LIVE German 2025 Election Results as they come in and analysi on who will be the next German Chancellor.

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

Zee Entertainment secures broadcast rights for World Cup 2026 from FIFA

Get you up to speed: India’s Zee Entertainment signs World Cup 2026 broadcast deal with FIFA

FIFA has finalised a broadcast deal with India’s Zee Entertainment for the 2026 and 2030 World Cups, along with other FIFA events until 2034. This agreement addresses months of stalled negotiations and follows FIFA’s downward adjustment of its asking price from approximately $100 million to $60 million.

The broadcast agreement between FIFA and Zee Entertainment will cover 39 events through to 2034, including the Women’s World Cup in 2027. The deal was finalised just ten days before the tournament’s opening match on June 11, raising concerns about viewing times for the Indian audience due to significant time zone differences.

FIFA’s agreement with Zee Entertainment for the broadcast of the 2026 and 2030 World Cups addresses previous concerns over unsold rights in India, amidst reported financial negotiations that reduced FIFA’s asking price from $100 million to $60 million. Experts warn that the scheduling of many matches during odd hours for Indian audiences could affect viewership, with only 14 of 104 matches starting before midnight local time.

What remains unclear — The financial details of the deal between FIFA and Zee Entertainment have not been disclosed.

Zee Entertainment secures broadcast rights for World Cup 2026 from FIFA

Sport|World Cup 2026India’s Zee Entertainment signs World Cup 2026 broadcast deal with FIFA

Zee will broadcast the 2026 and 2030 World Cups and the 2027 Women’s World Cup among 39 FIFA tournaments until 2034.

IndiaA boy plays in front an image of Brazil’s footballer Neymar painted on a wall in an alley in Kolkata [File: Rupak De Chowdhuri/Reuters]

FIFA has struck a deal with India’s Zee Entertainment to broadcast the World Cup in the country, ending a months-long ⁠⁠standoff over the tournament’s availability in one of the last major markets where rights remained unsold.

While the financial terms of the package – signed on Monday – were not disclosed, FIFA reportedly sought about $100m for the 2026 and 2030 tournaments before ‌‌slashing its asking price to $60m.

The deal gives Zee a toehold in India’s sports broadcast market, where the Reliance-Disney joint venture JioStar holds rights ranging from the Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket tournament to the English Premier League football.

It covers 39 FIFA events over eight years through 2034, including ‌‌the ‌‌Women’s World Cup in 2027, according to a joint statement from FIFA and Zee.

Shares ⁠⁠of Zee were about 7 percent higher on the day ⁠⁠after the announcement.

The agreement came just 10 days before the tournament kicks off on June 11 across the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Last month, experts told WTX News that the kickoff times for the majority of the matches are the biggest concern for Indian broadcasters since many games will be played at odd hours for the Indian audience, with a 10-12 hour time difference between the host cities and the South Asian nation.

Only 14 out of the total 104 World Cup games will begin before midnight for fans in India.

The final will be held in New Jersey on July 19, beginning at 19:00 GMT, which will be 12:30am on July 20 in India. By comparison, 98.4 percent of matches at the 2018 World Cup started before midnight, and 82.5 percent at the following edition in Qatar.

Karan Taurani, executive vice president at investment firm Elara Capital, sees TV as a “struggling” medium in India.

“When you have these kinds of sporting events, effectively it is mostly digital that is monetising and raising big money,” Taurani told WTX News. “That is a big reason why no one’s showing interest in the FIFA World Cup.”

Taurani explained that cricket leads the sports economy market in India.

“Only a small fraction of people who watch the Indian Premier League will watch the FIFA World Cup,” he said, adding that an even smaller fraction tune in past midnight to watch a match.

Viacom18 paid ⁠⁠about $60m for rights to the 2022 ⁠⁠World Cup, which was hosted in Qatar in time zones far more favourable for Indian audiences. Most of this year’s matches will be screened late at night in India due to the ‌‌time difference, something that dampened broadcaster appetite and complicated FIFA’s sales efforts.

