- Trump nominates Keith Sonderling as permanent labour secretary
- Backpack explosion in Monaco injures Ukrainian family, suspect at large
- EU leaders face internal challenges, not Israel tensions, says Nagel
- Negotiations between US and Iran commence in Doha amid uncertainty
- Heat wave expected to affect most of Canada, officials advise caution
- Supreme Court rules presidential removal powers extend over FTC members
- Russian recruits expected to last only 30 minutes on the frontline
- Hungary’s prime minister restricts further EU integration steps for Ukraine
LIVE German 2025 Election Results as they come in and analysi on who will be the next German Chancellor.
Knowledge Hub
Global Reaction to DE Elections
When are the German Elections?
The Elections are on Sunday the 23rd of Feb 2025
Why are they having a snap election?
The German coalition government failed a no confidence vote
Do Germans vote?
Germans vote in big numbers, usually as high 70+ percent voter turnout
Trump nominates Keith Sonderling as permanent labour secretary
Get you up to speed: Trump nominates Keith Sonderling as labor secretary
President Trump announced on Monday his intention to nominate Keith Sonderling for the permanent position of Secretary of Labor in Washington, D.C. This nomination follows the departure of Lori Chavez-DeRemer from the role in April.
The nomination of Keith Sonderling to lead the Department of Labor permanently follows his appointment as acting secretary after Lori Chavez-DeRemer’s departure in April. The position requires Senate approval, and Sonderling was previously confirmed as deputy secretary by a 53-46 vote along party lines.
President Trump announced his intention to nominate Keith Sonderling for the permanent position of Secretary of Labor, praising his dedication and results. The nomination will require Senate approval, following Sonderling’s previous confirmation as deputy secretary last year in a narrowly contested vote.
What remains unclear — It is unknown whether the Senate will approve Keith Sonderling’s nomination to lead the Department of Labor permanently.
Trump nominates Keith Sonderling as permanent labour secretary
Caitlin Yilek
Politics Reporter
Caitlin Yilek is a politics reporter at WTXNews.com, based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked for the Washington Examiner and The Hill, and was a member of the 2022 Paul Miller Washington Reporting Fellowship with the National Press Foundation.
Read Full Bio
/ WTX US News
Washington — President Trump said Monday he will nominate Keith Sonderling to lead the Department of Labor permanently.
Sonderling was elevated to the role in an acting capacity after Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer left the position in April.
“Throughout his career, Keith has proven his dedication to delivering strong results for the Hardworking People of our Country, and I know he will do an incredible job in his new role,” Mr. Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
The position requires Senate approval.
Sonderling was confirmed last year to be deputy secretary of labor in a 53-46 vote along party lines. During Mr. Trump’s first term, Sonderling served in several roles at the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Chavez-DeRemer had been under scrutiny ahead of her exit from the Department of Labor, with several news outlets reporting her conduct was under investigation by the department’s internal watchdog. WTX US News has not confirmed the existence of the investigation.
Chavez-DeRemer’s husband was also barred from the department’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., after two women who work there reported that he had touched them inappropriately, sources familiar with the situation told WTX US News earlier this year. Federal prosecutors decided not to charge her husband after reviewing evidence, WTX US News reported.
Backpack explosion in Monaco injures Ukrainian family, suspect at large
Get you up to speed: Monaco blast: Booby trapped backpack explodes injuring Ukrainians | News World
An explosion in Monaco at around 10pm on Monday injured three people, including a Ukrainian couple and their 13-year-old son, who are in critical condition. Authorities have stated that a suspect was seen fleeing towards the French town of Beausoleil after allegedly leaving a bag in the building’s lobby before the blast.
Police are currently collecting evidence following the explosion, with investigations ongoing to ascertain the motive behind the incident. Authorities confirmed that the explosive device likely contained bolts and shot, marking an unprecedented event in the history of the Principality.
