Latest News
- 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
- Arab League struggles to address Israeli actions amid regional challenges
- Saskatoon Pride Parade attracts 10,000 attendees in 2026 event
- Betting on military operations points to possible insider trading as Cambodia pursues looted antiquities
- Man charged with murder after Isaac Clare-Watts found dead at party
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
Heat wave expected to affect most of Canada, officials advise caution
8:00 pm
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
7:00 pm
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.
Russian recruits expected to last only 30 minutes on the frontline
6:00 pm
Get you up to speed: Russian recruits expected to survive for just ’30 minutes’ on frontline | News World
Reports indicate that Russian conscripts face rapid casualties, with claims that recruits may be killed or seriously injured within minutes of reaching the battlefield. The situation highlights the ongoing toll of military operations involving Russian forces engaged in the conflict, resulting in over 30,000 Russian soldier fatalities this year.
Russian state media reported that approximately 420,000 individuals have signed one-year contracts for military service. Experts indicate that the rapid casualties among recruits are linked to advanced military technologies affecting battlefield dynamics, alongside a significant shortage of fuel creating logistical challenges.
Senior officials, including President Vladimir Putin, have acknowledged “problems” caused by fuel shortages and are considering potential measures such as a ban on diesel exports. As public discontent grows, recent commentary from business leaders highlights a “profound disappointment” with Putin’s leadership, indicating a shifting mood among supporters.
What remains unclear — The specific measures Putin is considering to address fuel shortages and supply issues have not been detailed.
Russian recruits expected to last only 30 minutes on the frontline
Russian conscripts can expect to die within half an hour of arriving on the battlefield, according to reports (Picture: Reuters)
Half a million casualties, fuel shortages and key infrastructure destroyed; Putin’s war machine continues to take its toll in Russia.
It has now been more than 50 months since the Russian president launched his ‘special military operation’ – a war which has now outlasted the First World War and dragged on longer than Russia’s conflict against Nazi Germany.
Now, new reports suggest that Russian soldiers are being butchered not within days or hours, but within minutes of going to war.
In fact, Russian recruits can expect to last barely half an hour upon arriving on the frontline, an expert has said.
Peter Frankopan, a professor of global history at Oxford University, said that eight Russians are being either killed or seriously injured for every Ukrainian.
More than 30,000 Russian soldiers have lost their lives this year.
Sign up for all of the latest stories
So little wonder that Putin is having to entice new recruits with bonuses to the tune of £60,000 as well as debt relief up to £105,000.
Recruits are being heavily incentivised to sign up, but are dying within weeks of entering the training ground (Picture: Reuters)
Some 420,000 were reported by state media to have taken up one-year-long contracts.
However, as Professor Frankopan explains, Russia’s accelerating rate of casualties is very much down to new military technology and tactics.
In a column for Foreign Policy, he argues that recruits are being killed within 20 minutes of setting foot on the battlefield.
According to Russian military bloggers, an average fighter can expect to last somewhere between 10 days and three weeks from arriving at a training ground.
Drones have become a primary weapon, with Ukrainian forces launching them against not just military targets but key oil infrastructure as well.
Addressing the shortage of petrol at pumps, Putin conceded to senior officials ‘problems’ had been caused by supply issues and said he was considering measures such as a ban on diesel exports.
Ukrainian forces have continued to target Russian oil refineries in a bid to disrupt fuel supplies (Picture: Anadolu)
And as the impact of the war is felt deeper into Russia and more subtlely by consumers, the mood has begun to turn against Putin.
Last month, business leaders conceded that there was ‘profound disappointment’ in the dictator’s leadership.
One told the Guardian there was a sense a ‘growing catastrophe is looming’ amid concern over ‘utterly senseless, self-destructive decisions’ being made.
They said: ‘People who once defended Putin no longer do. Any sense of a future has disappeared.’
Despite frequently alluding to historical Russian figures such as Peter the Great, Putin actually resembles Tsar Nicholas II, who was ousted in 1917 following the First World War, says Professor Frankopan.
Professor of global history Peter Frankopan says Putin will likely ‘pull the heads of others under the water’ to try to cling to power (Picture: Gavriil Grigorov/Pool Sputnik Kr)
The president has instead made many missteps including ‘micromanaging the war, disappearing for long spells, and then making bizarre public appearances’, he said.
He added that Putin would likely try to cling on to power by any means and even ‘pull the heads of others under the water’ to stay on top.
‘Putin will do what it takes to stay in power—not least since the consequences of his stepping down or being forced to step down are unforeseeable; they could very well lead to his imprisonment or death’, he writes.