Vanilla Ice remains committed to Freedom 250 concerts despite artist dropouts

Get you up to speed: After several artists drop out of Freedom 250 concerts, Vanilla Ice says he’d “play for anybody” including Putin and Iran

Rapper Vanilla Ice confirmed he will perform at the Freedom 250 concert series in Washington, D.C., despite several artists dropping out. The event is scheduled to run from June 25 to July 10 on the National Mall.

Freedom 250’s Great American State Fair will take place on the National Mall from June 25 to July 10, featuring state and territory pavilions, live performances, and interactive experiences. The event is part of a celebration for the 250th anniversary of American Independence and is chaired by former President Donald Trump.

Rapper Vanilla Ice confirmed his intention to perform at the Freedom 250 concert, stating, “It’s the birthday of America,” amid a wave of artist withdrawals. Freedom 250 maintains the event’s nonpartisan stance, with organisers asserting a commitment to uniting Americans for the 250th anniversary celebrations.

What remains unclear — It is uncertain how many additional artists might withdraw from the concert series and the impact this will have on the event’s attendance.

Vanilla Ice remains committed to Freedom 250 concerts despite artist dropouts

After several artists dropped out of a Washington, D.C., concert series organized by Freedom 250, rapper Vanilla Ice said he will still be on the bill, telling WTX US News on Monday he would perform for anyone, including Russian President Vladimir Putin or Iran. 

The rapper, whose real name is Robert Van Winkle, told WTX US News, “It’s simple as a pimple for me, there’s nothing to it. It’s the birthday of America.”

“Two hundred and fifty years. It’s not anything to do with politics. I don’t know why they’re turning it into politics,” Van Winkle said, adding he’s “never voted in my life.” 

After the lineup was announced Wednesday, several artists — including Morris Day and the Time, Young MC and The Commadores — said they were backing out. Bret Michaels and Martina McBride also announced they would not be performing in the following days.

Several artists said they were misled about the organizers of the event, with Young MC writing: “Despite the claims by the organizers that the event is non-partisan, SPIN magazine describes it as Trump-backed.” 

Freedom 250 — an organization launched last year following an executive order from President Trump to provide “a grand celebration worthy of the momentous occasion of the 250th anniversary of American Independence” — maintains that it and the events it is organizing are nonpartisan, saying in a previous statement it is “dedicated to uniting Americans around the nation’s 250th anniversary.” According to the executive order, Mr. Trump serves as the chair of the task force created to organize the celebrations. Freedom 250 and Task Force 250 are separate from a 2016 bipartisan commission created to help plan celebrations for the 250th anniversary.

The Great American State Fair, according to Freedom 250, will run from June 25 to July 10 on the National Mall, and will include “state and territory pavilions celebrating all 56 states and territories, specialty exhibits, live performances, interactive experiences, and classic fair attractions.”

Van Winkle said he understood why other artists would back out if they feel the event is too political and are “scared” of social media backlash, but added, “For me, I’m just here to celebrate the country I was born in.”

Van Winkle also brushed aside other artists’ accusations that they were misled.

“When I play events, I never ask about them,” he told WTX US News. “I just go, ‘Where am I going?’ I don’t even know and I don’t even care, because I have fans and they have booked me to play a show.”

Asked if he felt it was possible to separate art from politics, Van Winkle said, “Heck yeah. They should never be in there.”

“You should do whatever you feel like doing and express yourself. That’s what music is,” he said.

Van Winkle, who has previously performed at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club, said he’d play for Democratic politicians as well.

“I’d go play for anybody,” he said. “Putin. Whoever. You want — I’d go to Iran. Don’t matter.”

“You can’t pick your fans. They pick you,” Van Winkle added. “You’re just an entertainer. Don’t ever try to think you’re anything beyond that.”   

One dead and another injured in unrest following PSG victory celebrations

Get you up to speed: One dead and another in hospital in riots after PSG win | News World

One person has died and another is in intensive care following unrest in Paris after Paris Saint-Germain’s Champions League victory over Arsenal. More than 400 individuals were arrested as violence erupted, with police reporting the damage of vehicles and businesses across the city.