Mayor of Nice Eric Ciotti described the incident as an “attack,” expressing condolences for the victims and support for emergency services. Monaco’s Minister of State Christophe Mirmand confirmed the explosion, stating, “This is likely an attack,” and indicated that police are actively collecting evidence.
What remains unclear — It is not known why the building was targeted.
Backpack explosion in Monaco injures Ukrainian family, suspect at large
An explosion has rocked Monaco, injuring three people walking out of a building.
The victims are reportedly a Ukrainian couple and their 13-year-old son.
The two adults are in critical condition in a Monaco hospital.
CCTV allegedly shows a suspect dropping off bags shortly before the blast at around 10pm on Monday.

An image of a man running away from the bomb attack has been circulated through France
The explosion destroyed the entrance of the Cuomo Foundation a self-described philanthropic organisation.
Sign up for all of the latest stories
Cops said the victims were Ukrainian, with the suspect spotted fleeing towards the border with the nearby French town of Beausoleil.
It has not been declared a terrorist incident but the Mayor of Nice Eric Ciotti called it an attack.

A police officer stands guard next to a police car after in a residential building in Monaco (Picture: AFP)
He wrote on X: ‘The attack carried out this evening is a tragedy that has hit Monaco.
‘Thoughts for the victims, their families, and the people of Monaco.
‘Total support for the security forces and emergency services mobilised.’
‘This is likely an attack,’ Minister of State Christophe Mirmand, said later.
The explosive device likely contained bolts and shot, he added. ‘The police are currently gathering evidence.
‘This is the first time in history, to my knowledge, that such an act has occurred in the Principality, ‘ he added.
Comment now
Comments
Add WTX as a Preferred Source on Google
EU leaders face internal challenges, not Israel tensions, says Nagel
EU leaders face internal challenges, not Israel tensions, says Nagel
Israel’s Foreign Minister, Gideon Sa’ar, has severed all contact with the EU’s Foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, over alleged apartheid comparisons.
Israel remains the European Union‘s largest trading partner, underscoring the need for a balanced approach to trade relations amid increasing political tensions over the Palestinian territories.
“At the end, I think that also the EU countries will come to their senses and will realise who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.”
EU will ‘come to its senses’ on Israel, former Netanyahu adviser says

European Union leaders must recognise that the most pressing challenge they face is an internal one — not possible disagreements with Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s former national security advisor, Jacob Nagel, told EU News.
His comments come as EU-Israel ties are coming under strain. Earlier this month, Israel’s Foreign Minister, Gideon Sa’ar, severed all contact with the bloc’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, due to alleged comparisons of Israel to apartheid-era South Africa.
Meanwhile, the European Commission is under pressure from some of its member states to propose a range of options to restrict EU trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.
“At the end, I think that also the EU countries will come to their senses and will realise who are the good guys and who are the bad guys,” Nagel, who served for more than 40 years in Israel’s Defence Ministry and the Prime Minister’s Office and is now a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies (FDD), said onEuronews’ interview programme 12 Minutes With.
He argued that the EU “is not relevant” — even though the bloc remains Israel’s largest trading partner — echoing a statement made to EU News by Netanyahu last year.
Nagel went on to state that the EU and its leaders should focus on different, more pressing issues.
“See some of the countries inside Europe, and I don’t want to say names, you go in the streets, there is terror,” he said.
“There are some European countries that understood it, and they took their fate into their hands, but some have already lost the war against the immigrants. I think Europe is facing a big problem that it has to solve, and its problem is not Israel.”
US ‘remains our best friend’
Asked if US-Israel relations had recently come under strain over the latter’s military operation in Lebanon, Nagel acknowledged there may have been some tension but insisted that “Israel and the US are the best allies. They are our best friends.”
On the Israeli side, while Netanyahu avoided direct public criticism, some government and opposition figures denounced Washington’s apparent sidelining of Israel in the US ceasefire memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Iran, signed on 17 June, and for dragging the Jewish state out of the conflict before it achieved its goals.
On the US side, Trump reportedly angrily berated Netanyahu at the start of June over Israel’s threats to resume airstrikes on Beirut and its southern suburbs, jeopardising talks with Iran, which were ongoing at the time.
Later, Vice-President J.D. Vance told Israel it was isolated on the international stage, saying Trump is Israel’s only ally left in the world.
While stressing he understood Trump’s reasons for engaging with Iran, Nagel said the US president was nonetheless “making a mistake” by prioritising domestic interests, particularly the economy — the biggest concern for US voters — over securing a more favourable deal to end the Iran conflict and preventing the Islamic Republic from eventually acquiring a nuclear bomb.
“Iran is now getting exactly what it wants and needs,” he said, pointing to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the temporary waivers for Iranian oil exports, which means that Iran will, at least during the 60-day negotiation period provided by the MoU, receive direct, conventional hard-currency payments.
Experts estimate that selling oil legally could generate roughly $8 billion (around €7 billion) during this initial 60-day window alone.
“Trump is now listening to his close allies like Vice-President J.D. Vance, [Steve] Witkoff and [Jared] Kushner, and not listening to [Defence Secretary Pete] Hegseth and [State Secretary Marco] Rubio and others, and he decided to prioritise the American interests; he wants to bring down the price of oil.”
Both Hegseth and Rubio have been advocating a more hawkish line on Iran to limit its power and guarantee US security and that of its allies, including Israel.
However, Nagel recognised that Trump’s ‘America first’ drive and focus on bringing down the price of oil is “legitimate” given November’s mid-term elections and rising fears among Republicans over a Democratic takeover of Congress.
“The people in the US, they don’t know where Iran is, where Israel is, what enriched uranium is. They just know how much they are paying for a gallon of oil when they go to the gas station,” he said.
“We would very much like the US to be with us, but sometimes they have their own interests,” Nagel also said, adding that this is merely a temporary shift in attitude.
“The US will come to its senses very soon. We work together with them. At the end, they will understand who the Iranians are, and they will go back to make sure that the work is finished.”
Negotiations between US and Iran commence in Doha amid uncertainty
Media Lens: Negotiations between US and Iran commence in Doha amid uncertainty
Story focus: US and Iran negotiators head to Doha.
Primary entity: Not specified | Region:
The main geographic focus of the content is Doha.
US and Iran negotiators meet in Doha to discuss ongoing diplomatic efforts. The meeting’s outcome remains uncertain as both sides approach the discussions with caution.
Quick links: What has happened | Status quo | Confirmed facts | Preconceptions | Elisions | One story, four angles | Related links
What has happened
Negotiators from the United States and Iran are set to meet in Doha, Qatar, amidst growing tensions between the two nations regarding nuclear agreements. The discussions aim to address concerns surrounding Iran’s nuclear program and explore potential pathways to de-escalate longstanding tensions.
The urgency of the talks is highlighted by recent statements from Israeli officials warning that conflict could arise within days. The diplomatic engagement is critical, as both sides seek to clarify their positions and potentially find common ground to avert further instability in the region.
Status quo
Negotiations between the U.S. and Iran are taking place in Doha against a backdrop of rising tensions. The discussions come amid conflicting statements regarding the nature of the talks and their objectives. As both sides prepare, uncertainties loom about the outcomes and whether a resolution can be reached. These developments are critical given the historical context of U.S.-Iranian relations and ongoing geopolitical concerns in the region.
Confirmed facts
- The U.S. and Iran are preparing for negotiations in Doha regarding their ongoing tensions.
- Israel has warned that a war could begin ‘within two days’ amid the negotiations.
- Recent talks involve U.S. efforts to address Iran’s nuclear program and regional influence.
- U.S. officials indicate uncertainty about the outcomes of the upcoming meetings.
Preconceptions
- The **Reuters** article prioritises the immediate uncertainty surrounding the US-Iran negotiations, emphasizing the logistical challenges and potential outcomes of the talks.
