Connect with us

Published

on

The US Supreme Court has rejected Colorado state attempts to remove Donald Trump from the ballot for president.

He can now remain on the ballot for president in the state after the court rejected claims he was accountable for the Capitol riots in 2021.

On his social media platform after the ruling, Trump wrote: “BIG WIN FOR AMERICA!!!”

Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic president Joe Biden in November’s US election.

His only remaining rival for his party’s nomination is former South Carolina governor, Nikki Haley.

The Colorado Supreme Court said in December Trump could not stand for election in the state because he had “engaged in insurrection or rebellion”.

The judges ruled Trump was disqualified because he had incited the 6 January riot at the Capitol building in Washington DC in an attempt to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election.

The 14th Amendment’s Section 3 bars from office any “officer of the United States” who took an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”.

“We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office.

“But states have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency,” the unsigned opinion for the court stated.

A Supreme Court police officer stands outside the United States Supreme Court building after justices unanimously reversed a Dec. 19, 2023 decision by Colorado's top court to kick Donald Trump off the state's Republican primary ballot, in Washington, U.S., March 4, 2024. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Image:
A police officer outside the Supreme Court building in Washington DC following Monday’s ruling. Pic: Reuters

Read more:
The storming of the Capitol – how the violence unfolded
What is Super Tuesday – and why does it matter so much?
Nikki Haley makes history with Washington DC victory

The justices found that only Congress can enforce the provision against federal officeholders and candidates.

Trump was also barred from the ballot in Maine and Illinois based on the 14th Amendment, but those decisions were put on hold pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Colorado case.

The former president’s eligibility had been challenged in court by a group of six voters in Colorado – four Republicans and two independents – who portrayed him as a threat to American democracy and sought to hold him accountable for the 6 January riots.

In a bid to prevent Congress from certifying Mr Biden’s 2020 election victory, Trump supporters attacked police, broke through barricades and swarmed the Capitol.

Trump had given an incendiary speech to supporters beforehand, repeating his false claims of widespread voting fraud and telling them to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell”.

Then, for a number of hours, he ignored requests for him to urge the mob to stop.

The ruling came on the eve of Super Tuesday – the day in the US presidential primary cycle when the most states hold party nominating contests.

Ruling from top US court was not unexpected

This is a sweeping victory for Donald Trump, but it isn’t a great surprise.

It was all about whether Donald Trump was disqualified from running again for president because of his involvement in the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.

The Supreme Court in Colorado (each state has its own top court) had concluded he was involved in an insurrection and that this fact disqualified him from running for president under a clause in the US Constitution’s 14th amendment.

Two other states, Maine and Illinois, made similar decisions.

But now the US Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, ruled that individual states do not have the authority to determine whether a presidential candidate is ineligible under a provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The justices’ ruling makes it clear the US Congress, not individual states, set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced.

“Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing section 3 against all federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” the ruling said.

This means the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado.

The top court is often accused of being politically driven because the justices are appointed by the president.

It’s currently weighted towards conservatives.

But in this case, the ruling was unanimous – 9-0, undermining any suggestion of political motivation.

Continue Reading

World

LA fires: Data and videos reveal scale of ‘most destructive’ blazes in modern US history

Published

on

By

LA fires: Data and videos reveal scale of 'most destructive' blazes in modern US history

The fires that have been raging in Los Angeles County this week may be the “most destructive” in modern US history.

In just three days, the blazes have covered tens of thousands of acres of land and could potentially have an economic impact of up to $150bn (£123bn), according to private forecaster Accuweather.

Sky News has used a combination of open-source techniques, data analysis, satellite imagery and social media footage to analyse how and why the fires started, and work out the estimated economic and environmental cost.

More than 1,000 structures have been damaged so far, local officials have estimated. The real figure is likely to be much higher.

“In fact, it’s likely that perhaps 15,000 or even more structures have been destroyed,” said Jonathan Porter, chief meteorologist at Accuweather.

These include some of the country’s most expensive real estate, as well as critical infrastructure.

Beachfront properties are left destroyed by the Palisades Fire, Thursday, Jan. 9, 2025 in Malibu, Calif. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)
Image:
Beachfront properties in Malibu were destroyed by the Palisades fire. Pic: PA

Accuweather has estimated the fires could have a total damage and economic loss of between $135bn and $150bn.

“It’s clear this is going to be the most destructive wildfire in California history, and likely the most destructive wildfire in modern US history,” said Mr Porter.

“That is our estimate based upon what has occurred thus far, plus some considerations for the near-term impacts of the fires,” he added.