Overnight, police made 416 arrests across France, including 280 in Paris, and seven officers sustained injuries during the unrest. Authorities have implemented a robust security system to manage potential disturbances, having previously deployed thousands of officers in anticipation of unrest following PSG’s victory.

French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez termed the unrest following Paris Saint-Germain’s Champions League victory as “absolutely unacceptable” and confirmed that 416 arrests had been made. Players are scheduled to participate in a victory parade this afternoon, including a reception with French President Emmanuel Macron.

What remains unclear — The identity of the 17-year-old in intensive care has not been disclosed.

One dead and another injured in unrest following PSG victory celebrations

One person has died and another is in intensive careafter widespread unrest erupted following Paris Saint-Germain’s victory over Arsenal in the Champions League final.

More than 400 people were arrested overnight after tens of thousands of fans of the French club celebrated their team’s dramatic penalty shootout victory over Mikel Arteta’s Gunners yesterday.

Sadly, things turned nasty quickly with some fans setting off flares and fireworks, while e-bikes were seen being torched in Paris.

An unidentified 17-year-old is in intensive care after he suffered multiple wounds near Paris’ Champs Élysée.

One dead and another injured in unrest following PSG victory celebrations
Thousands of police officers were deployed across France to deal with the disorder (Picture: Reuters/Abdul Saboor)

Another man, 23, died after crashing his motorbike into a concrete block.

Sign up for all of the latest stories

Rioters also damaged six vehicles, two businesses and a bus shelter in violence that took place across the EU country, according to French police.

French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez branded the unrest ‘absolutely unacceptable’ as he revealed that seven officers had been injured in the violence.

As order was restored today, police said they had made 416 arrests, including 280 people in Paris.

The clashes were a sad repeat of last year’s violence when supporters of the French team caused chaos after winning the same trophy.

Authorities had braced themselves in advance and thousands of police officers were deployed across France to curb any unrest.

Nuñez said they had a ‘very robust, very solid system in place’.

Before the violence erupted overnight, there had been clashes between police and PSG supporters at the club’s Parc des Princes, where the club had erected giant screens for them to watch the final, which took place in Budapest.

Far-right leader Marine Le Pen wrote on X: ‘Only in France does a football club’s victory spark riots.

“Only in France does everyone feel compelled to lock themselves in their homes on the evening of a victory to avoid being confronted with violence.’

Players are due to take part in a victory parade this afternoon, which includes touring the Champ-de-Mars next to the Eiffel Tower and a reception held by French President Emmanuel Macron.

Comment now

Comments

Add WTX as a Preferred Source on Google

Add as preferred source

EU countries approve law to expedite return of irregular migrants

EU countries approve law to expedite return of irregular migrants

New Migration Law

The EU has agreed on the Return Regulation, enabling deportation centres outside the bloc for irregular migrants if agreements with non-EU countries are established.
Regulatory Changes

The law enables the establishment of deportation centres outside the EU, significantly altering existing protocols and allowing for broader operational control over irregular migration processes.
Official Statement
“This is a really very important step in making sure that we have control over what is happening in the EU, over who comes but also who has to leave the EU,” said Home Affairs Commissioner Magnus Brunner.

EU greenlights controversial return hubs in ‘strictest-ever’ new migration law

EU countries approve law to expedite return of irregular migrants

The EU countries and European Parliament on Monday agreed on a controversial law aimed at speeding up the return of migrants with no legal right to stay in Europe, marking the bloc’s toughest migration policy shift in decades.

Policymakers say the so-called Return Regulation is key to accelerating returns and is the cornerstone of the EU’s crackdown on irregular migration.

It also reflects a broader political shift in Europe, with conservatives — sometimes backed by the far right — pushing for a tougher approach to migration.

According to official figures, only 29% of migrants with no legal right to remain in Europe leave the EU.