- The **CNN** coverage focuses heavily on the conflicting statements from U.S. officials and Iranian representatives, reflecting a more dynamic and contentious atmosphere, while less attention is given to the technical aspects of the negotiations.
- In contrast, **NBC News** highlights the tension between the U.S. and Israel, suggesting that geopolitical ramifications are central to the narrative, while the actual negotiation details are somewhat reduced.
- **Fox News** prioritizes threats of potential military escalation, contrasting with the other publications that do not foreground these warnings as prominently.
Elisions
- Coverage disparity in the details of US-Iran negotiations: **CNN** emphasizes conflicting statements from Trump regarding the talks, whereas **Reuters** focuses on logistical aspects, such as the uncertainty of the meeting location in Doha.
- Focus on implications: **NBC News** highlights potential geopolitical tensions arising from these talks, while **Fox News** expresses concerns over the immediate threat of conflict, citing Israel’s warnings.
- Differences in sources’ analysis of participants: **CNN** mentions key negotiators involved, but **NBC News** omits specific names and roles, affecting clarity on who is directly influencing these negotiations.
One story, four angles
Reuters – US and Iran negotiators head to Doha, but meeting uncertain
Publication: Reuters | Intensity: (7/10) | Sentiment: Neutral | Legal precision: Moderate
Expand
Espresso Shot: Focus is on the uncertainty surrounding the negotiations, emphasizing the challenges ahead.
Key differences:
– Comparison: Reuters prioritizes the uncertainty of talks with “meeting uncertain” vs. CNN highlighting “conflicting statements,” indicating a more polarized view.
– Example: The phrase “meeting uncertain” underscores a noncommittal stance, contrasting with CNN’s implication of discord.
– Comparison: Reuters refers to “negotiators head to Doha” focusing on logistics, while NBC emphasizes “gear up for tense talks,” adding drama.
– Example: “gear up for tense talks” conveys a sense of escalating tension that is less prominent in Reuters’ reporting.
Bias: Selection: Limited view on potential outcomes | Language: Neutral phrasing drives less urgency | Omission: Lack of detail on the implications for future negotiations
Assessment: The reader perceives a cautious expectation regarding the negotiations without clear progress indicators.
CNN – Live updates: Trump and Iran issue conflicting statements about new talks
Publication: CNN | Intensity: (8/10) | Sentiment: Negative | Legal precision: Low
Expand
Espresso Shot: Immediately highlights the conflicting statements, suggesting a deterioration of diplomacy.
Key differences:
– Comparison: CNN’s focus on “conflicting statements” stresses discord, while Reuters maintains a neutral tone about the meetings.
– Example: “conflicting statements” pinpoints direct disagreement, framing the narrative as contentious.
– Comparison: CNN presents “live updates,” capturing ongoing developments, whereas Reuters takes a more static view of the situation post-meeting.
– Example: The format choice cultivates an expectation for real-time conflict, unlike the more subdued reporting seen in Reuters.
Bias: Selection: Prioritizes dramatic conflict | Language: Stronger emotional framing amplifies urgency | Omission: Less focus on potential negotiation outcomes
Assessment: Readers may believe negotiations are failing due to conflicting signals from political leaders.
NBC News – Iran and the U.S. gear up for tense talks
Publication: NBC News | Intensity: (9/10) | Sentiment: Negative | Legal precision: Low
Expand
Espresso Shot: Emphasizes the tension and high stakes of negotiations, framing it as a critical moment for diplomacy.
Key differences:
– Comparison: NBC’s emphasis on “tense talks” conveys imminent conflict compared to Reuters’ neutral stance on the meeting details.
– Example: “gear up for tense talks” implies urgency and the potential for confrontation, unlike Reuters’ milder approach.
– Comparison: NBC’s coverage anticipates conflict with “gear up,” while CNN reflects on discord with “conflicting statements,” a slight shift in focus.
– Example: “gear up” suggests preparation for crisis rather than mere disagreement.
