© Nicole Craine for The New York Times
© Andrew Leyden for The New York Times
US President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on 18 October that he did not want to “drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table.” He also wrote: “Signing that document at this time will do that, and I can sign it later, or any time that I want!”
Trump was referring to sanctions and tariffs under the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, which he waived in an executive order on 16 October, days before the measures were due to take effect. The waiver suspends additional economic penalties intended to pressure Moscow over its war against Ukraine, while leaving earlier US sanctions in place. The decision came weeks before the 3 November midterms, in which Republicans are defending slim majorities in both chambers, and analysts said the penalties could have pushed up oil prices for Americans already paying more, largely because of the US-Israeli war with Iran, Reuters reported.
A week before the waiver, Trump had announced a deal for Russia to increase diesel supplies to global markets. The Treasury also issued a license, valid until 7 April 2027, permitting certain transactions in Russian-origin diesel.
In the Truth Social post, Trump accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of targeting Russian diesel refineries, saying the strikes were “seriously hurting the world diesel markets, including those in the United States.” Kyiv had paused its refinery strikes for three days at Washington’s request after Trump declared an energy ceasefire on 11 October, which Russia never confirmed, then resumed them. Since then, Russia has struck Ukraine’s energy sector 76 times, Zelenskyy said on 18 October.
Trump wrote that Zelenskyy “doesn’t want to end this war, and probably never did,” and that he “could have made a better deal two years ago than he can now.”
“His country is in shambles, a large portion of his land is lost, his oceans and seas are gone, and his male population is low, wounded, and/or dead,” Trump added.
He also said Russia was “doing very little, if anything, to help” Iran and that he wanted to keep it that way.
On 17 October, Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago that he had not announced his final decision. “A lot of you don’t know what my decision is yet, but we’ll figure it out, and you’ll figure it out,” he said, Reuters reported.
“I think the president wants to take the 60-day period of time to sort of analyze what imposing both sanctions and tariffs will mean to the global economy and even to the US economy,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters before departing for Uzbekistan the same day.
Zelenskyy called it a “pity” that Trump had waived sanctions under a law named for the late Senator Lindsey Graham, who “really believed in Ukraine.” He said he hoped Trump would change his decisions, NBC News reported.
Discussing the diesel deal on NBC’s Meet the Press, Zelenskyy said US oil prices had risen because shipping through the Strait of Hormuz was blocked, not because of Ukraine.
On 17 October, Zelenskyy told journalists that “the decision to undo all of this, to block all of it, seems wrong to me” and that it “definitely helps only the Russians.” His remarks appeared in Ukrainian on his official Telegram channel.
“Sanctions relief will continue. I think the diesel deal and the move regarding the Lindsey Graham Act are not the end of it. Unfortunately,” Zelenskyy said.
On 19 October, Zelenskyy wrote that partners had again given no warning of Russia’s overnight ballistic attack and that blocking missiles for Ukraine’s air defense while Russia gets sanctions eased or postponed amounts to partners denying reality.
Republican Senator James Lankford defended Trump’s decision on NBC’s Meet the Press, saying the president was “choosing the American people first.”
Senator Darline Graham, Lindsey Graham’s sister, whom Trump has endorsed for a full term, said at a campaign stop on 17 October that she would “choose to keep the pressure on Russia.”
“I don’t trust Putin and I don’t trust Russia,” Darline Graham said.
She did not directly criticize Trump but said she would not have made that choice, Reuters reported.
The US has resumed sharing intelligence on Russian ballistic missile launches with Ukraine after a pause of several days, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told NBC News on 18 October. The blackout fell on days when Russia was firing ballistic missiles at Ukraine. Limits on the Starlink satellite service that Ukraine’s forces rely on remain in place, he said.
Russia has leaned on ballistic missiles in this month’s strikes on Ukraine’s grid, firing 39 in a single attack, and Ukraine is short of interceptors to stop them. Washington has used its support as leverage, reportedly telling Kyiv to spare Russian refineries or lose US intelligence and arms.
The sharing had been blocked for some period of time before it was restored, Zelenskyy said on Meet the Press.
“We are very thankful for this. Now it works,” he said.
Ukraine gets other intelligence from Europeans and dozens of other partners, he explained. But only the United States has the data that tells Kyiv when Russia launches ballistic missiles.
“We didn’t get it during ballistic attacks during three days,” Zelenskyy said.
A timely warning gives Ukraine’s air defenses extra minutes to prepare and lets authorities alert civilians, Liga noted. Late on 12 October, Russian ballistic missiles hit Kyiv before the air-raid alert reached people, with no advance data on launches from Russian territory. The next day, US President Donald Trump said Washington was still sharing intelligence. Two days later, Zelenskyy said Kyiv had received no US warnings of incoming ballistic missiles while it paused its strikes on Russian refineries at Washington’s request. That pause followed the energy ceasefire Trump declared on 11 October, which Russia never confirmed.
Starshield, the military version of Starlink, still cuts out above 161 km/h, Zelenskyy said, too slow for Ukraine’s interceptor drones to catch Russia’s jet-powered Shahed-type drones. NBC News, which aired the interview, separately reported that Starlink services had resumed at normal speed. He said Ukraine’s generals and government believe the order came from the US government and SpaceX carried it out, though he did not know who exactly made the call. Ukraine had instead asked SpaceX and Trump to open Starlink over Russia so it could hit ballistic missile launchers, he said.
“If [Trump] will personally decide to lift this decision, it will immediately work as it was before,” he said.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who appeared on the same show, called Zelenskyy’s charge “very reckless” and said Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio had denied any administration role. Asked about the break in intelligence sharing, he said he did not know anything about it but that Zelenskyy should be “very careful about making statements like this that aren’t true.” Reuters had reported, citing three officials, that White House officials ordered the Pentagon to limit the service.
Asked whether Ukraine could win without the United States, Zelenskyy said it would be very difficult.
“But if the United States will support Putin, I mean, it’s unbelievable, it’s tragedy. It’s historic mistake and big tragedy,” he said.
He also said his team had received word that US negotiators wanted to meet, and that he had offered to meet in Brussels or London, hoping the US team would be ready this week.
The warnings are back, but they stopped once without explanation. Ukraine’s defense against Russia’s missiles still runs through decisions made in the US.
Under the agreement, the two outlets will exchange content on BRICS countries, develop joint projects and promote quality journalism to strengthen the objective international news agenda of Global South media.
RELATED: African Union Head Asks BRICS to Strengthen Ties
“For the channel it is a real pleasure to begin collaborative work with TVBrics. It is a way to show part of the dynamics of the Cuban capital as a partner of this important association, the BRICS,” Canal Habana director Erduy Varela said. He added that his expectations are to share experiences and ways of doing and communicating television in this new multimedia era.
TVBrics general director Janna Tolstikova said information cooperation between BRICS countries and states sharing the association’s values is important, adding that constructive dialogue between media helps lay the foundations for fruitful cooperation at the highest state level and favors the stability of international relations. She added that TVBrics is open to all countries willing to cooperate on the basis of equality, mutual respect, consideration of national interests and recognition of global diversity.
Tolstikova congratulated Canal Habana on the start of the collaboration, which she said will make Cuba’s cultural richness known to an international audience and offer the channel’s viewers audiovisual content of interest about BRICS and other Global South countries.
Canal Habana, founded in 2006, is part of the state-run Televisión Cubana system. It broadcasts in Spanish throughout Cuba and reports on political, economic, social, cultural and sports news in Havana, as well as major national and international events.
In Cuba, Prensa Latina and Canal Caribe already participate in content exchange through TVBrics. In Latin America, the network also collaborates with media from Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico, Chile and Uruguay. Among BRICS partner countries, media from Belarus, Bolivia, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand and Nigeria participate.
Last month, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) that required restoration of press passes for 78 journalists employed by three news outlets that President Donald Trump peremptorily banned from the White House on September 18. U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, extended that order on Tuesday, granting a preliminary injunction to CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.
While Kelly's TRO was based on CNN et al.'s claim that their sudden banishment violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process, his justification for the preliminary injunction also addresses their argument that revocation of their press passes violated the First Amendment by retaliating against them for constitutionally protected speech and discriminating against them based on viewpoint. Kelly concludes that the plaintiffs "are likely to succeed not only on their due process claim, but also on their two First Amendment claims."