“This is a really very important step in making sure that we have control over what is happening in the EU, over who comes but also who has to leave the EU,” Home Affairs Commissioner Magnus Brunner told reporters at the end of the talks.

At the heart of the law is a provision allowing EU countries to set up deportation centres outside the bloc, known as return hubs, if they conclude an agreement with a non-EU country.

“The next step is working more on migration diplomacy, together with third countries,” Brunner said, avoiding mentioning any possible third country to place return hubs.

The hubs can be either places of transit or locations where a person is expected to stay, marking a significant departure from current rules.

Most migrants can only be returned to their country of origin or to a country with which they have a proven connection. Under the new system, that requirement would be removed. Only unaccompanied minors would be exempt from being deported to a return hub, while families with children will be eligible.

Some EU countries are already working to identify potential partner countries for future return centres. Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Greece teamed up last March to implement the controversial project, while Italy is already running a similar scheme in Albania, with two centres accommodating fewer than a hundred migrants in total.

The law also allows EU countries to search a “place of residence or other relevant premises” of irregular migrants, a provision that NGOs and civil society compare to the notorious raids conducted by the US immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“The provision is vague on purpose, to allow a broad interpretation in the different member states. It opens the doors to home raids and also raids in the premises of associations helping migrants and healthcare facilities,” Eleonora Celoria from Asgi, an Italian association of legal experts, told EU News.

While she acknowledged that in many member states, police will still need a judicial warrant to enter private residences, she described the law as “worrying”, as it can encourage authorities to broaden their powers.

Other provisions include longer detention periods, tougher entry bans and new powers to locate irregular migrants.

The maximum legal detention period for irregular migrants waiting to be returned is increased from six months to two years, with a possible six-month extension and an unlimited duration for persons considered as posing a security risk.

Entry bans would also become significantly tougher, rising from five to ten years in most cases, with the possibility of lifetime bans for those considered a security risk.

Another change concerns appeals. Under current rules, deportations are automatically suspended while legal challenges are pending, while the new law would end that automatic protection, leaving courts to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a return order should be halted.

The regulation also introduces a European Return Order to facilitate the mutual recognition of return decisions across member states, but it will remain voluntary.

The implementation timeline was the most difficult issue in negotiations between the Council and Parliament. Under the compromise deal, some provisions will take effect 12 months after the regulation enters into force. The Council initially pushed for two years.

Civil society associations and left-wing MEPs have criticised the text, saying it will put migrant lives in danger and violate fundamental rights.

“The text finalised today is the result of a shameful agreement: the legal arsenal serving a xenophobic ideology is now complete,” Greens/EFA MEP Mélissa Camara told EU News after the talks concluded.

“This regulation will create a draconian detention and deportation system, from holding people in immigration detention for up to 30 months to tearing families apart and sending people to countries they do not know,” said Silvia Carta, advocacy officer at Picum, a network of different organisations supporting undocumented migrants.

The law will now need to be formally approved by MEPs and EU countries and could enter into force as soon as next month.

Justice Department halts $1.8 billion anti-weaponisation fund following judge’s ruling

Get you up to speed: Justice Department says it will stop work on $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” after judge’s ruling

The Justice Department has halted work on its $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund following a temporary block imposed by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia. The judge’s order prevents any further action regarding the fund while she reviews a lawsuit involving a former federal prosecutor connected to the January 6 Capitol assault.

The U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema has set a hearing for June 12 to consider longer-term relief following her temporary order preventing the Justice Department from proceeding with the “anti-weaponization” fund. The decision to halt operations reflects a broader bipartisan concern regarding the program’s implications and its alignment with ongoing legal challenges.

The Justice Department will cease operations on the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund following a district judge’s temporary block, stating it will comply with the ruling. This comes amid significant bipartisan pushback from Congress, with a hearing scheduled for June 12 to assess the fund’s future.

What remains unclear — It is unknown how the Justice Department’s temporary halt on the fund will affect ongoing legal challenges and future claims.

Justice Department halts $1.8 billion anti-weaponisation fund following judge’s ruling

Washington — The Justice Department said Monday that it will stop work on the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund following a district judge’s decision temporarily blocking the establishment of the program.

The move comes after the plan earned intense pushback from Republicans in Congress that threatened to imperil the GOP agenda on Capitol Hill.

The Justice Department said on X that it would abide by the judge’s ruling that halted work on the fund, effectively shelving plans for it for now.

“The Department of Justice disagrees strongly with the decision on the Anti-Weaponization Fund put forth by the United States District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, wherein the Court stated that, under no circumstances, may the Department of Justice proceed with the Anti-Weaponization Fund recently established in order to make up for the tremendous abuse, harm, and hate unfairly shown to so many people,” the department said on X

It continued: “This Fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise. The Department will abide by the Court’s ruling.”

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued an order on Friday that temporarily prevents the Justice Department from moving forward with the fund to “ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed” from it while she considered whether to issue longer-term relief.

Brinkema is overseeing a lawsuit brought by a former federal prosecutor who was involved in cases stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, and several other plaintiffs. Her order prohibits the Justice Department from “taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation” of the program for now, including transferring money to the fund, considering any claims submitted and disbursing any payments. A hearing is set for June 12.

The DOJ fund

The Justice Department announced the fund as part of a settlement of a civil suit brought by President Trump against the IRS stemming from the release of his tax returns by a former government contractor. The fund aimed to provide taxpayer-funded payouts to individuals who alleged the federal government had been “weaponized” against them. 

But the program drew intense scrutiny when allies of Mr. Trump’s, including some who were charged for their involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, expressed interest in submitting claims. The president granted clemency to roughly 1,500 defendants convicted for their actions on Jan. 6 on his first day back in office and has long claimed they were treated unfairly.

The decision not to contest Brinkema’s ruling reflects the headwinds the administration has been facing from lawmakers in both parties who had significant reservations about the program. House Speaker Mike Johnson met with Mr. Trump at the White House on Monday to discuss the fund, according to multiple sources familiar with the meeting.

The pushback came to a head during a Senate Republican conference meeting last month, in which senators voiced their concerns with the fund to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Senators said the closed-door meeting grew intense. Members expressed frustration about the fund and its timing, which ultimately led GOP leaders to scrap plans to vote on funding for the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration enforcement agencies.

Democrats threatened to force votes on the fund, putting Republicans in a difficult position as they tried to move forward on the funding for DHS. With some of their members likely to join Democrats in opposing the program, Senate Republicans had considered putting guardrails on the fund into the DHS bill itself, or otherwise finding avenues to dictate how the fund would operate and who might receive payments from it. Some also wanted to prevent those who assaulted law enforcement from being compensated.

As the Senate returned from a weeklong recess Monday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pledged that Democrats would launch a coordinated effort to quash the fund. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said at the Capitol on Monday that he spoke to the president about the fund over the weekend.

“I do think the best way to handle it is if the administration decides to shut it down themselves,” Thune told reporters. 

Mr. Trump and his GOP allies have long complained that the Biden administration unfairly targeted them through the justice system. The president defended the fund last month, saying he was helping people “who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized” Biden administration receive “justice.”

Separate from the political blowback, the “anti-weaponization” fund also faces legal scrutiny on other fronts. Several lawsuits challenging the program were filed soon after it was announced, and on Friday, the federal judge who was overseeing Mr. Trump’s suit against the IRS ordered the president to answer questions related to his decision to dismiss his case as part of the settlement agreement with his own administration and whether it should be reopened.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who sits on the district court in South Florida, was responding to a request from 35 former federal judges to reopen the case. The retired judges argued that the settlement, which ended Mr. Trump’s civil lawsuit against the IRS, “is a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the court.”

Williams wrote in a brief order that the judges made “grievous allegations” that Mr. Trump voluntarily dismissed the case “solely to avoid judicial scrutiny” of his lawsuit, which they said was filed solely to serve as the springboard for the settlement. 

LIVE German 2025 Election