The reform marks a radical departure from traditional practices where judicial officials are nominated and appointed through a system of checks and balances involving the executive and legislative branches. Under the new system, Mexican voters had the opportunity to select judges for the Supreme Court, appellate courts, and other federal tribunals—positions that were previously filled by legal professionals through internal vetting procedures.

President Sheinbaum, who succeeded Andrés Manuel López Obrador and has continued his populist agenda, praised the reform as a milestone for Mexican democracy. “For too long, our justice system has been out of the reach of the people. This election returns power to citizens and ensures that the judiciary reflects the will of the nation,” she said during a press briefing in Mexico City.

However, the move has triggered a wave of criticism from legal experts and international human rights organizations. Groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch argue that subjecting judges to electoral politics undermines the independence of the judiciary and opens the door to populism, intimidation, and politicized decision-making.

“The judiciary must be impartial and free from political influence. Turning judges into candidates makes them vulnerable to political pressure and special interests, especially in a country where corruption and organized crime remain serious challenges,” said Juanita Rojas, a legal analyst with Mexico’s National Human Rights Network.

Critics have also raised concerns over the lack of transparency in the candidate selection process, noting that many of the judicial candidates had limited public profiles and were affiliated with political movements aligned with Morena. Opposition leaders allege that the reform is an effort to consolidate power and weaken checks on the executive branch.

In response, President Sheinbaum dismissed the allegations as unfounded and insisted the elections represent a democratic innovation. “Change always brings resistance,” she said. “But the people understand that democracy is not just about electing presidents or lawmakers—it is also about deciding who interprets our laws.”

Initial voter turnout appeared to be moderate, with early figures suggesting participation between 45 and 55 percent. Electoral officials noted no major disruptions, though several civil society monitors reported voter confusion and inadequate information about candidates’ qualifications.

The world will be watching closely in the months ahead as the newly elected judges begin their terms. Whether Mexico’s bold experiment will serve as a model or a cautionary tale for other democracies remains to be seen.

According to the Boulder Police Department, a suspect is currently in custody and hospitalized due to injuries sustained during the incident. The suspect’s identity has not yet been released, but officials confirmed that they are cooperating with federal partners, including the FBI, to determine the nature and motive of the attack.

At a brief press conference, Boulder Police Chief Maris Herndon stated, “We can confirm that multiple individuals were injured in this afternoon’s incident. Some of the injuries are serious, while others are considered minor. All victims are receiving medical attention, and their families have been notified.”

Authorities have not confirmed the specific method of attack, but several eyewitnesses reported hearing loud noises and seeing people running from the scene. Local hospitals, including Boulder Community Health, have activated emergency response protocols to accommodate the influx of patients.

The incident occurred near Pearl Street just before 3:00 p.m., according to police. Officers arrived within minutes and were able to detain the suspect following a brief confrontation. Chief Herndon credited the rapid response of patrol officers and the cooperation of bystanders with preventing further harm.

Governor Jared Polis released a statement late Sunday, expressing his concern and promising full state support for the investigation. “Our hearts are with the victims and the entire Boulder community tonight. We will ensure that justice is served and that every resource is made available to aid in healing and recovery.”

Officials said the investigation is in its early stages, and more information will be released as it becomes available. The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force is assisting in assessing whether the attack has any links to domestic or international extremist networks.

Residents are urged to remain vigilant and report any suspicious activity. A tip line has been established, and authorities continue to process the scene and interview witnesses.

This is a developing story. Updates will be provided as new information emerges.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the two leaders unveiled plans for a joint military-industrial initiative focused on the development and production of long-range weaponry for use against Russian targets. “This is the start of a new form of military-industrial cooperation between our two countries and one that has huge potential,” Merz stated during the briefing in Berlin.

With mounting uncertainty over the future of U.S. involvement, European nations have begun adjusting to a more prominent strategic role. Although key NATO powers such as France and the United Kingdom are constrained by debt and rising borrowing costs, Germany is emerging as the continent’s principal defense financier. Berlin’s recent constitutional amendment—lifting debt restrictions on defense spending—positions it to lead efforts to equip Ukraine and strengthen European security.

Chancellor Merz, who assumed office earlier this month, has adopted a firmer pro-Ukraine stance than his predecessor, Olaf Scholz. Long a vocal supporter of sending advanced weapons systems to Ukraine, Merz has repeatedly advocated for the delivery of Taurus missiles, a precision-guided long-range weapon developed by Germany and Sweden. The Taurus, capable of striking targets over 300 miles away, is considered a key strategic asset by Ukrainian defense officials.