‘If a quarter of a century has taught one thing about Putin, it is that he is a poor strategist and decision-maker. He is used to having his cake and eating it.’
Comment now
Comments
Add WTX as a Preferred Source on Google
Hungary’s prime minister restricts further EU integration steps for Ukraine
4:00 pm
Hungary’s prime minister restricts further EU integration steps for Ukraine
Hungary’s Veto Lifted
Hungary’s Prime Minister Péter Magyar has removed the country’s veto on Ukraine’s EU membership, permitting the opening of the first negotiating cluster.
Hungary’s Prime Minister Péter Magyar has removed the country’s veto on Ukraine’s EU membership, permitting the opening of the first negotiating cluster.
Financial Impact
Approval to lift Hungary’s veto facilitated the release of €16.4 billion in frozen EU funds, underscoring Hungary’s critical financial relationship with the European Union while balancing internal political pressures.
Approval to lift Hungary’s veto facilitated the release of €16.4 billion in frozen EU funds, underscoring Hungary’s critical financial relationship with the European Union while balancing internal political pressures.
Official Reaction
“We removed a lot from the text… We do not think that would be a good idea,” asserted Prime Minister Péter Magyar, regarding Ukraine’s EU membership progression.
“We removed a lot from the text… We do not think that would be a good idea,” asserted Prime Minister Péter Magyar, regarding Ukraine’s EU membership progression.
Explainer: Why Péter Magyar is reluctant to align with the EU on Ukraine
When freshly sworn-in Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar lifted Hungary’s long-standing veto on Ukraine’s EU membership bid in early June, many in Brussels and Kyiv breathed a sigh of relief.
The move signalled the end of Viktor Orbán‘s years-long policy of blocking Ukrainian accession, and was welcomed by both Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Council President António Costa, both staunch supporters of Ukrainian accession.
But Magyar has been quick to temper expectations in Brussels. At his first European Council summit in June, he made clear to fellow leaders that he opposed any fast-tracking of Ukraine’s path to membership.
Speaking to reporters after the June summit, Magyar said he had requested the deletion of a passage in the joint conclusions that called for opening all remaining negotiating clusters with Ukraine “as soon as possible”.
“We removed a lot from the text to avoid any explicit suggestion that, now that the first cluster has been opened, all the others will suddenly be opened as well,” he said. “We do not think that would be a good idea.”
Why did Magyar approve opening the first cluster?
Magyar made his opposition to Ukraine’s fast-track membership a central plank of his election campaign, and he has maintained since taking office.
“It’s a matter of fact that he is not a pro-Ukrainian politician, and the representatives of the new Hungarian government are not talking transparently and honestly to the Hungarian public about the accession of Ukraine to the European Union,” Dániel Hegedűs, Deputy Director of the Institut für Europäische Politik, told EU News.
According to Hegedűs, Magyar lifted the veto on the first cluster principally to signal his government’s constructive new approach towards the EU.
“This is practically re-establishing Hungary as a trustworthy and constructive partner on the EU stage. And it was a very fundamental expectation from EU partners.”
Shortly before lifting the veto, Magyar struck a political agreement with von der Leyen on the release of €16.4 billion in previously frozen EU funds for Hungary. Both sides stressed that the funds deal was unrelated to the decision on Ukraine.
Why is Magyar resisting further progress?
Last week, Hungary blocked a joint EU position at working-party level in Brussels on opening the remaining five negotiating clusters.
“The first cluster has only just been opened,” Magyar said. “The ink is barely dry on the decision.”
In parallel, the European Commission scaled back its own ambitions: its goal is now to open two clusters with Ukraine in July, rather than all five.
“The further moves are not seen as essential by stakeholders of the new Hungarian government to maintain the same image, and there is also no immediate political benefit that Magyar can hope to achieve from improving the bilateral relationship with President Zelenskyy,” Hegedűs said.
Magyar also framed his position as a defence of Western Balkans candidates – Montenegro, Albania, North Macedonia and Serbia – which have spent years, and in some cases decades, working towards EU membership.
“It also sends the wrong message to the Western Balkan countries that have spent years working towards EU membership,” he said. “Some have even changed their names; others have rewritten large parts of their constitutions.”
The minority rights deal
The opening of the first cluster followed a bilateral agreement between Hungary and Ukraine on the educational and language rights of the Hungarian minority in Ukraine – a point of tension between Budapest and Kyiv for years.
