The judge presiding over former US President Donald Trump's case, for allegedly mishandling classified documents after leaving office, indefinitely postponed the start of his trial on Tuesday.

Trump had been scheduled to go on trial on May 20 but US District Judge Aileen Cannon said that was not possible because of the number of pre-trial motions before the court.

Cannon, a Trump appointee, did not set a new date for the start of the federal trial and it is unlikely to take place before the presidential election, which will take place in November.

Cannon said in a five-page order that it would be "imprudent" to set a new date.

What is Trump accused of?

Trump is accused of illegally keeping highly sensitive information after leaving the Oval Office at the beginning of 2021.

In August 2022, the FBI raided his Florida mansion, seizing files classified as top secret.

Trump is also alleged to have made attempts to obstruct the probe. 

Trump's legal battles

Trump's attorneys have sought to delay his various criminal cases until after the presidential election, when the 77-year-old could potentially have the federal charges against him dropped if he returns to the White House.

Tuesday's development would appear to be a success for Trump, as he is trying to delay the start of the process as much as possible, with the presidential election just months away.

Trump is currently on trial in New York where he is accused of paying $130,000 in "hush money" to Stormy Daniels to remain silent about an affair ahead of the 2016 presidential election, an allegation the Republican candidate denies.

jsi/kb (AFP, AP, dpa, Reuters)

For many young people on social media platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok, it's hard to escape the beauty ideals and standards that are circulating, and these trends can be dangerous. At the moment, what seems to be "in" are a slim waist, round buttocks, and skinny legs.

Ten years ago, the "thigh gap" was all the rage. This is a space between the inner thighs that remains visible when women stand upright with their feet touching. Also known as "legging legs," its proponents argue that anyone can achieve the look — with enough dieting and exercise.

Though for most women with a healthy body weight it is considered dangerous to aspire to having a thigh gap, not everybody seems aware of this.

"Is a thigh gap healthy?" and, "How to get a thigh gap fast?" are just two of the questions that pop up in a quick Google search. "Tiny," "skinny," and "super slim" waist challenges abound. One consists of ensuring that a waist is so narrow that another person can comfortably wrap their arm around it and drink from a water bottle. 

"What I eat in a day" videos have also become popular, with young people, often women, recording in great detail what they claim is their regular diet on an ordinary day — mostly low-carb and sugar-free.

On the other hand, "body positivity" is another trend, with advocates arguing that people should accept their bodies the way they are. But social media users are unlikely to come across such content unless they actively seek it out, because social media algorithms are guided by users' search results and established viewing preferences.

Self-esteem boosted in a week

Research has consistently shown that social media can have an impact on users' self-esteem. A recent study by York University in the Canadian city of Toronto explored the effects of taking a break from social media for a short period of time. It found that the self-esteem and body images of women who stopped using social networks for just one week were significantly improved.

The researchers divided 66 female students into two groups, one of which continued to consume social media as usual, while the other had to refrain completely. They had all been asked in advance how they felt about their bodies and whether they would like to look like models.

When asked the same questions a week later, the body images of those who had refrained from social media had improved, particularly of those most likely to have internalized thin beauty ideals.

The authors said that it was rare to see such large effect sizes in this area of psychology research. They added that the improvements might be explained not only by the break from social media, but also by the fact the participants presumably replaced social media consumption with healthier behaviors, such as spending time with friends, playing sports, or spending time outdoors.

Use of social media platforms on the rise

Generally, people find it difficult to detach themselves from social media, particularly younger generations. Indeed, the average amount of time people spend on social media platforms has increased over the years.

In January, Meta, the tech giant that operates Facebook and Instagram, said that it would hide "age-inappropriate" content from the accounts of young people, provided they did not lie about their age.

So far, however, regulation attempts have shown little success, and meager compliance from tech companies obliged to enforce them. The EU's Digital Services Act, for example, designed in part to protect minors, requires network operators to delete or hide particularly problematic content, such as the glorification of eating disorders. But a report by the global nonprofit initiative Reset showed that not even 30% of harmful content was deleted when necessary. It even found that the social media platform TikTok tended to delete even less than that. Earlier this year, however, it did shut down the "legginglegs" hashtag.

This article was originally written in German.

 

Many people in the United States and observing the scene from abroad over the last several weeks may be asking themselves, "What's going on?"

The title of the 1971 song by soul legend Marvin Gaye spoke to an era of civil unrest sparked by war, racism and political disillusionment when students and young people were putting themselves at the center of demands for major change.

If he were still alive today, Gaye would likely find just as much reason to produce that hit. Once again, US youth are turning their university campuses into stages to spotlight what some have described as "genocide live-streamed on their phones and a Democratic president who is fully in support of that," Leigh Raiford, a professor of African American Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, told DW.

"There is a whole generation of people who will not vote for the Democratic Party, will not vote for Joe Biden," she said, explaining that Israel's treatment of Palestinians would be on the ballot for some voters in November.

That starkly contrasts with four years ago, when Biden defeated former US President Donald Trump partly by appealing to young people engaged in nationwide protests linked to the Black Lives Matter movement. The catalyst for that election-year turmoil and this one differ, but the pursuit of social justice overlaps.

Whether the election outcome will also differ in 2024 remains a matter of debate among pollsters and campaign strategists. Biden has tried to show a balance between his unwavering military support for Israel and an interest in alleviating the civilian toll. In recent weeks, he has more vigorously pushed for a cease-fire.

What are the protesting US students demanding?

"Anti-genocide encampments" have popped up on dozens of campuses across the US, with participants calling for an end to Israel's seven-month bombardment of Gaza. Its military campaign, which has killed nearly 35,000 people, began following Hamas' unprecedented attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. The German government, the European Union, the US and some Arab states classify the group as a terrorist organization.

Nearly half the dead are children, according to the United Nations, which uses figures from the Hamas-run Health Ministry. Many aid organizations have said the toll is likely an undercount.

The demands vary, but the protesters on university campuses broadly want the US, as the largest supplier of lethal aid to Israel, to end its "ironclad" commitment to the state, as Biden has often described it.

The president has said the protests will not alter his stance. However, his administration paused a shipment of ammunition to Israel this week, according to a report by Axios, a US news platform. It was not immediately clear why, but this marks the first such hold in the current round of escalation.

Students also want their universities, some of which maintain endowments worth billions of dollars, to divest from financial holdings in the weapons industry and Israel-related business.

With final exams and commencement approaching and under pressure from wealthy donors and politicians allergic to criticism of Israel, many universities have cited safety issues and other violations of campus policies as reasons to bring in police to clear out the protesters. At least 2,000 people have been arrested at universities across the country so far. 

Myriad reports, such as from campuses in Georgia, Texas and New York City, appear to show police using excessive force. Yet at University of California, Los Angeles, they were criticized for doing too little as masked pro-Israel counterprotesters attacked the Palestinian encampment there last week. Social media posts captured protesters chanting, "Where were you yesterday?" as law enforcement moved in to dismantle the encampment following the attack.

US has long tradition of trying to discredit activist groups

"This is yet another example of suppression from colleges and universities of students' pro-Palestinian speech," Amr Shabaik, the legal director of the Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement condemning the escalation.

Mindful of the roughly 1,200 people killed during Hamas' October attacks, many of them civilians, pro-Israel supporters have pointed to incidents of harassment or threats directed at Jewish students. They have presented circumstantial evidence alleging a connection between protest groups and foreign entities.