When asked whether Ukraine would be authorized to manufacture the Taurus domestically, Merz refrained from offering details. Nonetheless, experts believe that facilitating Ukrainian production could sidestep legal and logistical hurdles while still delivering critical strike capabilities.

The Wall Street Journal reports that European governments are pressing ahead with additional sanctions on Russia after the Kremlin rebuffed a 30-day cease-fire proposal initially floated by U.S. President Donald Trump. However, concerns remain over the future of American diplomatic engagement in the conflict, particularly as Trump has signaled diminished interest in brokering a resolution.

“In recent days, Russia has escalated its missile attacks, and there is absolutely no willingness on Russia’s part to enter into any talks,” Merz said. “There has been no shortage of attempts from the West to diplomatically engage.”

The German chancellor is scheduled to visit Washington in the coming weeks. While he has criticized U.S. retrenchment from European security issues, he emphasized the necessity of American involvement moving forward. “We are also counting on the support of the United States, whose involvement remains indispensable for successful negotiations,” Merz noted. “I would like to take this opportunity to explicitly thank the American President for his personal commitment in recent weeks.”

Recent data compiled by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy reveals that Europe has now surpassed the U.S. in total aid to Ukraine and is matching American contributions in military assistance. In just the first two months of this year, European nations—including Germany, the U.K., Norway, Denmark, and Sweden—pledged €3.2 billion ($3.6 billion) in new aid. Additionally, the European Commission disbursed a €3 billion loan to support Ukraine’s economic stability.

As Berlin assumes a central role in Europe’s defense strategy, Chancellor Merz’s leadership marks a turning point in the continent’s response to the ongoing war in Ukraine—one increasingly shaped by European resolve amid shifting transatlantic dynamics.

According to the Associated Press, the ruling “swiftly threw into doubt Trump’s signature set of economic policies that have rattled global financial markets, frustrated trade partners and raised broader fears about inflation intensifying and the economy slumping.”

The court’s decision stems from a wave of legal challenges asserting that President Trump has repeatedly bypassed Congress and used emergency powers as a means to reshape U.S. trade policy unilaterally. The court concluded that Trump’s use of tariffs to manage trade deficits and influence global negotiations exceeded the legal scope of IEEPA, stating, “The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs.”

Trump’s administration has argued that longstanding trade deficits constitute a national emergency, with officials claiming that such deficits weaken the country’s economic and national security. White House spokesperson Kush Desai defended the administration’s rationale following the ruling, stating, “Trade deficits are a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.”

Desai added, “The administration remains committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.”

The court ruling challenges a central tactic of the president’s second-term trade strategy, which relied heavily on tariffs as leverage to bring foreign competitors to the negotiating table. President Trump has long asserted that these tariffs would repatriate manufacturing jobs and reduce the federal budget deficit. However, critics say the policy has burdened consumers and businesses without delivering the promised economic gains.

At least seven lawsuits are pending against the administration’s tariff policy. Plaintiffs — including a group of small businesses and a coalition of a dozen states led by Oregon — argue that the trade deficit, though longstanding, does not meet the legal threshold of an emergency.

“This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement.

Among the plaintiffs is V.O.S. Selections, a small wine importer whose owner claims the tariffs threaten the company’s survival. The broader impact of Trump’s tariffs — including what the administration called “Liberation Day” duties — has been widely debated. While the measures shook financial markets and prompted economic downgrades from analysts, their actual effect on the U.S. economy remains uncertain.

Trump’s legal team has indicated it will appeal the ruling, setting up what is likely to be a lengthy battle that could reach the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the White House has not clarified whether it will pause its current tariff regime or seek congressional authorization to continue.

For now, the president’s ability to unilaterally impose tariffs under emergency authority has been curtailed, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over the limits of executive power in U.S. trade policy.

In a resolute speech on Saturday morning, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz reaffirmed Germany’s unwavering commitment to democracy and condemned any attempts to undermine it. This declaration followed sharp criticism from U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who met with the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) leader the previous day.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference on Friday, Vice President Vance expressed concerns over what he perceives as a decline in free speech across Europe. He argued that many Americans view European governments as curbing dissent under the guise of combating misinformation and disinformation. “Entrenched interests hiding behind ugly Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation, simply don’t like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion or, God forbid, vote a different way, or even worse, win an election,” Vance stated.

Vance further highlighted his fears about a “threat from within,” suggesting that Europe’s democratic values, shared with the United States, are retreating. He placed less emphasis on external threats from Russia or China compared to this internal challenge.

The Vice President’s comments came after his meeting with Alice Weidel, co-leader of the far-right and anti-immigrant AfD party. This interaction, occurring just nine days before the German election, sparked controversy given Germany’s historical stance against far-right ideologies. Mainstream German parties have consistently refused to collaborate with the AfD, a position rooted in the nation’s desire to avoid repeating the atrocities of its Nazi past.

Chancellor Scholz, addressing these developments, firmly reiterated Germany’s historical mandate of “never again”—a commitment to preventing the resurgence of fascism, racism, or wars of aggression. He condemned the AfD, pointing out that some of its members had trivialized Nazi crimes. Scholz emphasized that supporting or aligning with the AfD contradicts Germany’s core democratic values.

In response to Vance’s criticism, Scholz asserted, “Germany is a very strong democracy, and as a strong democracy, we are absolutely clear that the extreme right should be out of political control and out of political decision-making processes, and that there will be no cooperation with them.” He added that free speech in Europe entails respecting laws that prevent harmful attacks on others.

The exchange between Scholz and Vance underscores the ongoing tensions between European leaders and the Trump administration on issues such as democracy and Ukraine’s future. European leaders are grappling with a new and challenging stance from Washington, disrupting long-standing trans-Atlantic conventions.

On the issue of Ukraine, Scholz reaffirmed the shared goal of preserving Ukraine’s independence, insisting that any decisions about Ukraine must involve Ukraine itself. He emphasized the necessity of continued support for Ukraine from both the European Union and the United States, to prevent future aggression.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump held a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, discussing a potential peace deal over Ukraine. Trump assured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Ukraine would have a seat at the negotiation table. Zelenskyy, however, stressed the need for security guarantees before any talks with Russia, expressing his intentions to meet Putin only after a common plan is negotiated with Trump.

As European leaders navigate these complex dynamics, Chancellor Scholz’s strong stance against far-right extremism serves as a reaffirmation of Germany’s dedication to democratic principles and historical responsibility.

The governor of Russia’s Belgorod region, Vyacheslav Gladkov, reported that the situation along the border with Ukraine is “difficult but under control” following a reported Ukrainian attack on Tuesday. This development comes after weeks of heightened alert in the region due to ongoing conflicts along the Russian-Ukrainian border.

Belgorod and other border regions have been on edge since Ukraine launched a significant offensive in the neighboring Kursk region three weeks ago. Ukrainian forces managed to carve out a piece of territory from which Russian troops are still struggling to remove them.

On Tuesday morning, Russian Telegram channels reported an attempted breach of the Belgorod region’s border. In response, Governor Gladkov issued a brief statement on Telegram, stating, “There is information that the enemy is trying to break through the border of the Belgorod region. According to the Russian defense ministry, the situation on the border remains difficult, but under control. Our military is carrying out planned work. Please remain calm and trust only official sources of information.”

The Telegram news channel SHOT reported that Ukrainian forces had attacked a border checkpoint at Nekhoteyevka but were repelled after suffering losses. Meanwhile, Mash, another channel with ties to the security services, claimed that around 500 Ukrainian troops attempted to assault two Russian checkpoints at Nekhoteyevka and Shebekino. However, SHOT reported that no clashes occurred at Shebekino.

The military blog “Operation Z – military correspondents of the Russian Spring,” which has nearly 1.6 million subscribers, stated that there were no major attempts by Ukrainian forces to breach the border. The blog reported clashes with Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance groups, with Russian artillery actively engaging, but noted that no large-scale breakthroughs had been recorded.

The situation remains tense in the Belgorod region as neighboring areas brace for potential further attacks. Governor Gladkov also mentioned in separate messages that local authorities are preparing to resettle residents from villages near the border and provide them with compensation. He reported shelling and drone attacks on three local settlements overnight, emphasizing that “our situation continues to remain difficult.”

This latest development highlights the ongoing volatility and uncertainty along the Russian-Ukrainian border, as both sides continue to engage in a battle for control over contested territories.

