Connect with us

News

UK and EU locked in intense talks over key terms of post-Brexit reset

Published

on

UK and EU locked in intense talks over key terms of post-Brexit reset

Britain and the EU are locked in intense haggling over key details of their revamped relationship, including on fisheries, food trade and youth mobility, ahead of a historic first joint summit since Brexit.

The summit at Lancaster House in London on Monday will see both sides sign a security and defence partnership, the centrepiece of the “reset” in relations, but talks in Brussels on other details ran late into Sunday night.

The EU offered Britain a new open-ended deal to lower barriers to trade in agrifood, but only in exchange for a 10-year rollover of a current deal allowing EU fishermen to operate in UK waters.

Downing Street, which had previously offered a five-year extension, declined to comment on the offer, confirmed by officials on both sides. Sir Keir Starmer, UK prime minister, knows he risks being accused of “selling out” by British fishermen.

The summit is due to start at 10am on Monday, and EU ambassadors will meet early on Monday to consider the results of the last-minute horse-trading by UK officials and European Commission negotiators.

Advertisement

One senior EU diplomat said there would be a deal, adding: “They will need to find a solution, even if it takes the whole night.”

Starmer is scheduled to sign the defence pact and a communiqué promising deeper economic co-operation during a two-hour meeting with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and European Council president António Costa.

The EU-UK summit, the first since Brexit took effect in 2020, is expected to emphasise a spirit of reconciliation, but the tense talks in Brussels on Sunday were a reminder that the relationship is now highly transactional.

British officials said on Sunday evening that “huge progress” had been made in some areas but that “negotiations are going down to the wire”.

Details of the EU-UK deal are highly politically sensitive. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has warned that Starmer is about to “surrender” British interests.

Advertisement

British officials admitted that the EU would not agree to an open-ended deal to remove post-Brexit barriers to trade in food and animals — one of the biggest “asks” of the UK — unless Brussels was satisfied with a deal on fish.

“We want to give confidence to business,” said one UK official, admitting that a time-limited veterinary deal — known as a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement — would leave too much uncertainty for farmers and supermarkets.

Brussels had insisted that any SPS deal should only last for as long as Britain agreed to maintain current fishing rules for EU boats. European diplomats viewed the offer of an unlimited SPS deal in exchange for a 10-year fisheries agreement as a significant concession.

Meanwhile Britain has conceded that removing barriers to trade in foodstuffs will require the UK to “dynamically align” with rules made in Brussels, and also make payments to the EU to fund work on food and animal standards. Conservatives claim this is a “betrayal” of Brexit.

The EU is also trying to get Britain to sign up to an ambitious youth mobility scheme — including better access for students to UK universities — in a “common understanding” communiqué to be issued alongside the defence pact.

Advertisement

The EU has warned Starmer that it will not make it easier for British touring musicians to travel across national borders in Europe or for UK travellers to use passport e-gates unless he is bolder on youth mobility, according to officials briefed on the talks.

Starmer has conceded that a youth mobility scheme will happen, but is trying to keep the language in the communiqué vague, allowing detailed talks about controversial areas such as numbers and student fees for further negotiations later this year.

Downing Street said the Lancaster House summit would include an agreement to cut “queues on holiday”, with European relations minister Nick Thomas-Symonds confirming on Sunday he was looking for a deal to allow the use of e-gates at borders.

But a second EU diplomat denied the request — which was also previously made by Starmer’s predecessor Rishi Sunak — had been granted.

“Starmer sees some of the outcomes of the summit as a done deal already which is not the case, and he wants to appear as a dealmaker,” the diplomat said. “UK negotiators need to show they really want a reset on a ‘win-win’ basis, and not only look at potential gains for one side only.”

Advertisement

One person involved in talks on the EU side said the discussions had always been expected to go to the wire. “The British are tough negotiators. But we should get a deal in the end.”

EU diplomats complained of Starmer’s recent tactics to force a deal. Last week British ministers called counterparts in EU capitals to push for a deal, bypassing the commission — which one diplomat dubbed a “divide and rule tactic”.

Issues that are unresolved overnight could be “kicked into the long grass” for further talks, British officials say, although the EU wants to extract as many firm commitments as possible from London now.

Details of the final text are due to be published at midday on Monday, but Starmer and his EU interlocutors will be at pain to stress areas of agreement, rather than tensions exposed by the painful last-minute talks.

Additional reporting by Barbara Moens in Brussels

Advertisement

News

Trump administration sends letter wiping out addiction, mental health grants

Published

on

Trump administration sends letter wiping out addiction, mental health grants

A demonstrator holds a sign during International Overdose Awareness Day on Aug. 28, 2024 in New York City.

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

The Trump administration sent shockwaves through the U.S. mental health and drug addiction system late Tuesday, sending hundreds of termination letters, effective immediately, for federal grants supporting health services.

Three sources said they believe total cuts to nonprofit groups, many providing street-level care to people experiencing addiction, homelessness and mental illness, could reach roughly $2 billion. NPR wasn’t able to independently confirm the scale of the grant cancellation. The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) didn’t respond to a request for clarification.

“We are definitely looking at severe loss of front-line capacity,” said Andrew Kessler, head of Slingshot Solutions, a consultancy firm that works with mental health and addiction groups nationwide. “[Programs] may have to shut their doors tomorrow.”

Advertisement

Kessler said he has reviewed numerous grant termination letters from “Salt Lake City to El Paso to Detroit, all over the country.”

Ryan Hampton, the founder of Mobilize Recovery, a national advocacy nonprofit for people in and seeking recovery, told NPR his group lost roughly $500,000 “overnight.”

“Waking up to nearly $2 billion in grant cancellations means front-line providers are forced to cease overdose prevention, naloxone distribution, and peer recovery services immediately, leaving our communities defenseless against a raging crisis,” Hampton said. “This cruelty will be measured in lives lost, as recovery centers shutter and the safety net we built is slashed overnight. We are witnessing the dismantling of our recovery infrastructure in real-time, and the administration will have blood on its hands for every preventable death that follows.”

Copies of the letter sent to two different organizations and reviewed by NPR signal that SAMHSA officials no longer believe the defunded programs align with the Trump administration’s priorities.

The letter points to efforts to reshape the national health system in part by restructuring SAMHSA’s grant program, which “includes terminating some of its … awards.”

Advertisement

According to the letter, grants are terminated as of Jan.13, adding that “costs resulting from financial obligations incurred after termination are not allowable.”

The National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors sent a letter to members saying it believes “over 2,000 grants [nationwide] with a total of more than $2 billion” are affected. The group said it’s still working to understand the “full scope” of the cuts.

This move comes on top of deep Medicaid cuts, passed last year by the Republican-controlled Congress, which affect numerous mental health and addiction care providers.

Kessler told NPR he’s hearing alarm from care providers nationwide that the safety net for people experiencing an addiction or mental health crisis could unravel.

“In the short term, there’s going to be severe damage. We’re going to have to scramble,” he said.

Advertisement

Regina LaBelle, a Georgetown University professor who served as acting head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, said the SAMHSA grants pay for lifesaving services.

“From first responders to drug courts, continued federal funding quite literally save lives,” LaBelle said. “The overdose epidemic has been declared a public health emergency and overdose deaths are decreasing. This is no time to pull critical funding.”

Requests for comment from SAMHSA and the Department of Health and Human Services were not immediately returned.

This is a developing story.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

Published

on

Video: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

new video loaded: Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

transcript

transcript

Clashes With Federal Agents in Minneapolis Escalate

Fear and frustration among residents in Minneapolis have mounted as ICE and Border Patrol agents have deployed aggressive tactics and conducted arrests after the killing of Renee Good by an immigration officer last week.

