US court orders resentencing for Colorado clerk involved in election scheme
Former clerk Tina Peters has become a cause celebre for the election denial movement and President Donald Trump. By The Associated Press Published On 2 Apr 20262 Apr 2026 An appeals court in the state of Colorado has ordered the resentencing of Tina Peters, a former county clerk convicted of involvement in an election meddling scheme in the United States. The court overturned Peters’s nine-year prison sentence on Thursday, but not her conviction for helping to tamper with voting machines after the 2020 presidential race. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list Her case has become a cause celebre for President Donald Trump and the election denial movement, after it emerged that she was seeking evidence to support Trump’s false claim that his 2020 loss was due to massive fraud. In Thursday’s decision, the three-judge appeals panel ruled that a lower court had considered Peters’s personal beliefs when deciding upon a punishment, thereby rendering the sentence improper. “The trial court’s comments about Peters’s belief in the existence of 2020 election fraud went beyond relevant considerations for her sentencing,” the appeals court wrote. The panel cited comments from Judge Matthew Barrett, who blasted Peters as a “charlatan” promoting “snake oil” claims. “Her offence was not her belief, however misguided the trial court deemed it to be, in the existence of such election fraud,” the appeals court said. “It was her deceitful actions in her attempt to gather evidence of such fraud.” Peters was convicted in August 2024 for helping someone from outside the government gain access to the Mesa County election system and make copies. That person was affiliated with efforts to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss, and the copies they obtained were then shared on social media. False claims that the 2020 election was marred by massive fraud have been a persistent fixation for Trump and his allies, even after his successful re-election in 2024. Advertisement Trump’s efforts to remain in office after his 2020 defeat were the subject of a 2023 criminal indictment brought by former special counsel Jack Smith. He alleged that Trump led a criminal conspiracy to undermine the election process and rally supporters to overturn the results. Those charges, however, were ultimately dropped when Trump took office again in 2025, as the US Justice Department has a policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Since his inauguration, Trump has continued to push the claims he won the 2020 race. He has also used his allegations of fraud to demand greater control over the country’s election infrastructure in advance of the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. In December, the president pardoned Peters, even though she was not in federal custody, and the presidential power of pardon does not extend to state crimes. The appeals court panel confirmed on Thursday that Trump’s pardon had no impact on state offences. “We have found no instance where the presidential pardon power has been stretched in such a way as to invade an individual state’s sovereignty,” the panel said. State Governor Jared Polis suggested last month that he could consider clemency for Peters. Adblock test (Why?)
Trump unveils 100 percent tariff on drugs to push for pharmaceutical deals
US president has said that he will use tariffs to bring down costly pharmaceutical drugs, but the impact remains uncertain. By The Associated Press Published On 2 Apr 20262 Apr 2026 United States President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that could slap long-threatened tariffs of up to 100 percent on some patented drugs if pharmaceutical companies don’t reach deals with his administration in the coming months. Under Thursday’s executive order, companies that have signed a “most favoured nation” pricing deal and are actively building facilities in the US will have a zero-percent tariff. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list For those that don’t have a pricing deal but are building such projects in the US, a 20 percent tariff will apply, but it will increase to 100 percent in four years. A senior administration official told reporters on a press call that companies still have months to negotiate before the 100 percent tariffs kick in. Bigger companies will have 120 days, and 180 days are offered for everyone else. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview the executive order before it was issued, did not identify any companies or drugs that were in jeopardy of getting hit with the increased tariffs. But the source noted the administration had already reached 17 pricing deals with major drugmakers, 13 of which have signed. In Thursday’s executive order, Trump wrote that he deemed the tariffs necessary “to address the threatened impairment of the national security posed by imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients”. The order arrived on the first anniversary of Trump’s so-called Liberation Day, when the president unveiled sweeping new import taxes on nearly every country in the world, sending the stock market reeling. Those “Liberation Day” tariffs were among the duties the Supreme Court overturned in February. Critics, pharmaceutical leaders and medical groups warned of the consequences the new tariffs could bring. Advertisement Stephen J Ubl, the CEO of the pharmaceutical company trade group PhRMA, said taxes “on cutting-edge medicines will increase costs and could jeopardize billions in US investments”. He pointed to America’s already large footprint in biopharmaceutical manufacturing and noted medicines sourced from other countries “overwhelmingly come from reliable US allies”. Trump has launched a barrage of new import taxes on US trading partners since the start of his second term and repeatedly pledged sky-high levies on foreign-made drugs. But the administration has also used the threat of new levies to strike deals with major companies — like Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Bristol Myers Squibb — over the last year, with promises of lower prices for new drugs. Beyond company-specific rates, a handful of countries have reached trade frameworks with the US to further cap tariffs on drugs sent to the US. The European Union, Japan, Korea and Switzerland will see a 15 percent US tariff on patented pharmaceuticals, matching previously agreed rates for most goods. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom will get 10 percent, which Thursday’s order noted would “then reduce to zero” under future trade agreements. The UK previously said it secured a zero-percent tariff rate for all British medicines exported to the US for at least three years. Adblock test (Why?)
Iran vows retaliation after deadly US strike on bridge in Karaj
[unable to retrieve full-text content] Iranian officials say the country’s largest bridge will be “built back stronger,” but America’s standing won’t recover.
Iran releases mocking missile launch video after Trump threats
NewsFeed Iranian state media released footage showing the launch of missiles plastered with messages mocking Donald Trump following the US president’s threat to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages.” Published On 2 Apr 20262 Apr 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
US reinforcements are coming to the Gulf – but what does victory look like?
[unable to retrieve full-text content] Al Jazeera’s defence editor looks at how the US-Israeli attack on Iran has become a regional war
Can the US seize Iran’s enriched uranium – and what are the risks?
United States President Donald Trump is reportedly considering dispatching US special forces to Iran to seize the country’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium in what experts say would be a complicated and risky military operation. Ensuring that Iran has no nuclear weapons, nor the capacity to produce any using enriched uranium, has been one of the US’s main stated demands during talks with Iranian officials over the past year. It was also the central justification Washington used when it bombed Iranian nuclear facilities during Iran’s 12-day war with Israel last year and for starting the ongoing conflict in February, despite being in active talks with Iran at the time. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes only, despite having enriched uranium far beyond the threshold required for that. Iranian officials have stated they are open to discussing reducing the level of enrichment in past negotiations, but have refused to dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme entirely, a matter of national sovereignty, they say. In 2015, the former Obama administration negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran and other nations. Under that, Iran agreed not to enrich uranium to high levels and to be subjected to frequent inspections. However, Trump withdrew the US from this agreement during his first term as president. Here is what we know about Iran’s uranium. What enriched uranium does Iran have, and where is it? Currently, Iran is believed to have about 440 kilograms (970 pounds) of uranium enriched to 60 percent – the level at which it becomes much faster to get to the 90 percent threshold needed to produce a nuclear weapon. That amount is enough, theoretically, to produce more than 10 nuclear warheads, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi told Al Jazeera in early March. Advertisement At the time, Grossi said almost half of the 60-percent-enriched uranium was probably still being stored in the tunnel complex at Iran’s Isfahan nuclear facility. An unknown quantity is also believed to be stored at the Natanz facility. These two underground nuclear sites, along with a third at Fordow, were destroyed or badly damaged in US-Israeli air strikes in the 12-day war last year and have been targeted during the current conflict. Even if the US knows where the enriched uranium is, a military ground operation to extract it would face significant chemical, logistical, and tactical hurdles, however, experts say. How would US forces access the uranium? With great difficulty, military experts told Al Jazeera. Isfahan, where about half of the enriched uranium is believed to be stored, is more than 480 kilometres (about 300 miles) inland, hundreds of kilometres away from the nearest US naval ships. That means that US forces, possibly alongside Israeli troops, would need to be transported over a very long distance through an active warzone. They would also have to bring in heavy equipment, including excavators, as tunnel entrances are believed to be buried under rubble following US-Israeli aerial attacks. Once there, ground forces would have to secure a substantial perimeter around the site and then hold that territory for as long as the operation to dig the nuclear material out from the underground facilities may take. “To send advanced units to the cordon the area, to start an excavation project, the duration of which is impossible to quantify, all the while remaining safe from what would be nearly constant fire from Iran, this is risky and not feasible,” said Jason Campbell, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. “I don’t see any senior planning military officer pursuing this,” Campbell, who was also a former senior US defence official in the Obama and Trump administrations, added. This image from an Airbus Defence and Space’s Pléiades Neo satellite shows a truck in the upper lefthand corner that analysts believe was carrying highly enriched uranium to a tunnel in the compound of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, in Isfahan, Iran, on June 9, 2025 [Airbus Defence and Space© via AP] Cheryl Rofer, a former radiochemist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, estimates that the uranium is most likely being stored in the form of hexafluoride gas. This gas is difficult to handle and reacts with water to produce extremely toxic and corrosive chemicals. Advertisement The uranium hexafluoride must be stored in small, separated canisters to prevent neutrons from multiplying out of control and causing an intense radiation burst. This means that the cylinders would have to be kept at a distance from each other and that any damage to them as a result of an air strike or an accident during hurried transport could trigger the release of toxic chemicals, posing a radiological hazard to nearby personnel, explained Francois Diaz-Maurin, editor for nuclear affairs at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in an article earlier this month. There is also the option of destroying the cylinders on the spot, instead of transporting them. The US Army has three special units called Army Nuclear Disablement Teams, which are trained to dismantle and destroy nuclear equipment and materials. “But exploding the stockpile would chemically contaminate the immediate surroundings with toxic uranyl fluoride, creating a lasting environmental hazard,” explained Diaz-Maurin. Furthermore, it would be difficult to determine whether all cylinders had been destroyed, leaving the risk that Iran could retrieve enough to manufacture a nuclear weapon. “This is not a few helicopters and a couple of hours of activity – it is a much more complicated thing,” Ian Lesser, a distinguished fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, told Al Jazeera. “And you would [have to] have absolute confidence that you could get it all out, or you would give the Iranian authorities enormous incentive to move on next month or year with the nuclear programme to establish a deterrent against further aggression.” A much less risky approach would be for the US to strike a deal with Iran – something negotiators were attempting to do when the US and
FBI agents from US arrive in Cuba to probe lethal speedboat shooting
Trump administration has denied involvement after Cuban government says a boat of armed men tried to infiltrate island. By Reuters Published On 1 Apr 20261 Apr 2026 A technical team from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has arrived in Cuba to launch an “independent investigation” into a deadly shootout between local border patrol officers and a Florida-tagged speedboat. The United States embassy in Havana announced the FBI agents’ arrival on Wednesday, following pressure from officials to look into the incident. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list On the night of February 25, 10 Cuban nationals tried to enter Cuba by speedboat, armed with nearly 13,000 rounds of ammunition, 13 rifles and 11 pistols, according to authorities in Havana. Five were killed in the shootout that ensued. The others were wounded and were taken into custody, where they received medical attention, the Cuban government has said. The US embassy said in a statement the FBI trip to Cuba was part of a “thorough and independent investigation” into the incident. An embassy official told the Reuters news agency the US would verify Havana’s version of events. “Consistent with US policy, we do not make decisions in the United States on the basis of what Cuban authorities are saying,” the official said. “We will independently verify the facts and make decisions based solely on US interest, US law, and the protection of US citizens.” Tensions have soared between the two nations since January, when US President Donald Trump imposed a virtual oil blockade on the island after abducting and imprisoning Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, a crucial Cuban benefactor, on January 3. Cuba said the assailants were Cuban exiles who came from the US with the intent to sow chaos and attack military units. Advertisement A Cuban patrol of five border guard members on a nine-metre boat spotted the incoming vessel early that morning, about one nautical mile (equivalent to about 1.85km) off a remote channel on the Caribbean island’s northern coast, some 160km (100 miles) from Marathon, Florida. The infiltrators fired on the patrol from 185 metres away, striking the captain in the abdomen, Cuba said. Bleeding heavily, the wounded captain remained at the helm and steered towards the enemy vessel, leading to a firefight at a distance of about 20 metres. Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the speedboat incursion was not a US operation and that no US government personnel were involved. Adblock test (Why?)
Iran war live: Trump claims goals nearing completion, vows to ‘finish job’
blinking-dotLive updatesLive updates, Iran denies seeking a truce and keeps up counterattacks, as US-Israeli raids cause deaths and damage across the country. Published On 2 Apr 20262 Apr 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
Magnitude 7.4 quake hits off Indonesia’s Ternate, tsunami warning triggered
The epicentre of the earthquake was about 120km (75 miles) from Ternate, in Indonesia’s North Maluku province. Published On 1 Apr 20261 Apr 2026 A magnitude 7.4 earthquake has hit the Northern Molucca Sea off the coast of the city of Ternate, in eastern Indonesia, triggering a tsunami warning for nearby islands. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) said Thursday’s quake, which was initially recorded at a magnitude of 7.8, struck at a depth of 35km (22 miles), greater than the early figure of 10km (six miles). There were no immediate reports of injuries. The epicentre of the earthquake was about 120km (75 miles) from Ternate, in Indonesia’s North Maluku province. Local authorities in some cities, such as Ternate and Tidore, were urged to prepare citizens for evacuation, while news channel Metro TV broadcast images of damaged buildings. According to the US Tsunami Warning System, dangerous tsunami waves were possible within 1,000km (621 miles) of the epicentre along the coasts of Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia. Waves of height ranging from 0.3 metres to 1 metre (0.98 feet to 3.28 feet) above the tide level could hit some coastal areas of Indonesia, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center said. It also warned of the risk of waves less than 0.3 metres over tide levels for the coasts of Guam, Japan, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines and Taiwan.Japan may see waves of up to 0.2 metres (eight inches), but no damage is expected, the Japan Meteorological Agency said, as it warned a tsunami could occur in the Pacific. Indonesia straddles the so-called Pacific Ring of Fire, an area of high seismic activity where tectonic plates meet and earthquakes are frequen Advertisement Adblock test (Why?)
US Supreme Court to hear constitutional test of birthright citizenship
Washington, DC – If you are born on United States soil, are you automatically a citizen of the country? This is the question that will be put before the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, a response to President Donald Trump’s extraordinary effort to change longstanding interpretations of the country’s constitution amid his wider hardline immigration drive. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list Advocates challenging Trump’s efforts to do away with so-called birthright citizenship – in which any infants born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, concurrently become US citizens – hope to present what they see as an open-and-shut case to a nine-justice panel of the country’s top court. “This is one of the biggest issues for American society,” said Aarti Kohli, who will be present at Wednesday’s hearing as executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, one of several groups that brought the challenge. “It’s not just about what the executive order does, but it’s about the power that the president has to rewrite the Constitution.” Advocates have not shied from the difficult context of the highly consequential case, which they say risks transforming the cultural fabric of the US, inflating the number of people living in the US not afforded equal rights, and creating a “permanent underclass” for some immigrant groups. It will be brought before a US Supreme Court dominated by a 6-to-3 conservative supermajority. The panel has recently handed Trump a handful of major defeats, but it has largely leaned in the president’s favour on immigration. Advertisement “Every judge in the lower courts, regardless of which party appointed that judge, has ruled in our favour,” Kohli said. Trump’s executive order and the 14th Amendment Wednesday’s case before the Supreme Court represents the culmination of a months-long challenge to an executive order signed by Trump just hours after taking office on January 20, 2025. The order sought to effectively end birthright citizenship, long interpreted as established under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, three years after slavery was officially outlawed in the US. The amendment overturned the 1857 Dred Scott v Sandford Supreme Court ruling, which maintained that Black slaves born in the US were not US citizens. Instead, the 14th Amendment stated: “All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Trump’s executive order argued the 14th Amendment “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States”. It singled out the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to argue the constitutional amendment does not apply to those in the United States without documentation or on temporary visas. If further ordered, “no department or agency” is to issue or accept citizenship documents for individuals born to parents of those categories. The executive order said it would take effect for those born after 30 days of its signing, but its enforcement has been widely blocked amid ongoing legal challenges. What will challengers argue? At least 10 legal challenges have been launched against Trump’s order, but Trump v Barbara is the first to be heard before the Supreme Court. The case is named after one of the plaintiffs, “Barbara”, a Honduran citizen who was expecting her fourth child while living in New Hampshire in October 2025, awaiting the processing of her asylum application. Her co-plaintiffs include a woman from Taiwan – in the US on a student visa – who gave birth to a child in Utah in April 2025 and a Brazilian national, whose wife gave birth in March 2025. Because the case is a class action, it is brought on behalf of all people in the same “class” as the plaintiffs: children who would be denied citizenship under Trump’s order. Kohli, whose organisation brought the case alongside the ACLU, the Legal Defence Fund, and the Democracy Defenders Fund, said the arguments put forward on Wednesday will be relatively straightforward: Trump’s order directly runs counter to the “clear language” of the 14th Amendment. Advertisement A subsequent US Supreme Court ruling, 1898’s United States v Wong Kim Ark, further affirmed that a child born to non-citizen parents was a US citizen, the lawyers will argue. The concept was then codified in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which said: “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth”. The practice had previously been English common law. “If you look at the legislative history, it’s very clear that Congress understood it to mean that it’s any child who is born in the United States. Nowhere in the Constitution or in the [1952] statute does it say anything about the domicile of the parents,” Kohli said. “It’s very clear settled law,” she said. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has long been applied only to a very limited group of individuals, including the children of foreign diplomats, those born to invading armies while on US soil and those born on sovereign Native American territory, she added. Trump admin claims ‘misreading’ Beyond Trump’s executive order, Department of Justice lawyers have argued that more than a century of US practice has been predicated on a fundamental “misreading” of the US Constitution. In court filings, they argued the 14th Amendment was drafted for “newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens who are temporarily present in the United States or of illegal aliens”. They further argued that the Supreme Court ruling in the Ark case related only to non-citizens “enjoying a permanent domicile and residence” in the US, which, they said, precludes some categories of people living in the country. The lawyers, led by Solicitor General John Sauer, argued that the 1952 law’s language, which “transplants” directly from the 14th Amendment, should also be reinterpreted. While once considered a fringe legal perspective, the position broadly follows an argument laid out in the Heritage