Many Jews have expressed solidarity with the protests, joining encampments and hosting traditional seder meals during last month's Passover holiday. The nuanced picture of who falls on what side has further complicated the universities' response.

For example, of the 282 arrests made at Columbia University and City College of New York on April 30, New York City police reported 71% and 40% had campus affiliation, respectively. Unlike Columbia, CCNY is a public college and remains more open to outsiders.

"These kinds of calls of 'outside agitation' are really dangerous, and they're also really disingenuous," said Raiford, currently in Germany as a fellow at the American Academy in Berlin.

She pointed to a long tradition of trying to discredit activist groups in the US, from the Red Scare of the early and mid-20th century to civil-rights and anti-war demonstrations of the 1960s and '70s, all of which opponents accused of Soviet or communist influence. Now, Raiford said, these movements have been seen as falling on the "right side of history."

"They called Martin Luther King an 'outside agitator,'" she added, referring to segregationists dead set against equal rights for all Americans.

There have been plenty of allegations to go around. A coordinated effort between pro-Israel groups in the US and the state of Israel has worked to quash pro-Palestinian voices, especially on campuses, according to reports by the US monthly magazine The Nation and the Qatar-based Al Jazeera news channel.

Freedom of speech vs. order

Universities have found themselves caught between competing pressures. Freedom of speech enjoys greater constitutional protection in the US than in many other democracies. Safety and access to education are also guaranteed rights.

While they have "legal obligations to combat discrimination and a responsibility to maintain order," Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote in an open letter to university officials, "it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution."

That mission, of teaching social and moral ideals to students so that they can "go out and change the world," Raiford said, clashes with US higher education that often serves as "spaces of consolidating the power of the ruling class."

Major institutions such as Columbia and the University of Chicago, both currently in the national spotlight, benefit from their student body's reputation for taking part in social and political change, which may be vilified in the moment but lauded in hindsight. When police in riot gear entered Columbia's Hamilton Hall last week, it was hard to miss the uncanny timing: They did the same thing exactly 56 years earlier, during anti-war and civil-rights protests.

Learning from history or doomed to repeat it

"We are in an equally divided time," Gregory Payne, the chair of communication studies at Emerson College in Boston, told DW. "As we had in 1970, we have now — a failure of leadership from the top all the way to the bottom."

Although one of the smallest colleges in the Boston area, Emerson has been the site of some of the city's biggest protest actions. Boston police arrested more than 100 people near its campus at the end of April, breaking up an encampment that authorities said was on public property and violated city ordinances.

The situation across the US could still escalate, with Biden and state governors under pressure to call in the National Guard to confront protesters. Payne said it was already a minor miracle that nobody has been killed.

That would only add to the historical parallels. In May 1970, Ohio National Guard troops opened fire on an anti-war protest at Kent State University, killing four students and wounding another nine. It wasn't the only fatal encounter between demonstrators and authorities at that time, but it is the one burned into the memories of many Americans like Payne, who has spent much of his career teaching it.

"Fundamentally, what's important and what's needed now, just as it was then — something we need every day — is dialogue," Payne said.

Edited by: Anne Thomas

Iran, home to the world's largest oil and gas reserves, has been repeatedly subjected to sanctions since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. In 2012, for instance, the US and EU embargoed Iranian oil exports over the country's controversial nuclear program.

In response to a massive April 14 Iranian drone attack on Israel, the US and EU again revved up sanctions against Tehran. But how are they being implemented?   

The Biden administration and the UN's Iran arms embargo

Claim: "Reminder: Biden allowed the UN sanctions on Iran's drones and ballistic missiles to expire less than six months ago. The very same drones and missiles en route to Israel right now," television commentator Morgan Ortagus wrote on the social media platform X. Ortagus served as a State Department spokesperson for the Trump administration from 2019 to 2021. 

DW fact check: False.

The UN arms embargo against Iran expired on October 18, 2020 — before Biden was elected president and long before he took office on January 20, 2021.

The embargo ended exactly five years after the adoption of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal, an international treaty designed to curb Iran's nuclear program.

As part of the JCPOA, the United Nations Security Council agreed on July 20, 2015, to relax its existing arms embargo by unanimously adopting Resolution 2231.

The change, however, was scheduled to go into effect only after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed Iranian compliance with JCPOA rules regarding its nuclear program to the Security Council.

Under then-President Donald Trump, the US withdrew from the JCPOA on May 8, 2018, only to unilaterally reinstate the sanctions lifted by the JCPOA on August 6, 2018.

In September 2020, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that sanctions relief had been reversed and that measures outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 2231 would also apply to Iran once again.

That was not the case. On August 26, 2020, the Security Council blocked a US initiative to that end on the grounds that the US had unilaterally withdrawn from the international treaty and had therefore forfeited its right to propose changes.

The US has increased sanctions against Tehran several times since 1979. A comprehensive list of all US sanctions against Iran since 2001 has been compiled by the non-partisan United States Institute for Peace. 

Sanctions relief on humanitarian grounds?

Claim: "Biden has made direct payments and relaxed sanctions on Tehran since the day he took office. Iran used that money to attack Israel," wrote one enraged X user. US Representative Bryan Steil, a Republican from Wisconsin, agreed, writing: "President Biden just renewed a sanctions waiver to allow Iran access to $10 billion. Meanwhile, Iran is enriching uranium closer to nuclear levels and its proxies are shooting missiles at our servicemembers [sic], killing 3." 

DW fact check: Misleading.

No direct connection between sanctions relief and Iran's recent attack on Israel has been shown to date. Nevertheless, it is true that President Biden has repeatedly ordered the suspension of Iran sanctions. Here are a few examples:

In February 2022, Biden attempted to enable indirect US-Iranian negotiations aimed at reviving the 2015 JCPOA by issuing "sanctions waivers" for Russian, Chinese and European companies.

In July 2023, after a meeting with his Iraqi counterpart, Fuad Hussein, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that the US would unblock Iranian assets in Iraq, allowing Baghdad to repay a portion of the billions it owed Tehran for natural gas supplies.

In August 2023, President Biden allowed Tehran access to some $6 billion (€5.58 billion) in oil assets frozen in South Korea in exchange for the release of five US hostages held in Iran.   

This March, the US president allowed Iran access to another $10 billion in frozen assets. White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby justified the step in an April 15 press conference as follows: "And as for this — this unfreezing, that — none of that fund — none of those funds — funds set up in an account, by the way, by the previous administration — goes directly to the Supreme Leader of the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps]. It can only be used for humanitarian purposes. And we're watching that account very, very closely to make sure that that's what happens."

Sanctions expert Claude Rakisits of the Brussels-based research hub Centre for Security, Diplomacy and Strategy (CSDS) disagrees with Kirby's assessment, saying: "The money it [Iran] got from the waiver will have facilitated Teheran to buy and produce arms." His claim cannot be proven.

US President Biden, on the other hand, defended his sanctions policy in an April 18 statement, saying: "During my Administration, the United States has sanctioned over 600 individuals and entities — including Iran and its proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Kataib Hezbollah. And we will keep at it. I've directed my team, including the Department of the Treasury, to continue to impose sanctions that further degrade Iran's military industries."

Iranian economic growth and increased arms exports despite sanctions

Claim: "Sanctions against Iran make no sense if they don't include China," wrote German-Iranian journalist Natalie Amiri on X. Other users have described sanctions as "utterly pointless" because they cannot be enforced.