Bias: Selection: Highlights conflict over resolution | Language: Evocative terms intensify the dramatic narrative | Omission: Fewer details on diplomatic strategies
Assessment: The reader perceives a high likelihood of severe diplomatic fallout based on the current dynamics.
Fox News – Israel warns war could begin ‘within two days’ as US pushes ahead with Iran technical talks in Doha
Publication: Fox News | Intensity: (8/10) | Sentiment: Negative | Legal precision: Low
Expand
Espresso Shot: Quickly focuses on the imminent threat of war, shifting the narrative to a defensive stance against Iran.
Key differences:
– Comparison: Fox amplifies the perceived danger, framing discussions as potential war, compared to the more diplomatic tones of Reuters.
– Example: “war could begin ‘within two days'” escalates urgency and fear dramatically.
– Comparison: The use of “as US pushes ahead” implies a unidirectional strategy, contrasting with others framing discussions as a two-sided negotiation.
– Example: This choice suggests America’s aggressive posture rather than collaborative engagement.
Bias: Selection: Focus on dire warnings rather than negotiation prospects | Language: Alarmist tone drives fear | Omission: Lack of coverage on potential for peaceful resolution
Assessment: The reader perceives an imminent threat of war, steering public sentiment towards anxiety and urgency regarding US-Iran relations.
In comparing the coverage of US-Iran negotiations, Reuters adopts a neutral stance, emphasizing uncertainty in the talks. In contrast, CNN’s framing escalates tensions, highlighting conflicting statements that imply potential conflict. NBC follows a similar path to CNN, adding an air of urgency regarding looming talks. Meanwhile, Fox News focuses on an alleged imminent threat of war, amplifying fears. Thus, Reuters represents the gentler angle, while Fox News employs the most escalatory framing. The facts do not change. What changes is where scrutiny lands.
Related links
Reuters
US and Iran negotiators head to Doha, but meeting uncertain
CNN
Live updates: Trump and Iran issue conflicting statements about new talks
NBC News
Iran and the U.S. gear up for tense talks
Fox News
Israel warns war could begin ‘within two days’ as US pushes ahead with Iran technical talks in Doha
Heat wave expected to affect most of Canada, officials advise caution
Get you up to speed: A heat wave is set to scorch much of Canada. Take it seriously, experts say
Environment Canada has issued yellow alerts for heat across every Canadian province and territory, excluding Quebec and British Columbia. The alerts signal potentially hazardous heat conditions.
Environment Canada has issued yellow alerts for heat across every province and territory in Canada, with the exception of Quebec and British Columbia. As temperatures rise, officials are closely monitoring the situation, though specific guidance on safety measures has yet to be released.
Environment Canada has issued yellow alerts for heat across all Canadian provinces and territories, except Quebec and British Columbia. As temperatures rise, officials are urging residents to stay hydrated and avoid strenuous outdoor activities during peak hours.
What remains unclear — It is not specified why Quebec and B.C. are not under heat alerts.
Heat wave expected to affect most of Canada, officials advise caution

According to Environment Canada, there are currently yellow alerts for heat classified under every Canadian province and territory except Quebec and B.C.
Supreme Court rules presidential removal powers extend over FTC members
Get you up to speed: Supreme Court expands presidential firing power, overturning 90-year-old ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission are unconstitutional, overturning a 90-year precedent. The decision expands presidential authority over independent agencies and was issued in the case Trump v. Slaughter.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to impact over two dozen independent agencies, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the National Labor Relations Board, by altering their removal protections. The Court specifically noted that its decision does not affect the constitutionality of removal restrictions for the Federal Reserve or the tenure protections for judges on certain federal courts.
The Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn a 90-year-old precedent regarding the removal protections for Federal Trade Commission members has drawn sharp dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who warned the decision could transform independent agencies into purely executive bodies. President Trump praised the ruling as a significant enhancement of presidential authority, which may lead to further changes in the operational structure of various independent commissions.
What remains unclear — The Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of removal restrictions for members of the Federal Reserve or tenure protections for judges on the U.S. Tax Court and the Court of Federal Claims.
Supreme Court rules presidential removal powers extend over FTC members
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission are unconstitutional and overturned a 90-year-old decision that allowed Congress to shield members of certain independent agencies from being fired by the president at will.
The decision from the high court expands the president’s power over many independent boards and commissions, which Congress had insulated from political pressure by saying their members could only be removed by the president for cause.
In a 1935 decision in a case known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which involved removal protections for the FTC, the Supreme Court said Congress could restrict the president’s ability to fire officials from multi-member agencies at will.
But the ruling from the high court’s conservative majority in the case Trump v. Slaughter overturns that 90-year-old decision and marks the culmination of a years-long weakening of the New Deal-era precedent.
The court’s ruling
The ruling was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, joined by the other conservative justices. The three liberals dissented, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a summary of her dissent from the bench, a rare occurrence that signals strong disagreement with a decision. Roberts wrote that limits on the president’s ability to fire those who wield executive power on his behalf infringe on his constitutional authority.
The FTC of today, the court’s majority found, “unquestionably” exercises executive powers and therefore must be under the president’s control.
“Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work,” Roberts wrote. “Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”
The decision is likely to have ramifications beyond the FTC. Congress has created more than two dozen multi-member agencies led by officials who can be removed by the president only for cause, which typically means instances of inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Among those agencies likely to be affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling are the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.
In a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor warned that while those agencies remain, they now take on a new form that differs from what Congress intended when they were created.
“Put simply, today the majority reshapes our Government. Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President’s hands,” she wrote.
President Trump cheered the decision as the “Greatest Increase in Presidential Power in the last 100 years. Such a Monumental Ruling at such an important time!”
The Slaughter case
Mr. Trump has sought to test the bounds of his executive power since returning to the White House for his second term in January 2025, including by firing a slew of officials appointed by Democratic presidents at multi-member boards and commissions without cause.
Among those was Rebecca Slaughter, whom Mr. Trump appointed to the FTC during his first term. She was reappointed to the trade commission by President Joe Biden.
Slaughter was informed in March 2025 that her service on the FTC was “inconsistent” with the Trump administration’s priorities and was fired from her post without cause. That clashed with the law that established the FTC in 1914, when Congress said commissioners could only be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.
Slaughter filed a lawsuit challenging her removal and argued Mr. Trump broke the law when he fired her. A federal district court ruled in her favor and ordered Slaughter to be reinstated to her post. The U.S. appeals court in Washington, D.C., eventually agreed that she could continue in her job at the trade commission, but last September, the Supreme Court allowed Mr. Trump to fire her while it considered the legality of removal protections for FTC members.
Before agreeing to decide Slaughter’s case, the Supreme Court had also cleared the way for Mr. Trump to oust members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission. But the high court has so far spared two other officials from removal while litigation continues: Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, and Shira Perlmutter, the register of copyrights.
The justices heard arguments in January over whether to allow Mr. Trump to fire Cook from the Fed Board. The Supreme Court has indicated before that it views the Fed differently than other independent agencies, calling it a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks.”
In an opinion also authored by Roberts, the high court rejected Mr. Trump’s attempt to fire Cook while the challenge to her removal moved forward.
The Supreme Court reiterated in its ruling involving the FTC that it does not implicate the constitutionality of the Fed’s removal restrictions. It also stressed that the decision does not address tenure protections for judges on the U.S. Tax Court or the Court of Federal Claims, with Roberts writing that the justices are leaving “those questions for another day.”
“All we do today is recognize what has been clear for a century — that those who fall within the President’s ‘general administrative control’ must be removable by the President at will,” he wrote.
The high court’s decision in Slaughter’s case is the latest in a line of recent decisions that chipped away at Humphrey’s Executor and expanded the president’s power over independent agencies. The Supreme Court invalidated removal protections for the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2020 and the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2021.
In:
Local insights
Related Election News
LIVE German 2025 Election
Subscribe to Updates
Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.