A retaliation claim requires showing that the plaintiff engaged in conduct protected by the First Amendment, that the defendant's action was "sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness" from "speaking again," and that there was "a causal link between the exercise of a constitutional right and the adverse action." Although the government's lawyers did not dispute that the CNN et al.'s journalism is constitutionally protected, they argued that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the two other elements.
Kelly disagrees. The "hard passes" at issue in this case, he notes, give journalists unescorted access to the White House "press area," which includes "the briefing room, the press offices, and certain other locations in and around the White House that are open to correspondents." CNN et al. argued that "a hard pass is an important credential because it 'allows a reporter to react to fast-developing news' and gives them 'swift and easy access to key official sources.'" Since "the revocation of Plaintiffs' hard passes matters a lot as to how, whether, and to what extent they can do their jobs," Kelly says, "it is likely that the open-ended ban here would chill a reporter's work."
Trump's "own comments suggest that he intended the revocation of Plaintiffs'
hard passes to alter their reporting on him, bolstering the case that his action here is sufficient to deter a reporter of ordinary firmness from reporting in the same way she had before," Kelly adds. The day he announced the ban, Trump complained that CNN et al. "purposely write negative news" to "try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration." Although "the ban would go as far as you can," he added, "I'd love it" if "they could straighten themselves out."
The plaintiffs also have shown "there is likely a causal link between the exercise of their First Amendment rights and the revocation of their hard passes and exclusion from the White House press area," Kelly writes. "President Trump likely banned Plaintiffs from the White House because he believes that their reporting is generally inaccurate and biased against him."
Again, Trump's public comments amply support that conclusion. He explicitly said he was banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico "as a result of their constant 'reporting' [of] FAKE NEWS," adding that journalists "shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America." When asked whether his decision was motivated by a "particular reason" or "particular story," Trump replied: "No, no. It's really just cumulative stories over the last two years." The problem, he said, was "purposely negative stories."
In a Truth Social post three days later, Trump likewise condemned "Fake News" that he said was "corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control." CNN et al.'s reporters are "Third Rate Clowns" who "purposefully distort, twist, and degrade with everything they write or publish," he added that evening. "Virtually every story about me, or anything having to do with me, is negative, wrong and, in many cases, DANGEROUS for our Country! No matter how GREAT my Achievements, they trivialize and demean."
Trump offered a similar defense of the ban in a September 28 interview with Time. "It's just bad story after bad story," and "most of them are fake," he complained. "I don't think anybody should be forced to bear fake news, constantly bad stories, because I've done great things." Although "I can name 100 great things I've done," he added, "I never get good press. I never get fair press."
The government's lawyers maintained that Trump or another official "would have reached the same decision" based on the "alternative ground" that CNN et al. had violated "minimum professional journalistic standards" by "publishing classified and national security information." Kelly was not impressed by that belated rationale, which no one mentioned until after the news outlets gave the government a copy of their lawsuit.
"There is no evidence in the record that President Trump made the decision to revoke
Plaintiffs' hard passes on national security grounds," Kelly writes. "Nor at any time has he directly stated that national security was the reason for his decision. When he announced the ban with his post on September 18, he did not mention national security. When he was asked later that day about the 'particular reason' for his action, he did not mention national security."
Trump did mention "national security" in Truth Social posts he wrote the day that CNN et al. filed their lawsuit. But "that expression appears to have been simply another way for him to describe Plaintiffs' alleged inaccuracies and unfairness in their reporting about topics like his achievements or electoral success," Kelly says. "All this suggests that 'national security' was merely a post-hoc justification for the decision, which greatly undermines" the claim that Trump would have "taken the same action in the absence of Plaintiffs' protected speech."
The government also cited letters to CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House Press Office, which were sent four days after Trump banned them. Those letters averred that the three news outlets had violated "the standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex" by "publishing sensitive or classified information" and "trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues."
The letters "hardly move the needle" on the question of why Trump banned CNN et al. from the White House, Kelly says. They "appear to conflate concerns about otherwise protected speech" with "national security concerns," he notes, and they do not even explicitly say that Trump "made the decision for national security reasons."