DW fact check: Correct.

Sanctions create a drag on economic growth, reduce investment and lead to joblessness and poverty. The trajectory of per capita GDP in Iran clearly illustrates the decline the country has suffered as a result of sanctions leveled against it since 1979.

For example, in 2020, per capita GDP fell to $2,700, the same as it was in 2004 (see chart). Still, despite international sanctions, the country's economy has not been entirely destroyed.

"Despite ongoing sanctions and increased geopolitical uncertainty, economic growth has proven resilient over the past several years," a World Bank analysis concluded. 

Sanctions experts such as the CSDS's Claude Rakisits agree: "Western sanctions against Iranian drones and weapons haven't worked because Tehran has gotten weapons or components from other sources," he told DW. Speaking of deliveries mainly from China, North Korea and Russia, Rakisits said, "An effective alliance exists between these dictatorships."

This article was translated from German by Jon Shelton

The US Federal Reserve's announcement on Wednesday (May 1) that it would not be cutting interest rates any time soon was not a surprise.

For the past few months, inflation has crept back up steadily, causing significant headaches for policymakers, central bankers and investors who had been expecting not one but several interest rate cuts over the course of 2024.

The picture is not hugely different in Europe. Germany's inflation rate rose more than expected in April, on the back of strong food and energy prices. That has also reduced expectations that the European Central Bank (ECB) will make several rates cuts this year, as some had anticipated.

This recent data is "not really settling the issue of 'the last mile,'" Francesco Papadia, a senior fellow with the think tank Bruegel and a former director general for market operations at the ECB, told DW. "The news is not bad, but not as good as one may wish."

That last mile he refers to is getting inflation down to a consistent rate of 2%, a goal which has been shared by European and US central bankers since they began tackling the global surge in inflation which began in 2021 and peaked towards the end of 2022.

It leaves the US Fed in a particularly tricky position. "For the Fed, the threshold to raise rates is still greater than the threshold to cut," Diane Swonk, chief economist at consultancy KPMG US, told DW. "But they're starting to both get pretty high."

Inflation returns with a bang

From 2021-23, inflation rates around the world hit their highest levels in decades as the global economy adjusted to various shocks, from the COVID-19 pandemic to the war in Ukraine. Central banks responded with aggressive interest rate hikes.

US interest rates are currently at a 23-year high of 5.25% to 5.5% while in the eurozone, the ECB is currently holding rates at record highs of between 4% and 4.75%.

"Interest rates are the main tool for the central bank to influence the economy," said Papadia. "The mechanism is simple — if you raise interest rates, investments go down because the cost of funding those investments go up. If you increase interest rates, you affect consumption, as people are then more likely to delay spending."

For central banks devoted to economic stability, "interest rate changes are the most important tool," he added.

That helps explain why the Fed and the ECB are both so cautious at present regarding possible interest rate cuts. In late 2023 and early 2024, inflation rates were edging closer and closer to the stated 2% goal and it appeared inevitable that the aggressive interest-rate policy could be quickly rolled back.

However, with inflation creeping back up, there are fears that rate cuts now could make the problem worse and push inflation even higher.

"It is likely to take longer for us to gain confidence that we are on a sustainable path down to 2% inflation," Fed chair Jerome Powell said during his announcement on Wednesday. "I don't know how long it will take."

It leaves US policymakers in a somewhat awkward holding position, according to Swonk. "They're stuck waiting, and that frustrates financial markets," she said. However, she believes they are extremely wary of cutting too early as evidenced towards the end of 2023, when they did not cut despite falling inflation rates.

"The one thing the Fed has not done is to prematurely cut. It knows that is the biggest cardinal sin," she said. "They will not prematurely cut. They've been down this path before."

European vs. US inflation

In Europe, inflation appeared to be under reasonable control until April inflation data for Germany and Spain were released showing increases of 0.5% and 0.7% respectively compared with March. However, ECB policymakers have strongly suggested they will cut rates for the first time in five years at their June meeting, with eurozone core inflation on the whole slowing to 2.7% in the first quarter of 2024.

In the UK, outside of the EU but still part of the overall European economy, interest rate cuts are also expected soon.

"I wouldn't go as far to say that inflation has been tamed, but the outlook is certainly less concerning than it was in the middle of last year," Andrew Goodwin, chief UK economist with Oxford Economics, told DW. "We expect the Bank of England to begin cutting interest rates in the summer."

While the European and US inflation situations mirror each other to a certain extent, a key difference according to experts is that European inflation has been largely influenced by energy prices, whereas in the US, surging demand backed by a booming economy has pushed prices back up.

"The situation is different in the United States, and the European economy is just not showing the same degree of buoyancy as the American one," said Papadia.

Swonk agrees and says a key part of the overall story is what she calls the "remarkable resilience" of the US economy, which saw the "fastest deceleration in inflation in nearly 50 years and the longest span of low unemployment figures since the 1960s."

"To think that with all the rate hikes we had, the economy accelerated? That's remarkable resilience and that's good. The hard part is it also came with some heat."

Interest rate hikes?

Now, the big question in the US is whether or not interest rates will actually be increased rather than cut, a situation that seemed unthinkable just a few months ago.

Powell suggested this week that would not be the case, but the stubbornly high inflation seen in recent months continues to cast some doubts.

"It's probably not as bad as it looks, but we won't know until we get into the summer or into the late spring how much this is going to stick or not," said Swonk.

Edited by: Uwe Hessler

Lauded US novelist Paul Auster has died of complications arising from lung cancer, aged 77. Auster, who was born in the US but celebrated world wide, died at his home in Brooklyn, New York, on Tuesday night.

Auster, who published 34 books throughtout his career, didn't always make things easy for readers. He confronted the big issues of life through his deliberate literary confusions and unfurled his stories in compound sentences, yet his books drew a large and devoted audience.

A bumpy start

Auster was born on February 3, 1947, in Newark, New Jersey to parents of Austrian Jewish descent. He was fascinated by books from an early age and started writing poetry as a child. He earned degrees in English and comparative literature from Columbia University in New York City before joining the merchant navy for six months, then following in James Joyce's footsteps in Ireland and settling in France in 1971. Auster worked as a translator in Paris for several years, during which time he met Irish writer Samuel Beckett, who had a huge influence on his own writing.

 

But Auster's own writing career had a bumpy start. After returning to the US in 1974, he wrote plays and published volumes of poetry that failed to find a wide audience. At best, he achieved critical praise in 1982 with the memoir "The Invention of Solitude.”

First success with "City of Glass”

To earn a living, Auster taught at Columbia University and later Princeton University, and worked translating and publishing French authors, including Jean-Paul Sartre. He sent the manuscript of the novel "City of Glass” to 17 publishers, all of whom turned it down. It was finally released by a small publisher in California in 1985 and promptly hit the bestseller list, as did his next two novels, "Ghosts” (1986) and "The Locked Room” (1986).

Those three books form Auster's "New York Trilogy,” which all begin like classic detective stories but then develop plots that pose existential questions. They earned Auster a reputation as a heavy hitter in contemporary US literature.

He continued to write, tirelessly. "In the Country of Last Things” (1987) is a dystopian epistolary novel describing the world from the point of view of a homeless woman. "Moon Palace” (1989) deals with a search for identity. Further works include "Leviathan” (1992), "The Book of Illusions” (2002), "Oracle Night” (2003), "Man in the Dark” (2008), "Sunset Park” (2010), and "4 3 2 1” (2017).

Toying with readers' expectations

Many of Auster's books take place in New York, where he lived. They often refer to real-life events such as the wars in Vietnam or Iraq, or the 2007 real estate crisis that drove many Americans to financial ruin. His characters lose their way and stumble aimlessly through life. Auster also often used his books to muse on his own existence as a writer. Putting stories down on paper was his obsession. "Writing is not an act of free will for me; it's a matter of survival," he once told German weekly newspaper Die Zeit. He admitted that he constantly felt pressure to keep writing, to keep working.

That pressure resulted in a substantial oeuvre comprising novels, essays, autobiographical sketches, translations, and poems. His non-fiction output includes "Burning Boy,” his 2021 biography of 19th century American writer Stephen Crane, who died of tuberculosis at just 28 years of age.

Auster's books have been translated into more than 30 languages and won numerous awards, including Spain's prestigious Prince of Asturias Prize in 2006. His work is arguably more popular in Europe than in the United States and it was often speculated that he might win a Nobel Prize in Literature.

Not content to limit himself to literature, Paul Auster also turned his hand to film. He wrote the screenplay for the movie "Smoke,” directed by Wayne Wang, which won the Silver Bear award at the 1995 Berlin Film Festival. He even directed films himself, including 2007's "The Inner Life of Martin Frost,” which originated as a fictional movie about an author, described in Auster's novel "The Book of Illusions.”

Auster often mined his own life for his work. That included writing repeatedly about Daniel Auster, the writer's son with his first wife, writer Lydia Davis, even as Daniel drifted into drug addiction starting in his teenage years. In 2022, Daniel's infant daughter died of an accidental overdose of heroin and fentanyl, and Daniel was charged with manslaughter and negligent homicide. Ten days later, Daniel himself died of a heroin overdose. By that point, the elder Auster had stopped writing about his son and he made no public comment about the double tragedy. 

Political convictions

Paul Auster made no secret of his political opinions, describing them in 2012 to The Irish Times as "far to the left of the Democratic Party.” Yet he supported that party because he believed its candidates had a better chance at winning elections than socialist candidates.

Following the election of Donald Trump as president in 2016, Auster took a more active political position. He and his wife, writer Siri Hustvedt, were among the co-founders of the organization Writers Against Trump, which was renamed Writers for Democratic Action after the election of Joe Biden. The group is committed to social justice and civil rights, including voter rights. Auster said he felt that the danger that the candidate with fewer votes could still win was the biggest threat to democracy, along with the deep divisions among the population of the US.

Hustvedt posted about her husband's cancer diagnosis on Instagram in March 2023. Auster died on April 30 of complications arising from lung cancer, friends of the family confirmed. Auster is survived by Hustvedt, their daughter together Sophie Auster, his sister Janet Auster, and a grandson.

This article was originally written in German in 2022. It was updated on May 1, 2024.

The US Senate recently approved legislation that gives the short-form video app TikTok a nine-month deadline to either sell its US operations to an American company or face a nationwide ban. The reason: Chinese parent company ByteDance is allegedly subject to Chinese government influence, and may therefore pass on sensitive data from American citizens to the regime in Beijing.

ByteDance has denied the allegations, but the bill still became law on Wednesday when, following the Senate's approval, it was signed by President Joe Biden.

The TikTok discussions in Europe focus on a different aspect. EU authorities have argued that the app poses a high risk of addiction, especially for young users, and can also cause other forms of psychological damage. In response, the company has discontinued a reward function in the EU that had been part of the spinoff app TikTok Lite and which rewarded video views with gift certificates for real products.

Countries that have shut down or banned TikTok

China's neighbor, India, was among the first countries to have placed restrictions on TikTok and other Chinese apps. India banned some 60 Chinese apps, including TikTok, during a military confrontation along the Himalayan border that it shares with China. A permanent ban has been in place since 2020, with the stated justification being the data security of its citizens.

In contrast, moral concerns are what led the Taliban to ban the app in Afghanistan in 2022, roughly one year after it retook control of the country. The app is also not available to users in Iran. Within Iran, it's said TikTok has blocked Iranian IP addresses. For its part, however, the totalitarian regime in Tehran has blocked nearly all the major social media platforms such as YouTube, X, Instagram, WhatsApp, Facebook and Telegram. 

The TikTok app has also been banned for similar reasons by the governments of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Nepal and Somalia.

Countries with a partial TikTok ban

Nearly all the governments that have placed restrictions on TikTok say they have done so in order to protect their citizens from negative consequences such as data abuse, suspected false information and "enemy propaganda," as well as moral and psychological harm.

The app has therefore not been entirely banned in all cases. Pakistan, for instance, has temporarily blocked TikTok for inappropriate content on multiple occasions.

In most cases, the app was subsequently made available again once the company adjusted its filters to block the offending content.

For example, in Russia such content includes anything that presents the country's invasion of Ukraine in a different light than that of the official Kremlin narrative. And in China, the app is blocked on foreign devices, so that only the Chinese version can be used. 

Other countries have temporarily blocked TikTok, such as Azerbaijan in 2020, when the conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh heated up, or Senegal in 2023, following the arrest of then-opposition politician Ousmane Sonko. 

Countries with TikTok restrictions for government officials

At present there are 16 countries, most of them in Europe, that have banned installing or using TikTok on government work cellphones.

The bans vary greatly in their reach. In the US and Canada, federal government employees have been prevented from installing the app on their work devices since early 2023, and most US states have introduced similar rules.

March 2023 brought a cascade of orders from governments, including in Australia and New Zealand, requiring their employees delete the app from their work phones. The same thing occurred in the UK, the Netherlands and Norway. In Denmark, the TikTok ban only applies to employees in the Defense Ministry, while in Latvia it's for workers in the Foreign Ministry.

TikTok in Germany

In Germany, the parties that make up the current government coalition (the Greens, the center-left Social Democrats and the neoliberal Free Democrats) are currently considering regulating TikTok or banning its use on federal government employee devices. The conservative Christian Democratic opposition has even pressed for a total ban.

However, there are currently no restrictions on TikTok in Germany. The far-right populist party Alternative for Germany has been particularly successful in using the app to target young voters.

This article was originally written in German.

Following the decision of the New York appeals court to overturn Harvey Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction and order a new trial, reactions have poured in, many expressing dismay at the turn of events.

The court on Thursday argued that the previous ruling had committed serious errors in recognizing invalid testimonies in the landmark trial that drove the#MeToo movement.

The decision was based on "erroneous" occurrences during the initial process, including a decision to let women testify about allegations that weren't part of the case.

'Unfair to survivors'

Charlotte Proudman, a barrister and equal rights activist, posted on X that "every survivor who relived their trauma and gave evidence in court, will probably have to do it ALL over again. When victims say the 'justice system' re-traumatizes them, this is what they mean."

Key figures in the #MeToo movement have also spoken out, including Ashley Judd, the first actress to come forward with allegations against the movie producer.

"That is unfair to survivors," Judd told a news conference on Thursday, according to The New York Times. "We still live in our truth. And we know what happened."

Katherine Kendall, another of Weinstein's accusers to speak out following the decision, told the Times that Thursday's development was "a terrible reminder that victims of sexual assault just don't get justice. I'm completely let down by the justice system right now," before adding, "I'm sort of flabbergasted."