Magyar’s precondition for lifting the veto was that the needs of the Hungarian community in the Transcarpathia region be addressed.
His Tisza Party now argues that any further progress on accession requires Kyiv to implement the deal, the details of which have not been made public in either capital.
“If they are now arguing that they would like to see the implementation of the minority deal before opening those clusters, I am simply asking whether they actually communicated this position to the Ukrainian side during those bilateral negotiations,” Hegedűs said. “I think it is very difficult to argue that the Hungarian government is acting in good faith.”
Magyar had earlier said he was prepared to meet President Zelenskyy in Ukraine’s Transcarpathia region once the agreement was reached. That meeting has not yet taken place.
Hegedűs also rejected Magyar’s argument that Western Balkans accession should take precedence over Ukraine, noting that many candidates from the region have moved quickly through the opening of negotiating clusters.
Domestic politics loom large
While Orbán lost this spring’s election by a wide margin, a large portion of Hungarian society remains sceptical about Ukraine’s EU aspirations – a reality that means Magyar must tread carefully.
“Survey data from last year clearly show that the majority of Hungarian society opposes Ukraine’s EU accession. But those attitudes were shaped in a media ecosystem where Orbán’s anti-Ukrainian propaganda was part of everyday media consumption,” Hegedűs said.
Magyar is also frequently described as a nationalist figure, having spent years in Orbán’s Fidesz party before breaking with it in 2024. He has recently drawn criticism for a remark suggesting that Hungary was one of the few countries in the world to border itself.
“If I were to rationalise the whole thing, Magyar would like to avoid criticism from Fidesz and the far-right Mi Hazánk party for being too soft on Ukraine. We know that he is not really pro-Ukrainian in his attitudes,” Hegedűs said.
The next test, the analyst added, will come at the EU’s General Affairs Council, where member states are due to decide on opening two additional negotiating clusters for Ukraine and Moldova.
Arab League struggles to address Israeli actions amid regional challenges
3:00 pm
Get you up to speed: Why the Arab League could not stop Israel’s genocide
Arab governments have faced criticism for their inaction amidst the ongoing conflict in Gaza, which has intensified over nearly three years and affected multiple regions, including the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, Syria, and Lebanon. The Arab League has been characterised as ineffective, with statements issued but no substantial action taken to address the crisis.
The Arab League’s consensus-based structure has hindered effective action on substantive political issues, including the ongoing crises in Gaza and Lebanon. Arab governments continue to grapple with external pressures and historical contexts that limit their capacity for independent policy-making and significant intervention.
The Arab League’s inability to take decisive action amidst the ongoing conflict has led to widespread criticisms of its effectiveness, prompting calls from various Arab citizens for more robust responses to support Palestine. As the geopolitical landscape evolves, particularly concerning Iran, Arab governments may need to reassess their strategies for achieving sovereignty and security in a post-colonial context.
What remains unclear — It is uncertain how the war with Iran will impact Arab governments’ future security calculations and their pursuit of sovereignty.
Arab League struggles to address Israeli actions amid regional challenges
OPINIONOPINION, Opinion|Arab LeagueWhy the Arab League could not stop Israel’s genocide
Arab governments are constrained by dependency, regime survival and fear of empowering Iran-aligned rivals.
Most Arabs are perplexed by why their governments and the Arab League have been so docile in the face of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, which is approaching its third year and has spilled into the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, Syria and Lebanon. Two critical actors that could redress this situation – Western and other global powers on the one hand, and Arab governments on the other – have mainly issued statements of concern, sent symbolic aid packages and called for United Nations meetings that only reaffirm their collective inaction. The Arab League especially, which claims to represent shared Arab interests, has been the poster child of Arab docility and empty words. Three intertwined dynamics might explain this.
The first is the post-colonial nature of statehood and power in Arab lands, which never fully shed colonial influence, since most Arab states formed after World War I were configured to suit foreign interests as much as, if not more than, their own people’s identities, rights and aspirations. So Arab countries, unlike Iran or Turkiye, for example, have never been able to harness their natural, human and geographic resources to become powerful, confident states that are not constantly manipulated by stronger powers, or that can occasionally resist foreign threats politically or militarily. Most Arab states, even energy-rich ones, rely heavily on non-Arab powers for financial, military, technological and other assistance that is vital for their survival; this deep dependence has diluted their sovereignty and ability to act independently, as the Gaza genocide has shown. This also makes the cost of challenging powers such as the United States and Israel too high to consider.
The second is that a quick glance across the region’s fragile and shattered polities, from Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia to Sudan, is a daily reminder to Arab leaderships of the terrible costs of defying their neo-colonial patrons and Israel. Since the 1950s, Arab states have found themselves permanently under the gaze, if not the security and fiscal wings, of non-Arab powers such as the US, the United Kingdom, France and Russia, and, closer to home in recent decades, Iran, Israel and Turkiye.
The US in particular has expanded its web of connections among Israeli, American and Arab parties in essential sectors such as water, food, energy, transportation networks, financial aid, debt management, environmental protection, technology and military security. Much of this happens indirectly, through institutions such as the World Bank, the United Nations, NATO, the International Monetary Fund, or the vast US commercial banking and payments networks that enable the devastating sanctions the US liberally imposes on those who dare to challenge it or Israel. Any Arab state that actively confronts the US-Israel axis, rather than merely denouncing Trump in the media, would risk triggering punitive measures such as sanctions and military attacks that could threaten the stability, and even the survival, of weaker states.
The third driver of the quiet Arab response to Israel’s US-enabled genocide in Palestine has been the structural gap between Arab governments and their citizens, on both domestic policies and major foreign policy issues such as Israel, Palestine, Iran, resistance, or ties with Russia and China. The Arab citizen-state gap has been tempered by the prevailing social contract, often called “the authoritarian bargain”, by which governments define policies and allocate resources while citizens rely on the state for the essentials of life, such as water, food, housing, education and healthcare. Some Arab states that cannot harness the resources needed to sustain this system, including Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Palestine and Lebanon, have suffered chronic unemployment and poverty, ethnic and sectarian tensions, water and electricity shortages, and other stresses. These often open the door to foreign interventions that can cause Arab states to fray at the edges, or even fragment, as areas split off to form autonomous or independent regions.
I have no doubt, having lived in and reported on the Arab region for the past 60 years, that our governments, elites and ordinary citizens all care deeply about Palestinian rights and wellbeing, and would like to act effectively to assist the Palestinian cause. But the Gaza genocide, and now Israel’s US-backed assaults on Lebanon and Iran, have clarified how state officials and ordinary citizens act according to very different priorities. If the choice is between supporting Palestine or protecting their own incumbency and national wellbeing, Arab elites have mostly chosen their own survival as their top priority.
This is the nature of the post-colonial order in the region that has emerged in the past half-century via a neo-colonial web of interlinkages that serve Israel and its Western backers while treating the rights of Arab states and citizens as secondary. Our current neo-colonial order permits press statements, regional consultations, public protest marches, food aid, field hospitals, wearing keffiyehs, waving Palestinian flags and casting hostile UN votes by Arabs who oppose the US-Israel axis; but active military, economic or other resistance is not allowed. And when it happens, those behind it are bombed, sanctioned or subjected to genocidal obliteration.
The Arab order represented by the Arab League observes these rules because it is a reflection of Arab officialdom. The League itself is further hobbled by the fact that it operates through consensus politics in practice, which is impossible to achieve on any political issue more substantive than coordinating postal rates or airline fares. The Gaza, Lebanon and Iran crises also immobilised pan-Arab action because most Arab governments since 1979 have seen Iran as a major threat and do not want to boost non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, Yemen’s Ansar Allah (the Houthis) and other resistance groups close to Iran.
The war with Iran revealed the weaknesses of the American-Israeli security umbrella for Arab states. Its consequences in the coming years could well revise Arab governments’ calculations about how better to achieve genuine and lasting security, along with full sovereignty in a post-colonial world.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect WTX News’s editorial policy.
Saskatoon Pride Parade attracts 10,000 attendees in 2026 event
1:00 pm
Get you up to speed: Annual Saskatoon Pride Parade draws crowd of 10,000
The 2026 Pride parade attracted a crowd of 10,000 people. Participants noted the increase in inclusivity but acknowledged that further progress is needed.
Authorities have stated that the parade proceeded without major incidents. Organisers are now evaluating feedback to improve future events.
Officials acknowledged the significant turnout for the 2026 Pride parade, highlighting the ongoing need for increased inclusivity. City leaders plan to implement further community engagement initiatives aimed at fostering dialogue and support for LGBTQ+ rights in the upcoming months.
What remains unclear — Specific areas for improvement in inclusivity have not been detailed.
Saskatoon Pride Parade attracts 10,000 attendees in 2026 event
The 2026 Pride parade drew a crowd of 10,000 people. Parade goers and participants say they have seen inclusivity grow in recent years, but there is more work to be done.
Local insights
Related Election News
© 2026 WTX News.