Each letter lists specific stories to which the White House objected. But Kelly notes that two reporters "had their hard passes renewed after publishing articles that Defendants cite in their September 22 letters as supporting the potential revocation of their hard passes."
The Trump administration tried to shore up its "national security" justification by submitting a declaration from Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson. While Wilson explains "how the publication of classified and sensitive information can undermine national security," Kelly notes, she "says little to nothing about President Trump's decision to revoke Plaintiffs' hard passes" and does not say "anything about White House press practices or operations."
The defendants "have not really tried to support" the claim that CNN et al.'s reporting "damaged national security," Kelly says, noting that news stories based on "sensitive or classified information" are "commonplace, for better or worse." If Trump "would have banned Plaintiffs from the White House even in the absence of their protected speech," he suggests, "Defendants would not have had to scramble to make their case with unsigned letters and a declarant who does not even work there."
The evidence of retaliation also supports the claim that Trump discriminated against CNN et al. based on viewpoint, which is presumptively unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kelly notes, has held that "the White House Press Area" qualifies as a "nonpublic forum," meaning journalists cannot be excluded because of the views they have expressed.
"It is likely that Plaintiffs were selected by President Trump for revocation of their access to the White House press area because he believes their coverage of him and his administration is generally inaccurate and biased," Kelly writes. "In other words, it was 'an effort to suppress the speaker's activity due to disagreement with the speaker's view,' rather than to vindicate any other purportedly 'compelling governmental interest,' including maintaining professional standards for journalists or protecting national security. Simply put, that is unlawful viewpoint discrimination."
Kelly's decision "is a stinging defeat for Trump's assault on the free press and a powerful vindication of the First Amendment," Caitlin Vogus, senior adviser for advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in an emailed press release. "As Kelly rightly recognized, presidents don't get to use their power to purge journalists because they don't like what they report."
The post A Trump Appointee Says the President Likely Violated the First Amendment by Banishing Disfavored Journalists appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Is artificial intelligence growing more rapidly than humanity’s ability to contain it? The EU’s tech chief had a stark warning for the development of AI systems: if we don’t put guardrails in place now, the technology might soon be beyond our control.
In an interview with the European Newsroom (enr), European Commission Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen (Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy) said AI systems are becoming more capable and harder to evaluate.
The Finnish politician called for the establishment of international rules, which she said were already being discussed among G7 and G20 countries. She told journalists she was convinced that countries which are currently unwilling to regulate the sector will eventually come around.
China and the United States are currently leading in AI development but are showing no signs of slowing down despite recent warnings from industry insiders. Meanwhile, the EU has already begun to enforce its landmark AI Act.
Virkkunen also spoke about the addictive nature of social media networks and the impact they have on European children, calling on platforms to take greater responsibility. The Commission last month proposed a new law that seeks to limit the use of social media, including restrictions on gaming, for kids under 15.
The interview was conducted by enr news agencies dpa (Germany) and PAP (Poland) on behalf of the enr network.
Read some of our coverage here:
After President Donald Trump banned CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House last month, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News protested by suspending their participation in the press pool that provides widely used video of presidential events. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which last Friday demanded network communications regarding the TV pool, that show of solidarity may have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The antitrust investigation adds another layer of bullying to Trump's vendetta against "Fake News Media Outlets." The president reflexively threatens to yank broadcast licenses in response to news coverage he views as biased against him. He has repeatedly tried to punish disfavored journalists by excluding them from the White House, culminating in last month's sanctions against CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, which irked him by running "purposely negative stories." Now he is deploying the Justice Department against the TV networks that objected to his assault on freedom of the press.
Under a longstanding arrangement, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News take turns covering the president in venues where press access is limited, sharing the footage with other news outlets. But after Trump excluded CNN from that role, the other networks stopped participating. They resumed their coverage on September 25, the day after a federal judge ordered the White House to restore press passes for employees of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.
The TV pool suspension was brief, lasting just four days. But it irritated Trump, who on September 24 complained that the networks "refused to cover one of the Biggest and Most Beautiful Events to take place in many years"—i.e., "the arrival at the White House of the Highly Respected President of China, Xi Jinping, and his beautiful wife, Madam Peng." That event was "magnificent" and "made for Television," he said, but the networks "refused to be there" because "they knew how good it would be" and "didn't want credit to be given to 'TRUMP.'"
As the DOJ tells it, the lack of network coverage was not only annoying; it was also potentially illegal. "Members of the television press pool have boycotted covering White House events," Emily Covington, who directs the department's Office of Public Affairs, said on Saturday. "Group boycotts among commercial competitors can violate the Sherman Act," she added, and "the Antitrust Division is simply investigating to determine whether these news organizations have violated the antitrust laws."
Section 1 of the Sherman Act broadly prohibits any "contract," "combination," or "conspiracy" in "restraint of trade." But it applies to group boycotts only insofar as they aim to thwart competing businesses.
William E. Kovacic, who chaired the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) during the George W. Bush administration, is skeptical that the concept applies in this case. "The critical ingredient in successful antitrust cases is to demonstrate that there is unmistakably a commercial motive and that the commercial motive predominates," Kovacic told The New York Times. "And I don't think they would ever be able to do that here."
The Supreme Court's 1990 decision in FTC v. Superior Court Trial Lawyers Association illustrates the importance of a "commercial motive." The case involved attorneys in private practice who were paid to serve as court-appointed counsel for criminal defendants in the District of Columbia. The FTC concluded that they violated the Sherman Act when they agreed to stop accepting cases until their fees were increased.
Since that agreement was aimed at protecting the right to counsel by ensuring adequate funding for court-appointed attorneys, the lawyers association argued, it was protected under NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, a 1982 decision in which the Supreme Court recognized a First Amendment right to engage in politically motivated consumer boycotts. But the Court saw an important distinction between the two cases.
"Our reasoning in Claiborne Hardware is not applicable to a boycott conducted by business competitors who 'stand to profit financially from a lessening of competition in the boycotted market,'" Justice John Paul Stevens wrote. "No matter how altruistic the motives of respondents may have been, it is undisputed that their immediate objective was to increase the price that they would be paid for their services."
In Claiborne Hardware, by contrast, the boycotters were not trying to reap a financial benefit by reducing competition. Nor were ABC et al. when they "boycotted" the White House TV pool. They were not trying to increase their profits by putting competitors at a disadvantage; they were standing up for freedom of the press.
"The investigation is nonsense," Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, says in an emailed press release. "Trump may view the presidency as a business venture, but news outlets' standing up for their constitutional rights has nothing to do with antitrust law….Depriving Trump of the attention he craves is not a competitive harm."
The post TV Networks Protested Press Bans by Declining To Cover Trump. That Might Have Been Illegal, the DOJ Says. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
October 9 will be the last day that the well-known newspaper Expreso, one of Ecuador’s most important newspapers, is distributed in print. The newspaper, which has historically maintained a center-right editorial line, according to its statement, will limit its operations to its website, which will result in the layoff of dozens of employees.
The company that owns the newspaper, Gráficos Nacionales (Granasa), states that it is not bankrupt but will have to sell several assets to pay debts owed to its employees: “At stake is not only the rights of the shareholders but, above all, those of each and every employee who gave their all to this publishing house.”
And while the company has been reluctant to mention the reasons behind this decision in its most recent publications, several civil society actors have stated it plainly: pressure from the current right-wing government of Daniel Noboa.
One of them was the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA), which called on the government to cease “state harassment against critical media outlets and journalists.” The demand is based on complaints, dismissals, and investigations reported by the newspaper in recent months. “We regret that a newspaper with more than five decades of history is ceasing print publication. Beyond business decisions that are the sole responsibility of its owners, it is impossible to ignore the context of sustained pressure that has surrounded Granasa.”
Likewise, the Observatory for Rights and Justice (ODJ) stated: “We express our deep concern over the announcement of the discontinuation of the print edition of Diario Expreso. After several months of enduring administrative and judicial harassment, and facing government attempts at corporate takeover and censorship against its columnists and representatives, the publication has decided to stop printing copies.”
For its part, the Noboa administration has categorically denied that it took any steps to provoke the crisis at Diario Expreso, and has instead defended the actions of the relevant institutions in investigating alleged crimes “regardless of where they come from” by independent bodies such as the prosecutor’s office and the SRI.
One of the most surprising aspects of the case is that Expreso has historically maintained an editorial stance closer to the right. It was one of the newspapers most opposed to the progressive government of Rafael Correa (2007–2017), and many of its editorial writers even went so far as to endorse the recently inaugurated Noboa administration.
However, as the months went by, criticism of Noboa’s administration began to appear in the newspaper’s pages, which, according to some allegations, did not sit well with the central government.
According to these allegations, the Internal Revenue Service – the agency responsible for collecting taxes – as well as the Attorney General’s Office, began to “pressure” Expreso’s major financial backers through investigations, which reportedly led those backers to withdraw their contributions to the newspaper, which has been in circulation in Ecuador for more than half a century.
Added to this is a warning issued by the newspaper’s parent company itself, stating that the Ecuadorian Superintendency of Companies intervened in the company with the alleged aim of “monitoring its financial performance and facilitating the correction of the irregularities identified.”
Likewise, Granasa President Galo Martínez told the SIP that the government was “harassing” the newspaper’s clients who advertised their products and services in its pages, a move seen as a tactic to drive the company into bankruptcy, as it relies on sponsors to operate.
According to an investigation by Ecuavisa, the newspaper Expreso lost nearly 70% of its advertising revenue over the months of government pressure. “The cowardice of a large segment of the business community that prefers to pull its ads – whether due to calls from those in power, which have indeed occurred, or simply out of a desire to look good,” said Martín Pallares, editor-in-chief of Expreso.
The truth is that this pressure is nothing new. Several months ago, one of the country’s leading editorial writers, Roberto Andrade, who worked at the newspaper, resigned from the publication, alleging that members of the Noboa administration had requested his departure.
Pallares also spoke about this alleged government pressure in a recent interview with Ecuavisa: “The newspaper had received a message stating that the government would stop its harassment if three people were handed over: Roberto Aguilar, Eduardo Carmigniani, and myself. The newspaper placed its trust in us; it chose to stand by us rather than give in to the pressure.”
Pallares stated about this alleged government pressure in a recent interview with Ecuavisa: “The newspaper had received a message stating that the government would stop its harassment if three people were handed over: Roberto Aguilar, Eduardo Carmigniani, and myself. The newspaper placed its trust in us; it chose to stand by us rather than give in to the pressure.”
In addition, Pallares, one of the country’s most well-known right-wing journalists, said: “Critical voices bother those in power – this kind of narcissistic power where the official truth cannot be questioned. Take the Progen case [the failed sale of power generators]; it’s crystal clear. If it weren’t for the troublesome media outlets that dig up information, data, and publish chats they manage to obtain, that issue would have already been buried.”
This is not the first instance of conflict between the Noboa administration and the press. Early in his term, journalist Alondra Santiago was deported; later, the program Irreverentes was canceled following harsh criticism of the government; journalists Fausto Yépez, Hernán Higuera, and María Sol Borja reported government pressure due to their investigations; attacks against journalists were reported during the 2025 National Strike; the high-profile case of Gisella Bayona, who alleged that the government was investigating her husband because she had reported a shortage of supplies in the public health system – a situation that has triggered one of the most significant crises in the country’s healthcare history; among other incidents.
Other right-wing journalists have also criticized the government for allegedly having a low tolerance for criticism and taking actions that, they claim, are leading to a loss of freedom of expression.
One of them is journalist and political scientist Carlos Rojas, who stated in an op-ed: “What is happening with the newspaper Expreso is a very serious sign that Ecuador’s democratic health is in poor shape. It’s getting worse … a dangerous clash is reigniting between the current government – which is intolerant of criticism and oversight – and the independent press, a pillar of any liberal democracy.”
For his part, Ugo Stornaiolo wrote about new forms of censorship in Ecuador: “Journalistic oversight is undergoing a transformation that places press freedom at a crossroads. There are no shutdowns of radio stations, no buyouts of opposition media outlets, and no physical attacks. Investigative journalism faces sophisticated mechanisms of coercion: fiscal harassment, the manipulation of state entities, and reprisals against family members and coworkers to silence critical voices regarding President Noboa’s administration.”
According to several analysts, there is clear tension not only between centrist and left-wing movements and parties and the Noboa administration (which is clearly aligned with the right and follows the dictates of the Washington Consensus) but also between the Noboa administration (which belongs to the country’s most powerful family) and the critical positions coming from sectors of the right and a segment of the business community. This would demonstrate clear contradictions within the country’s most powerful economic classes.
The most recent case involved the leader of the business association, María Paz Jervis, who stated at a public event (in reference to the Diario Expreso case) that “Rarely in my life have I seen a business sector so afraid. I had never felt such hopelessness and resignation. I am convinced that there is much that needs to change in our country, and saying that there are things that need to change does not make us anyone’s enemies.”
Following these statements, Jervis resigned from her position without specifying the reasons for her decision.
The mass arrival of migrants in the Spanish exclave of Ceuta in July sparked a debate about the role of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency’s (Frontex) role in future crisis situations.
In an interview with the European Newsroom (enr), Frontex Executive Director Hans Leijtens said the European Union should improve its “situational awareness” and better connect early warning systems at the bloc’s external borders.
The European Commission this week proposed a new mandate for Frontex that includes setting up a rapid-response team that can deploy within 24 hours.
In addition, a senior EU lawmaker called for Frontex to take operational command in such situations. Leijtens rejected the idea, arguing that responsibility for protecting the EU’s external borders should remain with member states.
Leijtens also addressed pressure on the EU’s eastern borders amid Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. He said the issue was not just about migration, but reflected the close links between defence, security, border management and migration.
The Frontex chief also highlighted the drop in irregular migration through the Western Balkans, and called upon EU candidate countries in the region to complete the necessary reforms for membership. “They know that if they want to join the Union, one chapter will be about border management, so why not tick the boxes now,” he said.
The interview was conducted by journalists from European Newsroom partner agencies dpa (Germany), CTK (Czech Republic), and PAP (Poland) on behalf of the entire network.
Read some of our network’s coverage here:
EU cohesion policy becomes tangible when people learn, work, access public services and cooperate across borders. This was one of the key messages of the closing event of EUconomy – Partnerships4Prosperity, a 12-month media initiative by dpa-Custom Content, co-funded by the European Union.
The event took place at the Berlin newsroom of Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa) and was streamed live via LinkedIn. Journalists, Interreg project coordinators, students, communication professionals and other stakeholders in European regional cooperation discussed how the impact of EU cohesion policy can be made more visible to regional audiences.
Claudius Schmidt-Faber, Senior Economic Expert at the European Commission in Germany, placed cohesion policy in the context of European integration and future regional development. Looking ahead to the EU’s next Multiannual Financial Framework from 2028, he also addressed the future architecture of cohesion policy.
“When we speak about cohesion policy, we are speaking about one of the most concrete promises of the EU: that integration should benefit all regions, territories and citizens,” Schmidt-Faber said. Europe cannot be resilient if entire regions are left behind, or united if borders remain barriers. “Cohesion is not a luxury. It is necessary.”
A central topic of the panel discussion was why the impact of cohesion policy is often difficult for citizens to see. Dr Kai Böhme, an expert in European regional policy and territorial development, as well as founder and director of Spatial Foresight, offered a simple explanation: “You don’t see things when they work well.” When cross-border transport, healthcare or education function smoothly, the cooperation behind them often remained invisible. The absence of obstacles could itself be a result of successful cohesion policy, Böhme added.
Izabela Glišić, Head of the Joint Secretariat of the Interreg VI A Brandenburg-Poland 2021-2027 Cooperation Programme, emphasised that Interreg was fundamentally about funding cooperation between regions and countries. A central focus was building trust, creating relationships that can continue beyond individual funding projects.
Interreg supports regions in addressing challenges in areas including innovation, mobility, healthcare, climate adaptation, emergency services and education. “Interreg is not only about funding projects. It is about building habits of cooperation,” said Schmidt-Faber. “It creates trust – and in today’s Europe, trust is a strategic asset.”
Pinar Hepperle, Coordinator of the Sustainable Business Development Master’s programme at Offenburg University, contributed the project perspective. The Interreg-funded TRAIL project connects universities in Offenburg, Strasbourg and Basel. Students gain international and practical experience and prepare for a sustainable, cross-border working environment.
TRAIL shows how EU cohesion policy can connect students, universities, companies and the regional labour market. Hepperle also highlighted a key communication challenge: projects need to be explained differently to different audiences – including students, companies interested in cooperation, the wider public and administrative stakeholders. Effective communication therefore requires different approaches and formats rather than one single message, she said.
The discussion underlined that reporting on EU-funded projects should go beyond funding figures and institutional language. The key questions are concrete: Who benefits? What has changed? Which regional challenge is being addressed? And why was cross-border cooperation necessary?
© Annette Riedl
About EUconomy
EUconomy – Partnerships4Prosperity is a 12-month media initiative by dpa-Custom Content, co-funded by the European Union. The project produces free multimedia content packages – including videos, images and social media material – documenting EU-funded cross-border projects in Germany’s border regions with Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, France and Denmark. All content is made available free of charge to media outlets across Germany and beyond.
dpa is the lead agency coordinating the European Newsroom (enr), a network of European news agencies.
Press contact: euconomy-pressevent@dpa.com
The hottest summer ever recorded, rivers and lakes drier than ever, and wildfires burning thousands of hectares of nature to the ground – Europe is experiencing it all.
The Executive Director of the European Environment Agency (EEA), Leena Ylä-Mononen, said that climate adaptation is no longer optional as the impact of climate change is already visible. “Severe droughts have disrupted agriculture, our transport, and even energy infrastructure. And we have seen intense heatwaves across many parts of Europe that have had huge impacts on the infrastructure, health and well-being of people,” she told the European Newsroom (enr) in an interview.
She urged European politicians to look beyond the next election and plan for the climate risks already foreseeable over the next decade. “This kind of short-termism is not going to help us,” she said.
Ylä-Mononen warned that these extreme conditions could fundamentally change agriculture in parts of Europe, with some crops no longer viable in the driest areas of the Mediterranean.
She also underlined that accelerating the uptake of renewables is key to reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels and limiting Europe’s exposure to volatile energy prices. The EEA chief pointed to the need for greater flexibility and storage capacity to help protect households and businesses when prices rise.
According to the EEA, gas price fluctuations in early 2026 cost the EU €13 billion by mid-April, while renewable energy generated €29 billion in consumer savings, highlighting its role in stabilising the energy system.
The interview was conducted by journalists from European Newsroom partner agencies dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH and Czech News Agency (CTK) on behalf of the entire network.
Read some of our network’s coverage here:
War stories, new colors, and the joy in getting hands on in art and gardening.
Migration policy is high on the European Union’s agenda. But one month after the bloc’s new rules – known as the Pact on Migration and Asylum – came into force, is the EU beginning to see the desired results?
For Magnus Brunner, European Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration, the answer was yes. In an interview with the European Newsroom (enr) published on Thursday, he said that member states have begun implementing the rules and that illegal border crossings into the EU already dropped by 37% in the first half of 2026 compared to the previous year.
In light of these figures and the new rules, the Austrian politician said it is now time to “gradually” abolish internal border controls between EU member states, such as ongoing controls in Germany and Austria. He argued that the EU’s external borders were now better protected and reiterated that the number of irregular border crossings had fallen dramatically.
Journalists also quizzed Brunner about the Entry/Exit System, a new digital entry and exit procedure for people who are not from the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland. While admitting concerns from member states and critics that the system is still causing trouble in some member states, he said that it is generally performing as expected.
A major issue, however, remains for professional truck drivers from countries in the Western Balkans, who need to enter the EU to deliver goods. Currently, they can only stay in the EU for a maximum of 90 days within any 180-day period. As a solution, Brunner proposed to EU member states and Western Balkan countries to negotiate long-term visas bilaterally.
The interview was conducted by journalists from European Newsroom partner agencies dpa, APA, and CTK, on behalf of the entire network.
Read some of their coverage here:
More impressions from the interview. Photos: Michael Brandt/dpa/European Newsroom
Login