DW spoke with Jayson Campadonia, news director at NBC News Radio & iHeart Media, who said the Weinstein court ruling is "sending shock waves" through Hollywood. 

'Tremendous victory,' says Weinstein lawyer

Weinstein's lawyer said Thursday that he always believed the law was incorrectly applied in the Hollywood producer's trial, and hailed the overturning of the conviction as a great day for the US justice system.

"From the bottom of our hearts, from our collective hundreds of years of experience, we knew that Harvey Weinstein did not get a fair trial," Arthur Aidala, head of Weinstein's legal team, told reporters. "We all worked very hard and this is a tremendous victory for every criminal defendant in the state of New York." 

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose predecessor Cyrus Vance brought the case, will now have to decide how to proceed.

"We will do everything in our power to retry this case, and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault," Emily Tuttle, a spokesperson for Bragg, said in an email, according to the Reuters news agency.

 

The long US presidential election campaign is well underway, and Joe Biden can use all the good economic news he can get. The economy, or at least voters' perception of it, will have a lot to do with his chances for reelection. 

In March, employers created more than 300,000 jobs and unemployment stood at 3.8%. At the same time, March's inflation rate rose a bit over February and it's anyone's guess when interest rates will come down.  

One thing the president is convinced of is the importance of semiconductor chips — and making those chips in the US. In 2022, the government passed the CHIPS and Science Act and is now squeezing out every dollar it can to attract manufacturers, and that's adding up to be a lot of dollars.

Is Taiwan's weakness America's advantage?

Today, semiconductors power much of our modern life, from smartphones, vehicles and satellites to military equipment, data centers and generative artificial intelligence. 

Though semiconductor chips were invented in America, manufacturing has mostly moved elsewhere. Currently, most high-end semiconductor chips are made in Taiwan. Only about 10% of chips are made in the US, and none of the most advanced ones. Even superchips designed in the US by the likes of Nvidia, are made elsewhere.

One problem with this system is the vulnerability of global supply chains. Natural disasters, pandemics and human factors like embargoes and armed conflicts have had an impact on supply chains, said Alan Rae, director of the NYS Centers of Excellence and Advanced Technology at the University at Buffalo in New York.

The reliance on Taiwan is especially fraught. Nearby China claims the island and many fear a possible military strike or invasion that would substantially disrupt the world's economy. Plus, the island recently suffered from its strongest earthquake in 25 years.

Rae, an expert on semiconductor manufacturing with decades of experience, is a keen industry watcher. "Taiwan has done a superb job building a complete ecosystem for leading-edge chip production," he told DW. "Duplicating this will take significant money and effort but is achievable."

America responds with CHIPS and Science Act

To diversify away from Taiwan and Southeast Asia, a number of countries like Germany are trying to attract chipmakers. But the US is more determined to onshore advanced chipmaking than most. The Biden administration sees this as a way to build up domestic jobs and overcome national security vulnerabilities.

The CHIPS and Science Act is its main tool. Here, "chips" stands for "Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors." One provision of the law gives $39 billion (€36.6 billion) in federal grants to the Commerce Department to lure companies to build or expand US-based semiconductor manufacturing. It allocates another $75 billion for loans, among other measures.

At a podium discussion in February, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said semiconductors are the "most important piece of hardware in the 21st century" and that the US must cement its leadership role in this crucial industry.

To help make this happen, her department is using money from the CHIPS Act to make "targeted investments in relentless pursuit of achieving our national security objectives," she said.

Importantly, they are focusing on research and manufacturing clusters and projects that will be operational by 2030 to "maximize our impact in this decade."

Billions in grants are being handed out

Now the money is starting to flow, with the first grants going to GlobalFoundries, Microchip Technology and BAE Systems.

In March, Biden announced a $8.5 billion grant for Silicon Valley-based Intel to help it build up chip production across four states. It was the biggest grant so far and comes with an additional $11 billion in loans.

In early April, another $6.6 billion in direct funding and $5 billion in loans was announced for Taiwan-based TSMC to build in Phoenix, Arizona. The company plans to invest more than $65 billion in three manufacturing facilities. The first site should be online 2025.

A week later, the US government announced $6.4 billion for South Korea's Samsung to expand an existing facility plus build two new ones in Texas. The company, which has been manufacturing in America since 1996, also promised to set up a research and development operation in the state. In total, the company is expected to invest more than $40 billion.

Building up an industry in an election year

Next in line is Micron Technology, the biggest maker of memory chips in the US. Micron is set to receive up to $6.1 billion in grants from the US government to help build semiconductor plants in New York and Idaho, the White House said Thursday.

That will bring total federal grants to more than $33 billion and leave just over $6 billion to splash out on the industry. In addition to these direct grants and loans are billions in promised tax credits to cover a large part of building costs.

Construction and manufacturing should create tens of thousands of well-paid jobs. But big investments are only one side of the equation; workforce development is also important, and so is access to a supportive supplier ecosystem, said Rae.

Creating jobs and bringing manufacturing back to the United States are a big part of Biden's economic policy. But investing billions in a single industry — no matter how important — may not woo enough voters.

Moreover, voters' memories are short, said John Mark Hansen, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago in Illinois. Still, evidence shows that "a strong economy benefits the party of the incumbent president and a poor economy hurts it."

And looking at the economy, "the best predictor of election outcomes is the growth in real disposable income per capita," Hansen told DW. In other words how much money people take home after inflation and taxes. There are still a few months before the election in November, "but it doesn't look as bad for Biden as everybody seems to think."

Edited by: Uwe Hessler

TikTok is one of the most popular apps with children and young people worldwide, but it has also sparked considerable controversy. The Chinese video-sharing platform has been in the news recently as both the United States and the European Union have taken action against it.

What steps is the US taking against TikTok?

US President Joe Biden has signed a bill into action that forces TikTok's Chinese parent company to sell the app or face a US ban. This comes after the US Senate voted in favor of bill on Tuesday.

The bill stipulates that parent company ByteDance must sell off TikTok within 270 days, though provides a possibility for a 90-day extension if progress is made. Failing to do so, TikTok will be removed from the Apple app store and Google's Play Store.

The US move stems from data protection concerns. Chinese TikTok parent company ByteDance is suspected of giving or being forced into passing on user data to the Chinese Communist Party. In the US, some 170 million people currently use the app. There are also concerns China could use TikTok to spread propaganda and disinformation. TikTok itself rejects these accusations.

Why is the EU taking aim at TikTok?

The EU has also set its sights on TikTok, albeit for entirely different reasons. A probe will examine whether TikTok Lite's reward function — allowing users to earn money for certain tasks — endangers the mental health of young app users and thus violates EU rules. The new app has been available in France and Spain since April.

Large social media platforms such as Facebook, X, Instagram and TikTok have had to comply with the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) since August 2023. The DSA is intended to prevent illegal or harmful online practices. The EU also prohibits "dark patterns" designed to keep users coming back to online platforms.

The EU Commission criticizes TikTok for launching the new TikTok Lite app in France and Spain without having sufficiently assessed the risks beforehand. TikTok had until April 18 to submit a risk report but initially missed the deadline. It was then given another deadline and submitted a risk assessment this Tuesday, according to TikTok.

In doing so, TikTok has for now avoided steep EU fines. The bloc, after all, can impose fines of up to 1% percent of total annual company revenue. The EU could also block TikTok Lite's controversial reward function.

