Connect with us

Politics

As Colombia ends its immigration standoff with Trump, Mexico looks eager to avoid a clash

Published

on

As Colombia ends its immigration standoff with Trump, Mexico looks eager to avoid a clash

President Trump’s tariff threats to pressure Colombian President Gustavo Petro to accept U.S. deportation flights served as a warning to the entire region.

But while Petro attempted to stand up to Trump — with only mixed results — Mexico, the country most affected by U.S. policy on migration, appears to be playing it safer.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Monday said her government is continuing to receive U.S. flights full of deportees, and is accepting a small number from third countries.

“The relationship with the United States is special,” Sheinbaum told reporters. “We are obliged to have a good relationship.”

Administration officials trumpeted their success so far in pressing other nations to accept deportees. But leaders from Latin American countries point out that they have been allowing hundreds of such flights to land for many years.

Advertisement

The stakes vary country to country. Colombia is a minor trade partner with the U.S., and not a major supplier of migrants.

The impasse between the United States and Colombia over deportation flights ended after a day of threats and counter-threats.

Petro early Sunday turned back two U.S. military flights carrying deportees as part of Trump’s plan to expel millions of migrants. Petro said he would receive deportees but only under “dignified conditions.”

In response, Trump said he was ordering a 25% tariff on all Colombian exports to the U.S., rising to 50% in a week if flights were not resumed. Trump also threatened a raft of visa restrictions and other financial punishment.

The two sides rushed into late-night negotiations. Late Sunday, they agreed to a series of conditions and said the flights would resume. The White House said Petro had accepted all of Trump’s terms. Colombia said it had received assurances of the “dignified conditions” that Petro had demanded.

Advertisement

For Trump, the episode gave him a chance to show the rest of Latin America the risks they face if they do not fall in line with his deportation plan.

The stakes are higher for Mexico, the United States’ largest trade partner and the largest single source country for migrants who cross the U.S. border without legal authorization.

Sheinbaum has studiously avoided conflict with Trump. Unlike Petro or her predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Sheinbaum has been matter-of-fact about Mexico’s willingness to cooperate with the U.S. on issues of migration.

It’s a stance, she points out, that is not new.

At her daily news conference, Sheinbaum said Mexico had received some 4,000 migrants deported from the United States in the days since Trump’s inauguration, a number of deportations that she said was about average.

Advertisement

Sheinbaum opted to stay out of the fray in Colombia’s conflict with the U.S., despite her clear ideological affinity with Petro, a fellow leftist.

Instead, Sheinbaum insisted on the importance for Mexico of maintaining good relations with the U.S.

She lauded the fact that Mexico and Colombia had come to an agreement.

“The important thing, I said from Day 1, is to always act with a cool head, defending the sovereignty of each country and respect between nations and peoples,” Sheinbaum said.

Significantly, she suggested some of those deportees were not Mexican.

Advertisement

The issue of whether Mexico should accept migrants from “third countries” has been a major point of negotiation between the U.S. and its neighbor to the south. During Trump’s first term, asylum-seekers from a variety of countries who had crossed the U.S. border were forced to return to Mexico until they were allowed entry to the U.S. for their hearings.

Sheinbaum suggested that Mexico might repatriate some of the non-Mexican migrants to their native countries.

“We would seek mechanisms through migration policy and foreign policy for returning people to their countries of origin,” she said. She said that Mexico would negotiate with the United States over who would foot the bill for those repatriations.

Taking in third-country deportees is particularly controversial.

Stephanie Brewer, the director for Mexico at the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights advocacy group, said Mexico’s decision to receive deportees from other countries was disappointing.

Advertisement

“It’s unfortunate, because policies are being normalized that are absolutely abnormal,” Brewer said. “A big priority driving the recent actions is the public relations and the public messaging part of it and broadcasting this message of, ‘Look at all the people we’re deporting on military planes.’”

The brief drama with Colombia was a reminder, she said, that Trump “will very quickly resort to threats when it comes to forcing other countries to cooperate.” Yet meanwhile, she said, real lives hang in the balance.

“These Mexican non-nationals have become bargaining chips in the bilateral relationship, where both sides negotiate how many people Mexico accepts, which nationalities, and the format of returns,” she said. “That comes at a cost of human families and individuals who are seeking protection.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Published

on

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

new video loaded: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

transcript

transcript

Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

“Good evening. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.” “Well, thank you very much. We’re looking at the construction. Thank you.”

Advertisement
Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

By Nailah Morgan

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

Published

on

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

San Antonio has shut down its out-of-state abortion travel fund after a new Texas law that prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions and a lawsuit from the state challenging the city’s fund.

City Council members last year approved $100,000 for its Reproductive Justice Fund to support abortion-related travel, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue over allegations that the city was “transparently attempting to undermine and subvert Texas law and public policy.”

Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit on Friday after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.

WYOMING SUPREME COURT RULES LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION VIOLATE STATE CONSTITUTION

Advertisement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side. (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton said in a statement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”

But San Antonio’s city attorney argued that the city did nothing wrong and pushed back on Paxton’s claim that the state won the lawsuit.

“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas,” the San Antonio city attorney’s office said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he will continue opposing the use of public funds for abortion-related travel. (Justin Lane/Reuters)

Advertisement

Paxton’s lawsuit argued that the travel fund violates the gift clause of the Texas Constitution. The state’s 15th Court of Appeals sided with Paxton and granted a temporary injunction in June to block the city from disbursing the fund while the case moved forward.

Gov. Greg Abbott in August signed into law Senate Bill 33, which bans the use of public money to fund “logistical support” for abortion. The law also allows Texas residents to file a civil suit if they believe a city violated the law.

“The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly,” the city attorney’s office said in its statement. “After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law.”

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law in August that blocks cities from using public money to help cover travel or other costs related to abortion. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The broader Reproductive Justice Fund remains, but it is restricted to non-abortion services such as home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception and STI testing.

The city of Austin also shut down its abortion travel fund after the law was signed. Austin had allocated $400,000 to its Reproductive Healthcare Logistics Fund in 2024 to help women traveling to other states for an abortion with funding for travel, food and lodging.

Continue Reading

Politics

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

Published

on

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

“Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power.”

Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record that would probably have served him well had he decided to run in a state where Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

Advertisement

Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they would not run for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering, he said.

“I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again because of term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

Advertisement

California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

According to his political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s Legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

Advertisement

Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the state Assembly, and the couple have three children.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending