRC were, and to some extent still are, far from expected challengers. Indeed, the Central African nation have yet to win a game in normal time at this year’s edition. Their second spot in the group, behind tournament favourites Morocco, was secured via three draws. However, the 2012 winners Zambia were pushed into the third spot. Finishing between these sides is not an achievement to be sniffed at, no matter the manner it was achieved. The mighty Egypt, record AFCON winners and defeated finalists in the last edition, awaited in the round of 16. The Pharaohs similarly were searching for their first win and were without the injured Mohamed Salah. The Congolese mustered only one shot on target in a 1-1 draw after 120 minutes, while the Pharaohs had Hamdy Mahmoud Shefedin sent off in the first half of extra time. The match nonetheless was headed to penalties and the rest, much like the Egyptians, was history. Guinea overcame The Gambia, one of only two teams to fail to register a point in the group stages, to secure a best third-place finish in Group C, having also taken a point off Cameroon while also succumbing as both other teams did to Senegal. It set up a West African derby in the last 16 with Equatorial Guinea, who had topped their group from Nigeria and Ivory Coast. The game appeared to be heading to penalties until Mohamed Bayo scored the latest goal in normal time in AFCON history as he headed home in the 98th minute to send Guinea on their way. 𝟴 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺𝘀. 𝗗𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀. 𝟭 𝗖𝘂𝗽. 🏆 Who goes all the way? 👀#TotalEnergiesAFCON2023 pic.twitter.com/2Z4kuirC1B — CAF (@CAF_Online) January 30, 2024 3. Mali vs Ivory Coast: Saturday, February 3 at 17:00 GMT In what has been a tournament of underdogs, Mali can quite rightly dismiss the notion that they are one of the surprise packages given their pole position in the group of death. South Africa finished second and Nambia third, as Tunisia, the group favourites, were sent packing. Mali, whose best finish was as runners-up in 1972, opened with a 2-0 win against the Bafana Bafana before drawing with Namibia and Tunisia to send the North Africans home and secure the top spot despite resting half their team for the final game. The stars returned for their 2-1 win against Burkina Faso in the last 16 although they did endure a nervy finale which included a late disallowed equaliser. Ivory Coast meantime, survived the closest of culls at the group stage – one that saw their manager Jean-Louis Gasset’s contract terminated even with qualification still a possibility. The Elephants opened the tournament with a 2-0 win against Guinea-Bissau but the defeat by Nigeria was followed by a humiliating 4-0 thrashing by Equatorial Guinea. That was enough to see off Gasset despite the potential reprieve of progression as one of the best third-place finishers. The stay of execution looked as though it may be short-lived with hot favourites and defending champions Senegal waiting in the round of 16. The Elephants, aware of the task at hand, tried to “loan” former manager Herve Renard from his role as France Women’s manager but the French federation rejected the move. Over to former international Emerse Fae to step up from the backroom staff and lead his side to a victory on penalties, made all the more remarkable by the Elephants’ resurgence in the match itself let alone all that had gone before. The greatest of sporting redemptions is now on. Those round of 16 games brought the complete package. 📦🤩#TotalEnergiesAFCON2023 pic.twitter.com/vsEiVC8ycs — CAF (@CAF_Online) January 31, 2024 4. Cape Verde vs South Africa: Saturday, February 3 at 20:00 GMT Cape Verde have been the talk of the tournament