The calculations were made using a wide variety of data inputs, from property damage and evacuation efforts, to the longer-term negative impacts from job and wage losses as well as a decline in tourism to the area.

The Palisades fire, which has burned at least 20,000 acres of land, has been the biggest so far.

Sentinel
Sentinel satellite imagery of the Pacific Palisades from space, taken around 15 minutes after the Palisades Fire was first reported. The red indicates the area of land that had already burned. Pic: Sentinel Hub
Image:
Sentinel satellite imagery of the Pacific Palisades from space, taken around 15 minutes after the Palisades fire was first reported. The red indicates the area of land that had already burned. Pic: Sentinel Hub

Satellite imagery and social media videos indicate the fire was first visible in the area around Skull Rock, part of a 4.5 mile hiking trail, northeast of the upscale Pacific Palisades neighbourhood.

These videos were taken by hikers on the route at around 10.30am on Tuesday 7 January, when the fire began spreading.

At about the same time, this footage of a plane landing at Los Angeles International Airport was captured. A growing cloud of smoke is visible in the hills in the background – the same area where the hikers filmed their videos.

The area’s high winds and dry weather accelerated the speed that the fire has spread. By Tuesday night, Eaton fire sparked in a forested area north of downtown LA, and Hurst fire broke out in Sylmar, a suburban neighbourhood north of San Fernando, after a brush fire.

These images from NASA’s Black Marble tool that detects light sources on the ground show how much the Palisades and Eaton fires grew in less than 24 hours.

 

On Tuesday, the Palisades fire had covered 772 acres. At the time of publication of Friday, the fire had grown to cover nearly 20,500 acres, some 26.5 times its initial size.

The Palisades fire was the first to spark, but others erupted over the following days.

At around 1pm on Wednesday afternoon, the Lidia fire was first reported in Acton, next to the Angeles National Forest north of LA. Smaller than the others, firefighters managed to contain the blaze by 75% on Friday.

Fires map

On Thursday, the Kenneth fire was reported at 2.40pm local time, according to Ventura County Fire Department, near a place called Victory Trailhead at the border of Ventura and Los Angeles counties.

This footage from a fire-monitoring camera in Simi Valley shows plumes of smoke billowing from the Kenneth fire.

Sky News analysed infrared satellite imagery to show how these fires grew all across LA.

The largest fires are still far from being contained, and have prompted thousands of residents to flee their homes as officials continued to keep large areas under evacuation orders. It’s unclear when they’ll be able to return.

“This is a tremendous loss that is going to result in many people and businesses needing a lot of help, as they begin the very slow process of putting their lives back together and rebuilding,” said Mr Porter.

“This is going to be an event that is going to likely take some people and businesses, perhaps a decade to recover from this fully.”


The Data and Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.

Continue Reading

World

They are hurting but managing to find hope in ‘tomorrow’ – the residents who have lost everything in the LA fires

Published

on

By

They are hurting but managing to find hope in 'tomorrow' - the residents who have lost everything in the LA fires

They are the displaced and there are tens of thousands of them, 600 in an evacuation centre we visited.

From elderly people who fled without their medication, to pregnant mothers desperate to escape the smoke, they had nowhere else to go.

Jim Mayfield, who has lived in the northern suburb of Altadena for 50 years, wept as he told me his dogs, Monkey and Coca, were all he had left.

He said: “The fire was coming down, a ball of fire, it hadn’t made it to my house, but then I woke up and I seen it so I had to start evacuating.

“I had to grab my dogs, I didn’t have enough water and my house is burned down to the ground.”

Thousands of buildings have been burned to the ground
Image:
Thousands of buildings have been burned to the ground since the fires in Los Angeles started

Sheila Kraetzel, another elderly resident, relived the sense of terror as homes were engulfed by the flames.

She said: “I smelt smoke, I was sleeping, and my dog alerted me that there was trouble.

More on California Wildfires

“When I looked outside, there were embers floating across my yard.

“My whole neighbourhood is gone.”

“It was a beautiful, unique place,” she added, smiling.

Thousands of firefighters have been working around the clock to contain the wind-driven fires in California
Image:
Firefighters have been working around the clock to contain the wind-driven fires

Asked how she could smile, she fought back tears and replied: “Well, there’s tomorrow you know.”

How anyone could find hope amid the destruction we have witnessed here is beyond me.

Read more:
Scale of ‘most destructive’ blazes in modern US history
In pictures: Before and after the blazes
What caused the fires?