KYIV — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced on Tuesday that Ukraine’s recent swift military incursion into Russian territory is part of a broader strategy to bring the ongoing conflict to an end. Speaking at a press conference with senior officials, Zelensky confirmed that nearly 600 Russian soldiers have been captured during the operation, which he described as a critical step in Ukraine’s efforts to achieve justice and peace.

The Ukrainian military’s unexpected assault on Russia’s Kursk border region, which began on August 6, has led to the capture of 100 settlements and approximately 500 square miles of territory, including the town of Sudzha. This move has buoyed the morale of many Ukrainians frustrated by the stalled efforts to reclaim land lost to Russia earlier in the war. However, it has also sparked concerns about the operation’s objectives and the potential consequences for Ukraine’s eastern regions.

Zelensky clarified that Ukraine has no intention of permanently annexing the captured Russian territory and emphasized that the primary goal of the operation is to force Russia to end the war. He indicated that his plan, which he intends to present to U.S. President Joe Biden and presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump this fall, focuses on achieving a just resolution for Ukraine. However, he declined to provide specific details about the plan.

“The main point … is forcing Russia to end the war,” Zelensky said. “We really want justice for Ukraine. And if this plan is accepted — and, second, if it is executed — we believe that the main goal will be reached.”

Ukraine’s top military commander, Oleksandr Syrsky, reported that the operation has inflicted significant damage on Russian forces, despite the Russian military’s reinforcement of the region with over 30,000 soldiers from southern Ukraine. The intense fighting continues, with Syrsky noting that there are around 50 clashes with Russian forces daily.

While the Ukrainian military advances in the Kursk region, the most intense battles remain concentrated in eastern Ukraine, particularly around the Donbas industrial region, where Russia continues its efforts to secure full control. The Ukrainian military is reportedly working to stabilize the situation in the key logistical hub of Pokrovsk, but Syrsky acknowledged that the task is “quite difficult.”

As the conflict rages on, Ukraine experienced another wave of Russian drone and missile strikes on Tuesday. The central city of Kryvyi Rih, a frequent destination for journalists, was hit, resulting in the deaths of two people. This attack follows a similar strike on a hotel in Kramatorsk, which claimed the life of a security adviser for Reuters and injured two of its journalists.

Zelensky confirmed that Ukraine had deployed F-16 fighter jets, recently acquired from Western allies, to intercept and destroy some of the incoming Russian missiles. The Ukrainian government has long argued that these advanced aircraft would be a crucial asset in the conflict.

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed Ukraine’s latest attempts at negotiations, criticizing what he referred to as the “Zelensky formula” for peace. Lavrov called for the West to engage in direct talks with Russia, bypassing Ukraine’s proposed frameworks.

Adding to the tension, Russia accused Ukrainian forces of endangering the nuclear power plant in Kursk, located approximately 25 miles from the front line. Rafael Grossi, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, inspected the site on Tuesday and confirmed that the plant was operating under “very close to normal conditions” despite nearby military activities.

In a related development, Russia’s FSB security service has opened criminal cases against seven foreign journalists, accusing them of illegally crossing into Russian territory to report on the conflict. Journalists from CNN, Deutsche Welle, Italian broadcaster RAI, and Ukraine’s 1+1 TV channel are among those targeted in the investigation.

As the conflict continues, the international community watches closely, with hopes that a resolution can be reached to end the devastating war in Ukraine.

In a startling revelation, SWAT sniper assigned to protect former President Donald Trump during his July 13 rally reported having no communication with the Secret Service prior to a gunman attempting to assassinate Trump. This information, disclosed in interviews with ABC News, highlights a significant security lapse that nearly resulted in tragedy.

Jason Woods, a lead sharpshooter with the Beaver County, Pennsylvania SWAT team, expressed frustration over the lack of a face-to-face briefing with Secret Service agents. “We were supposed to get a face-to-face briefing with the Secret Service members whenever they arrived, and that never happened,” Woods told ABC News. “We had no communication.” Woods and his team only communicated with the Secret Service after the shooting, which Woods described as “too late.”

These comments have intensified scrutiny on the coordination between national and local agencies. The Secret Service did not respond to a request for comment sent by Business Insider outside regular business hours. However, a spokesperson did tell ABC that the agency “is committed to better understanding what happened before, during, and after the assassination attempt of former President Trump to ensure that never happens again.”

The SWAT team’s counter snipers, stationed at the American Glass Research (AGR) building, reportedly identified the gunman, Thomas Crooks, at least two hours before the shooting. The New York Times published text messages indicating that the counter snipers spotted Crooks moving suspiciously near their staging area and notified the command center of a potential threat.

Despite these warnings, Secret Service members on Trump’s detail claimed they never received any alert from the AGR building snipers, according to The Washington Post. This crucial communication breakdown allowed Crooks to climb onto the roof of the AGR building and open fire on Trump. The FBI confirmed that a bullet, or bullet fragments, struck the former president’s ear.

The aftermath of the July 13 assassination attempt has led to severe criticism of the Secret Service. Former agents and advisers have described the incident as a monumental security failure. “The assassination attempt of former President Trump on July 13th is the most significant operational failure of the Secret Service in decades,” said Secret Service director Kimberly Cheatle on July 22. Cheatle resigned the next day amid the ongoing backlash.

As investigations continue, the July 13 incident serves as a stark reminder of the vital importance of clear and effective communication among security agencies to prevent such threats in the future.

In a decisive move, the United States initiated a series of strikes in Iraq and Syria, targeting 85 locations associated with Iranian-backed militias. The attack, carried out by B1 bombers, was in response to a deadly drone strike that claimed the lives of three American soldiers last Sunday.

The Pentagon confirmed that four facilities in Syria and three in Iraq were hit during the Friday night assault. While the Iraqi government acknowledged 16 casualties, including civilians, they claimed the U.S. failed to inform them about the impending strikes. In Syria, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported 18 casualties.

Both President Biden and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin asserted that these strikes were just the beginning of a targeted retaliation. Senator Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq War Veteran, described it as a strong deterrence, emphasizing the U.S.’s reluctance to engage in an all-out war but signaling its capability.

Iran condemned the operation, labeling it a ‘strategic mistake’ that would heighten tensions and instability in the region. Syria and Iraq joined Tehran in accusing the U.S. of undermining regional stability. Hamas, involved in the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, accused Washington of exacerbating the situation.

The strikes targeted Iranian supply lines passing through Iraq and Syria, focusing on facilities associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran-backed militias. Analysts suggest that the U.S. must tread carefully to avoid unnecessary escalation into a larger conflict with Iran.

The Iraqi government expressed strong objections, calling the strikes a violation of sovereignty with potentially dire consequences for security and stability. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby confirmed that more than 85 targets across seven facilities were struck, and President Biden asserted that the response had only just begun.

While tensions escalate in the region, the international community watches closely, wary of the potential ramifications of this military action.

In a significant move amid the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Germany has announced its decision to deploy troops to Lithuania, raising expectations for other NATO nations to follow suit. The move comes as a response to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, marking a turning point in security policy.

Germany’s Federal Ministry of Defence revealed on Monday that it had signed a deal with Lithuania to station a Bundeswehr brigade in the region. The primary objective is to deter Russia and protect NATO alliance territory. The announcement underscores Germany’s commitment to solidarity with its NATO partners and serves as a flagship project in response to Russia’s aggressive actions.

The two-year-long war between Russia and Ukraine, initiated by President Vladimir Putin’s “special military operation” in February 2022, has seen significant territorial shifts. However, as Ukraine’s counteroffensive faces challenges with the onset of a harsh winter, experts predict a continued stalemate.

Benjamin Tallis, a senior research fellow for the German Society of Foreign Policy, emphasized that while Germany’s troop deployment is a positive step, stronger commitments from allies are essential for effective deterrence. He suggested similar deployments in Estonia (with the UK as the framework nation) and Latvia (led by Canada) to strengthen NATO’s defense capabilities.

Edward Hunter Christie, a senior research fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, commended Germany for leading by example and called for the UK to match Germany’s commitment in Estonia.

Before Germany’s announcement, NATO had already increased its military presence in the eastern part of the alliance territory in response to Russia’s aggressive actions. The organization reinforced existing battlegroups and established four more multinational battlegroups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia.

Germany’s contribution goes beyond troops; it was previously urged to provide Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. In September, Ukraine’s Defence Ministry shared a video of Leopard 2 tanks received from Germany, emphasizing their impact on the conflict.

As NATO nations evaluate their responses to the evolving situation, Germany’s proactive approach sets a precedent for increased cooperation and burden-sharing among allies to strengthen the alliance’s deterrence capabilities in the face of the Russian threat.