Back in February, the EU already launched a probe into TikTok over child protection concerns.

Why is TikTok Lite considered so addictive?

TikTok Lite differs from the standard TikTok app in that it builds on a rewards system. Anyone who watches videos, likes content and invites friends to join TikTok Lite can earn digital coins in return, which can be exchanged for Amazon vouchers and other rewards. This rewards system is highly addictive, says the EU Commission.

TikTok Lite, which also features many music and dance videos, is particularly popular with children and young people. According to the terms of use, individuals must be at least 13 years old to use the app. Anyone under the age of 18 also needs either their parents or legal guardians to give their consent, although it is not clear whether the platform checks users' age, according to the Commission.

Is TikTok more addictive than other social media platforms?

The video-sharing platform's algorithms are slightly different than those used by other social media platforms and may therefore get users hooked faster. TikTok displays videos that other users find appealing instead of primarily focusing on content from accounts that a user subscribes to.

TikTok's algorithms are extremely intelligent. The more time users spend on TikTok, the more precisely the platform can predict what content they might like.

This is not without consequences. In March 2023, US daily The Washington Post cited a study which found that almost half of all adolescent girls on TikTok reported feeling addicted to the platform. Researchers found that when girls use TikTok, they spend more than 2.5 hours on the platform, with those experiencing symptoms of depression logging even longer times. Some of these girls reported using the app practically all the time.

A Pew Research Center later that same year found that 17% of teens described their TikTok use as "almost constant." No other app seems to have such a strong pull on young people.

This article was originally written in German. It was updated on April 25.

For sale: The lucrative US business of one of the world's most successful social media platforms with a billion users across 140 countries.

Sounds like a good deal for someone with ambition and money. But Chinese-owned TikTok isn't just any short-video-sharing app. It is a phenomenon changing social media and how people communicate.

Claims of national security concerns in the United States don't make things any easier. In addition, protectionist attitudes and sentiment on China in general have turned dark and Congress is moving fast to force the company's hand.

US Congress in control?

The US government now sees TikTok as more than entertainment — it's a news and information platform that can be used for propaganda, too. For decades, the US had restrictions on foreign ownership of traditional media like radio or cable stations; for policymakers restrictions on TikTok are a logical 21st-century consequence.

On April 24, US President Joe Biden signed a bill aimed at forcing a change of ownership of TikTok into law after the US Senate approved it by a large margin.

TikTok may be waiting for a knight in shining armor to save its US business. Yet the pool of available buyers is small and Elon Musk is already busy reworking X, formerly known as Twitter. Who else can they turn to? What will happen to the 170 million US users if TikTok just can't be sold?

A short history in 60 seconds

This isn't TikTok's first time on the possible selling block. Former President Donald Trump tried with an executive order to force ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, to sell the subsidiary to an American owner back in 2020.

It seemed a deal with Oracle was close, but those efforts failed, as did an attempt to keep the app out of app stores. 

Since then TikTok said it has gone to great lengths to delete the data on American users from ByteDance servers and move all that information to US-based servers, a move it calls Project Texas. This should, in theory, keep the data out of the hands of Chinese surveillance.

Experts like Milton Mueller, a cybersecurity expert at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, doubt there is any real security threat after having looked at all the evidence. Still, many US politicians and government intelligence and security agencies don't seem appeased and want to take it to the next level. 

Who would want to buy TikTok?

With all that in mind, buying all — or just the American part — of TikTok would not be a usual business transaction. It would be a geopolitical minefield. Would ByteDance still be a majority shareholder calling the shots in the background? Who would run and update its powerful algorithm?

Mueller, who looks at TikTok several times a week, thinks a sale is "theoretically possible but highly complicated and not likely." He added that "China's government might not allow it, and it is unclear what is gained, or even what it means, to sell 'part' of a globally interconnected social media service."

ByteDance seems ready for a legal fight. For its part, the Chinese government has been restrained. But they could try to prevent a sale by putting an export ban on the technology behind the app. Without its algorithm, TikTok would be less attractive.

Besides that, it's hard to put boundaries and prevent access to something as free-flowing as an app. App stores would have to block all new downloads and updates for those who have it already.

There is also a short timeline. Mueller has talked with a number of TikTok people recently who say as a technical or operational matter divestiture doesn't work in such a short period. They would have six months, "whereas the Grindr divestiture from a different Chinese company took a year," he said.

A big big-ticket item

The challenges just pile up. Any ban in America would surely lead to First Amendment constitutional challenges. "It would be US users whose speech would be suppressed, not foreigners or the Chinese government," Mueller said. 

Then there's the price. Several analysts think that despite all the difficulties, TikTok's US business could sell for over $50 billion (€45.8 billion). There are only a few companies that could afford to spend that much, like Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft or Netflix.

Some of these companies would then end up in the crosshairs of antitrust officials for owning too much important technology.

Alternatively, all or part of TikTok could be spun off as an independent publicly listed company. Or US-based private equity giants could step in.

After the House of Representatives vote in March, former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said he is working to put together a group of investors to take over the company without announcing any details. Ironically, Mnuchin was one of the people pushing for a sale four years ago while he was a member of Trump's Cabinet. 

It's likely not about apps at all

Yet, in the end, it's not about good business or even national security, said Mueller. "It is a pawn in the broader US-China power competition, and it is also exploited for symbolic reasons."

"Equating a commercial social media app with espionage, and calling TikTok's Singaporean CEO an agent of the Chinese Communist Party, is obviously inaccurate," but sells well to both Republicans and Democrats "who see the US as engaged in a competition with China to retain US hegemony," he said.

Forcing an ownership sale would also set a dangerous precedent that could be used by other governments against US social media companies.

In the end, Mueller expects such digital protectionism to lead to "less competition and innovation in the social media market." And there is always the next national security threat. Perhaps Chinese-made electric vehicles or battery systems? The retaliation may never end.

So, anyone interested?

Edited by: Uwe Hessler

Editor's note: The article, originally published on March 20, 2024, has been updated to reflect President Joe Biden's signing of the bill to force a change in ownership of TikTok's US business into law.

The great lawn in the center of Columbia University's Manhattan campus is normally where students meet up to study in the sun, or before heading out into the Morningside Heights neighborhood for drinks. These days, it has become the central gathering point for protesters in a movement that has spread from the Middle East to New York and universities across the United States.

Columbia president called police on protesters

On April 18, Columbia University's president, Nemat (Minouche) Shafik, called the New York City Police Department to campus, where officers in riot gear arrested more than 100 students who had set up tents on the campus green to protest Israel's military operations in Gaza.

"I took this extraordinary step because these are extraordinary circumstances," Shafik wrote in a campus-wide email Thursday afternoon, saying she had made the decision with "deep regret."

Columbia also suspended the students who were arrested; nevertheless, tents have since started to pop back up.

Professors walk out in solidarity with students

On Monday, hundreds of Columbia faculty members staged a walkout to demonstrate their solidarity with the student protesters and criticize university leadership. The university announced that classes would be held remotely on Monday, and later said they would be taught in a hybrid model for the remainder of the school year.

The students are protesting the military strikes the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have been carrying out in Gaza in response to the terror attack by militant-Islamist Hamas on October 7, 2023, which saw 1,200 people killed by Hamas and around 240 people taken hostage. More than 34,000 people have since died in Gaza according to the Hamas-run health ministry, and the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territory has been described by international organizations as catastrophic, with barely any food, water or medication available to the population.

"We demand our voices be heard against the mass slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza," Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a coalition of pro-Palestinian Columbia student groups, wrote in a statement shared Monday on Instagram. "Our university is complicit in this violence and this is why we protest." 

NYU, Yale and other universities also see protests

In recent days, pro-Palestinian student protests have spilled over from Columbia to other universities. At New York University, a subway ride away from Columbia, a student encampment swelled to hundreds of protesters on Monday. After university authorities asked people to leave and claimed the scene got disorderly, they, too, called police, who arrested several students.

Harvard Yard, a central area at Harvard University outside of Boston, was closed to the public Monday, and structures, including tents and tables, were only allowed into the yard with prior permission.

At Yale University in Connecticut, police officers arrested about 45 protesters and charged them with misdemeanor trespassing on Monday. All were released on promises to appear in court later, police said.

Across university campuses, protesters have called for their schools to back a ceasefire in Gaza and divest from companies with ties to Israel.

Accusations of antisemitism

There have also been accusations of antisemitism against the protests.

NYU leadership said it had learned of "intimidating chants and several antisemitic incidents" at its student protest.

Shafik said antisemitic harassment had recently taken place on the Columbia campus. "The decibel of our disagreements has only increased in recent days," the university president said. "These tensions have been exploited and amplified by individuals who are not affiliated with Columbia who have come to campus to pursue their own agendas."

The student coalition organizing the protest at Columbia has rejected antisemitism accusations against the protest as a whole, saying it was a few individuals trying to co-opt their cause who behaved in an unacceptable manner.

"We firmly reject any form of hate or bigotry and stand vigilant against non-students attempting to disrupt the solidarity being forged amount students — Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, Jewish, Black, and pro-Palestinian classmates and colleagues who represent the full diversity of our country," the group said in its Instagram statement.

US's Israel policy unpopular with young Americans

The widespread protests make clear that many young Americans are unhappy with President Joe Biden's Israel policy. Historically, the US has always been a close ally of Israel, and Washington continues to be Israel's strongest backer in its current conflict with Hamas.

When Israeli troops began military operations in Gaza, Biden emphasized the US's strong allegiance with Israel. But as more and more civilians in Gaza have been killed, many people on the liberal spectrum in the US — especially young voters — have voiced dismay about their tax dollars being used to fund Israel. They want the president to call for a permanent cease-fire in Gaza and stop all aid to Israel.

The US stance does have an effect on Israel's actions. After a series of Israeli airstrikes killed several aid workers this spring, Biden issued an ultimatum, saying the US would change its supportive policy if Israel didn't address civilian suffering in Gaza and the safety of aid workers. After the statement, Israel immediately announced steps aimed at increasing the flow of aid to Gaza.

Edited by: Jon Shelton

The US House of Representatives passed on Saturday a bill that could see the popular video creation and sharing app TikTok banned in the country unless it divests from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance.

The bill passed with 360 votes in favor, and 58 against. It is expected to go to the Senate for a vote next week.

The bill was included as part of a larger legislative package providing aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

TikTok warned that, if passed into law, the bill would "trample the free speech rights of 170 million Americans, devastate 7 million businesses, and shutter a platform that contributes $24 billion (€22.5 billion) to the US economy, annually."

US President Joe Biden has said he would approve the legislation if it makes its way to him.

What does the bill stipulate?

The bill gives Chinese owner ByteDance nine months to sell the app, with a potential three-month extension if a sale was underway. The parent company would also be barred from controlling TikTok's algorithm, which feeds users videos based on their needs.

Steven Mnuchin, who served as US treasury secretary under former President Donald Trump, has said he is interested in acquiring the app and has assembled a group of investors.

The latest bill is a revision of an earlier one passed by the House in March, which required ByteDance to sell TikTok within six months. However, some senators were concerned six months would be too short a deadline.

Why is there opposition to TikTok?

US officials have sounded the alarm over the app's growing popularity, particularly among young people, claiming it could allow Beijing to spy on its some 170 million users in the country.

A number of Chinese national security laws compel organizations to assist with intelligence gathering. Lawmakers and officials are also wary that Beijing could directly influence TikTok content based on its interests.

TikTok has denied that it could be used as a tool for the Chinese government or that it has ever shared US user data with Chinese authorities, vowing never to do so even if asked.

The bill's opponents argue that Beijing could easily get data on US citizens in other ways, including through commercial data brokers that sell or rent personal information.

Among the opponents of the bill is billionaire Elon Musk, who now owns the social media platform X, formerly Twitter.

"TikTok should not be banned in the USA, even though such a ban may benefit the X platform," Musk said. "Doing so would be contrary to freedom of speech and expression."

rmt/wd (AFP, AP)

The United States House of Representatives on Saturday approved a bill clearing the way for billions of dollars in funding for Ukraine.

The $61 billion (€57 billion) package, that includes economic assistance and weapons, had been delayed by Republicans for months.

It was passed with a bipartisan majority of 311-to-112 votes. The bill also allows the US to confiscate and sell Russian assets and give the money to Ukraine for reconstruction.

Addressing the issue, Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal wrote on Telegram that the US had shown leadership and resolve in fighting for peace and security, adding: "We will receive an important resource for victory and reconstruction. I call on other countries where Russian assets are held to follow this example."

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he was grateful to US lawmakers for a decision "that keeps history on the right track."

The bill was part of a foreign aid and arms package valued at $95 billion (€89 billion) that also includes aid for Israel and Taiwan. 

It will head to the Senate next, where passage in the coming days is all but assured as Democrats hold a slight majority in the upper chamber.

US President Joe Biden praised lawmakers from both parties, saying that "at this critical inflection point, they came together to answer history's call."  

"I urge the Senate to quickly send this package to my desk so that I can sign it into law and we can quickly send weapons and equipment to Ukraine to meet their urgent battlefield needs," he added.

How did the world react to the vote?

Ukraine's Zelenskyy welcomed the vote, saying it would, "save thousands and thousands of lives."

In a statement on X, formerly Twitter, he added: "We hope that bills will be supported in the Senate and sent to President Biden's desk. Thank you, America!"

NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg also hailed the US House of Representatives approval of a long-awaited aid package for Ukraine's war effort.

"I welcome that the US House of Representatives has approved a major new package of aid to Ukraine. Ukraine is using the weapons provided by NATO Allies to destroy Russian combat capabilities. This makes us all safer, in Europe and North America," Stoltenberg said on X.

And European Council President Charles Michel said approving aid to Ukraine sends a "clear message" to Russia. "Those who believe in freedom and the UN charter will continue to support Ukraine and its people," he wrote on X.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said it was a day of optimism for Ukraine and European security. "A major hurdle for US aid to Ukraine has been cleared. The hearts of Ukraine's most important supporters are beating in unison again," she wrote on X.

Moscow's reaction was decidedly less enthusiastic, with Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov saying: "The decision to provide aid to Ukraine was expected and predicted. It will further enrich the United States of America and further ruin Ukraine. It will lead to even more dead Ukrainians."

Why was the aid package stalled?

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson has faced a protracted uphill battle from hardline Republicans over the bill, with continued financing of Ukraine's defensive effort against Russia's invasion hanging in the balance for months.  

The foreign aid legislation is similar to a measure passed by the Senate in February, but it contains some differences designed to win over House conservatives. 

Republicans who opposed the bill had demanded that stronger controls first be put in place to curb the arrival of migrants at the southern US border.

With Republicans holding only a slim majority, Johnson was dependent upon Democratic votes to pass the legislation

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has meanwhile been making desperate attempts to try and shore up support among allies as resources and ammunition stockpiles dwindle.

Funding for Israel and Taiwan

Around $14 billion has been allocated for Israel as it continues its fight against Palestinian militant group Hamas in Gaza, while around $9 billion would be for providing humanitarian assistance to Gaza and the West Bank.

The bill also covers reimbursement for US military operations in the region in response to recent attacks.

The rest of the funds are set aside for US partners in the Pacific to counter China, with some $3.3 billion allocated toward the development of submarine infrastructure.

The US House of Representatives on Saturday also passed a bill that would force ByteDance, the Chinese parent company of TikTok, to sell the popular video platform or face a nationwide ban in the United States, where it has about 170 million users.

kb,dh/nm,lo (AFP, AP)

The record-breaker was vintage Caitlin Clark: a 3-point shot from such a long-distance that it's known as a "logo shot” because she is beyond even the extended mid-court logo of the arena at the University of Iowa. The shot was slightly off-balance, but swished through and sent all of those recording the moment on their mobile phones into a state of delirium.

"I don't know if you could script it any better," Clark said. "Just to do it in this fashion, I'm very grateful and thankful to be surrounded by so many people who have been my foundation in everything I've done since I was a young little girl. Y'all knew I was going to shoot the logo 3 for the record, c'mon now."

"It was absolutely perfect," Iowa coach Lisa Bluder said, "for her to go over and reach this record with a logo 3."

The record in question was to become the all-time women's career scoring leader in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) history. After a timeout to mark the moment, Clark continued her hot hand finishing with a school-record 49 points on nine 3-pointers, and with 13 assists. Iowa, the fourth-ranked team in the country, defeated rival Michigan, 106-89.

No.1 Pick

Clark's huge night in February put her at a record 3,569 points in her four-year career. Among those offering congratulations on her record on social media were former president Barack Obama and well-known former American football players Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and his brother, Eli Manning.

In April, Clark was chosen as the number one pick in the WNBA draft by the Indiana Fever. It was no surprise as the former Iowa star has become a household name among basketball fans and she is now tasked with reviving the Fever's fortunes.

Olympics on the horizon

After the much-watched NCAA ‘March Madness' tournament, Clark is now set to play her first professional game in mid-May when the league's season begins. 

It is also possible, despite her youth, she could be invited to the next Team USA pre-Olympic camp with a good chance she could display her prowess before a global audiencein Paris starting in late July. 

The 21-year old could prove an extraordinary asset to the US side, which has won seven consecutive Olympic gold medals.

Clark's 3-point success percentage, even including the logo bombs from more than 35 feet, or 10.6 meters, is over 40 percent in the season just finished, and has hovered in that range during all four years of her university career. For comparison, WNBA star Kelsey Plum, whose career scoring record Clark broke, has a career 3-point success rate of over 39 percent. NBA 3-point ace Stephen Curry owns a career success rate of over 42 percent.

Clark is the face of women's basketball, and is expected to quickly become a star in the quicker and more physical professional ranks. Whether at the Paris Games in 2024, or in 2028 and 2032, she is likely to became a known commodity internationally, if not an outright global star. 

Editing by: Mark Meadows

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican Party nominee for the November 2024 US presidential election, is no stranger to the courtroom. In January 2024, a jury in New York ruled that he would have to pay writer E. Jean Carroll millions of dollars in damages for sexually abusing and then defaming her, a decision that Trump is appealing. That was a civil case.

Now, Trump is about to become the first former US president ever to go on trial for criminal charges. The case, which will be heard in a New York court beginning on April 15, centers on whether he paid hush money to bury stories about an extramarital sexual encounter with a porn star to protect his 2016 campaign for the White House.

It's the first of four criminal trials — two state and two federal — that Trump has coming up. The other state case centers on alleged attempts to overturn his loss in Georgia in the 2020 presidential election; one federal case charges that he knowingly pushed election fraud lies in 2020 to try to stay in power; and another charges that he illegally retained classified government documents when he left the White House, a violation of the Presidential Records Act. 

Can Donald Trump still run for president if convicted? 

Yes. No matter how any of these cases end, Trump will still be able to run for president. The US Constitution sets only three eligibility requirements for persons wanting the job: They must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old and have resided in the US for at least 14 years. Nowhere does it say that a convicted criminal cannot run for or become president. 

"There are several arguments over whether a presidential candidate who is indicted or is involved in an ongoing legal case should still run for office," Laura Merrifield Wilson, associate professor of political science at the University of Indianapolis, told DW in December 2023. "But those are based on morals, judgement and preferences, not overt laws or procedural barriers."

Could Trump be disqualified under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution?

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states that people who "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" after taking an oath to support the constitution are disqualified from holding "any office, civil or military, under the United States."

Activists who want Trump disqualified under this clause say the then-president's actions in the run-up to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol constitute participation in an insurrection. They say his lies about how Democrats stole the election encouraged the right-wing mob that stormed the US Capitol that day.

Attempts have been launched to have Trump removed from primary ballots in a number of states under this amendment, "which was originally used to prevent secessionists from returning to their government positions after the American Civil War," explained former DW journalist Brandon Conradis, now a campaign editor with political news site The Hill.

But in March 2024, the Supreme Court struck down one such attempt in Colorado, saying states do not have the authority to bar individuals from running for federal office.

The "responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests with Congress," wrote the Supreme Court in the opinion that accompanied its verdict. The decision thus voided similar attempts in other states.

Since Congress is split, with Republicans holding the majority in the House of Representatives and Democrats having a one-seat majority in the Senate, it seems highly unlikely that Trump will be disqualified under the 14th Amendment.

Could Trump vote in the US election if convicted? 

Probably not. Trump is registered to vote in Florida, where convicted felons are disenfranchised.

"Most felons in Florida regain voting rights after completing their full sentence, including parole or probation, and paying all fines and fees," politics reporter Maggie Astor wrote in The New York Times.

But Trump's parole would likely not be up in time for him to regain his right to vote. So, if convicted, Trump could still run for president, but not vote for himself.

But what happens if Trump actually has to go to prison? 

No one knows.

"We're so far removed from anything that's ever happened," Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law expert at the University of California, Berkeley, told The New York Times. "It's just guessing."

Legally, Trump would remain eligible to run, even from behind bars. But of course a president who's elected while in prison would present a logistical challenge.

Journalist Astor speculated that "Trump could sue to be released on the basis that his imprisonment was preventing him from fulfilling his constitutional obligations as president."  

But again ― since nothing like this has ever happened in the course of US history — it's impossible to say how things might play out.

If elected, could Trump dismiss the cases against him or pardon himself? 

In theory, Trump could commute his prison sentence and leave his conviction in place, or even try to fully pardon himself, but these would be extreme assertions of presidential power that would likely go before the Supreme Court (where conservative justices hold a 6-3 majority) to be vetted for their constitutionality.

Alternatively, President Joe Biden could pardon a victorious Trump on his way out the door so that the man elected by US voters could govern the country.

Such actions, however, would only apply to Trump's federal cases, not the upcoming New York state hush money trial, nor the Georgia election interference case, as presidents do not have the power to grant pardons for state convictions.

Edited by: Jon Shelton