There are people handing out food and water, medical staff doing what they can. Volunteers have rallied from far and near.

Buildings destroyed in fires

One of them, Stephanie Porter, told me it felt “heavy” inside the centre.

“You walk through and see the despair on people’s faces, not knowing what their next step is, not knowing if their house is still standing,” she said.

“I had to take a few moments… and kind of cry, and then you go back to serve.

“It just breaks your heart.”

Three miles up the road, Altadena resembles a war zone, but residents have not been allowed to return.

When they finally do, they’ll discover there’s nothing left of the material lives they left behind.

Continue Reading

World

The chancellor’s gamble with China: What price is Rachel Reeves willing to pay for closer trading ties?

Published

on

By

The chancellor's gamble with China: What price is Rachel Reeves willing to pay for closer trading ties?

Given gilt yields are rising, the pound is falling and, all things considered, markets look pretty hairy back in the UK, it’s quite likely Rachel Reeves’s trip to China gets overshadowed by noises off.

There’s a chance the dominant narrative is not about China itself, but about why she didn’t cancel the trip.

But make no mistake: this visit is a big deal. A very big deal – potentially one of the single most interesting moments in recent British economic policy.

Why? Because the UK is doing something very interesting and quite counterintuitive here. It is taking a gamble. For even as nearly every other country in the developed world cuts ties and imposes tariffs on China, this new Labour government is doing the opposite – trying to get closer to the world’s second-biggest economy.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

How much do we trade with China?

The chancellor‘s three-day visit to Beijing and Shanghai marks the first time a UK finance minister has travelled to China since Philip Hammond‘s 2017 trip, which in turn followed a very grand mission from George Osborne in 2015.

Back then, the UK was attempting to double down on its economic relationship with China. It was encouraging Chinese companies to invest in this country, helping to build our next generation of nuclear power plants and our telephone infrastructure.

But since then the relationship has soured. Huawei has been banned from providing that telecoms infrastructure and China is no longer building our next power plants. There has been no “economic and financial dialogue” – the name for these missions – since 2019, when Chinese officials came to the UK. And the story has been much the same elsewhere in the developed world.

More on China

In the intervening period, G7 nations, led by the US, have imposed various tariffs on Chinese goods, sparking a slow-burn trade war between East and West. The latest of these tariffs were on Chinese electric vehicles. The US and Canada imposed 100% tariffs, while the EU and a swathe of other nations, from India to Turkey, introduced their own, slightly lower tariffs.

But (save for Japan, whose consumers tend not to buy many Chinese cars anyway) there is one developed nation which has, so far at least, stood alone, refusing to impose these extra tariffs on China: the UK.

The UK sticks out then – diplomatically (especially as the new US president comes into office, threatening even higher and wider tariffs on China) and economically. Right now no other developed market in the world looks as attractive to Chinese car companies as the UK does. Chinese producers, able thanks to expertise and a host of subsidies to produce cars far cheaper than those made domestically, have targeted the UK as an incredibly attractive prospect in the coming years.

And while the European strategy is to impose tariffs designed to taper down if Chinese car companies commit to building factories in the EU, there is less incentive, as far as anyone can make out, for Chinese firms to do likewise in the UK. The upshot is that domestic producers, who have already seen China leapfrog every other nation save for Germany, will struggle even more in the coming year to contend with cheap Chinese imports.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why is Rachel Reeves flying to China?

👉 Tap here to follow Politics at Jack and Sam’s Daily wherever you get your podcasts 👈

Whether this is a price the chancellor is willing to pay for greater access to the Chinese market is unclear. Certainly, while the UK imports more than twice as many goods from China as it sends there, the country is an attractive market for British financial services firms. Indeed, there are a host of bank executives travelling out with the chancellor for the dialogue. They are hoping to boost British exports of financial services in the coming years.

Still – many questions remain unanswered:

• Is the chancellor getting closer to China with half an eye on future trade negotiations with the US?

• Is she ready to reverse on this relationship if it helps procure a deal with Donald Trump?

• Is she comfortable with the impending influx of cheap Chinese electric vehicles in the coming months and years?

• Is she prepared for the potential impact on the domestic car industry, which is already struggling in the face of a host of other challenges?

• Is that a price worth paying for more financial access to China?

• What, in short, is the grand strategy here?

These are all important questions. Unfortunately, unlike in 2015 or 2017, the Treasury has decided not to bring any press with it. So our opportunities to find answers are far more limited than usual. Given the significance of this economic moment, and of this trip itself, that is desperately disappointing.

Continue Reading

Trending