“Open it. Last warning.” “Do you have an ID on you, ma’am?” “I don’t need an ID to walk around in — In my city. This is my city.” “OK. Do you have some ID then, please?” “I don’t need it.” “If not, we’re going to put you in the vehicle and we’re going to ID you.” “I am a U.S. citizen.” “All right. Can we see an ID, please?” “I am a U.S. citizen.”

Advertisement
Fear and frustration among residents in Minneapolis have mounted as ICE and Border Patrol agents have deployed aggressive tactics and conducted arrests after the killing of Renee Good by an immigration officer last week.

By Jamie Leventhal and Jiawei Wang

January 13, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Lindsey Halligan argues she should still be U.S. attorney, accuses judge of abuse of power

Published

on

Lindsey Halligan argues she should still be U.S. attorney, accuses judge of abuse of power

Top Justice Department officials defended Lindsey Halligan’s attempts to remain in her position as a U.S. attorney in court filings Tuesday, responding to a federal judge who demanded to know why she was continuing to do so after another judge had found that her appointment was invalid.

The filing, signed by Halligan, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, accused a Trump-appointed judge of “gross abuse of power,” and attempting to “coerce the Executive Branch into conformity.”

Last week, U.S. District Judge David Novak, who sits on the federal bench in Richmond, ordered Halligan to provide the basis for her repeated use of the title of U.S. attorney and explain why it “does not constitute a false or misleading statement.” 

Novak gave Halligan seven days to respond to his order and brief on why he “should not strike Ms. Halligan’s identification as United States attorney” after she listed herself on an indictment returned in the Eastern District of Virginia in December as a “United States attorney and special attorney.”

U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie had ruled in November that Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney was invalid and violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, and she dismissed the cases Halligan had brought against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. 

Advertisement

The statute invoked by the Trump administration to appoint Halligan allows an interim U.S. attorney to serve for 120 days. After that, the interim U.S. attorney may be extended by the U.S. district court judges for the region. 

Currie found that the 120-day clock began when Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Siebert was initially appointed in January 2025. Currie concluded that when that timeframe expired, Bondi’s authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney expired along with it. 

The judge ruled that Halligan had been serving unlawfully since Sept. 22 and concluded that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” had to be set aside. That included the Comey and James indictments.

In their response, Bondi, Blanche and Halligan called Novak’s move an “inquisition,” “insult,” and a “cudgel” against the executive branch. The Justice Department argued that Currie’s ruling in November applied only to the Comey and James cases and did not bar Halligan from calling herself U.S. attorney in other cases that she oversees. 

“Adding insult to error, [Novak’s order] posits that the United States’ continued assertion of its legal position that Ms. Halligan properly serves as the United States Attorney amounts to a factual misrepresentation that could trigger attorney discipline. The Court’s thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and an affront to the separation of powers,” the Justice Department wrote.

Advertisement

In his earlier order, Novak said that Currie’s decision “remains binding precedent in this district and is not subject to being ignored.”

The Justice Department called Currie’s ruling “erroneous”: and said that Halligan is entitled to maintain her position “notwithstanding a single district judge’s contrary view.”

On Monday, the second-highest ranking federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, Robert McBride, was fired after he refused to help lead the Justice Department’s prosecution of Comey, a source familiar with the matter told CBS News. McBride is a former longtime federal prosecutor in Kentucky’s Eastern District and had only been on the job as first assistant U.S. attorney for a few months after joining the office in the fall. 

Halligan is a former insurance lawyer who was a member of President Trump’s legal team, and joined Mr. Trump’s White House staff after he won a second term in 2024. In September, Halligan was selected to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after her predecessor abruptly left the post amid concerns he would be forced out for failing to prosecute James.

Just days after she was appointed, Halligan sought and secured a two-count indictment against Comey alleging he lied to Congress during testimony in September 2020. James, the New York attorney general, was indicted on bank fraud charges in early October. Both pleaded not guilty and pursued several arguments to have their respective indictments dismissed, including the validity of Halligan’s appointment, and claims of vindictive prosecution.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending