International
Evo Morales assures that he is “the first electoral option” in Bolivia despite disqualification
The former president of Bolivia Evo Morales, between 2006 and 2019, said this Saturday that he is still “the first option” with a view to the general elections of 2025, despite the fact that he is not qualified to run again.
Morales thus reacted to a vote intention survey commissioned and disseminated by businessman Marcelo Claure that shows the former leader of the governmental Movement to Socialism (MAS) tied in first place with the opposition Manfred Reyes Villa, current mayor of the central city of Cochabamba.
“This is the reason why they try to steal the acronym, chase us with about twenty trials, try to disqualify us and try to kill us. We are first in all polls,” Morales said in X.
Evo Morales: “we are the first choice of the people”
“Despite the fact that they always minimize our support in the popular sectors and in the countryside, we are the first choice of the people to save Bolivia,” added the politician, who is distant from the Government of Luis Arce.
He also assured that he will continue to “fight to prevent” Bolivia from “continuing and falling into the hands of those who want to destroy it.”
The survey released by Claure was conducted by the company Panterra from November 2 to 15, with face-to-face interviews with people over 18 years of age in Bolivia and a margin of error of 2.2%.
Among other results, the consultation shows that Morales and Reyes Villa are tied with 18%, followed by the opposition businessman Samuel Doria Medina with 13%, and there are also 21% of respondents who do not know who they are going to vote for.
“Trusted information”
Claure indicated in X that she commissioned the survey to “provide Bolivians with reliable information to understand the political environment and make informed decisions” and justified Morales’ inclusion that “in Bolivia everything can change and nothing is certain.”
The Constitution and the law of Bolivia establish that to win in the first round you must obtain 50% plus one of the votes, or at least 40% with an advantage of ten percentage points over the second most voted.
The Magna Carta also allows only two presidential periods, but Morales was able to run for the 2014 elections in search of a third term and in 2019 in pursuit of the fourth with the endorsement of the Plurinational Constitutional Court (TCP).
Morales and his lawyers insist that he is qualified to run again in 2025, but the Government assures that it is not basing it on an advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (CorteIDH) on indefinite re-election, a ruling of the Bolivian TCP issued in 2023 and the Constitution itself.
Sentence against Evo Morales
Two TCP magistrates recently issued a sentence indicating that the elected authorities in the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches can only exercise for two periods, continuous or discontinuous, which affects Morales’ intentions to be a candidate again.
The same magistrates also endorsed a congress held by the MAS faction related to the Arce Government that elected the peasant leader Grover García as the new president of the party, stripping Morales of the official leadership after almost three decades.
Morales considers the resolutions of the TCP null and void because the current magistrates extended his mandate and that of the judges of other high courts of Bolivia, which was supposed to end at the beginning of 2024, in the absence of the judicial elections that could not be held in 2023.
Arce and Morales have been distanced since the end of 2021 due to differences in the state administration, the need to renew the direction of the MAS and the definition of the candidacy of the ruling party for 2025.
International
Marco Rubio launches U.S. campaign to “dismantle” the International Criminal Court
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Monday (July 13, 2026) the launch of a diplomatic campaign aimed at “dismantling” the International Criminal Court (ICC), a key institution in the global justice system, while pressuring Washington’s allies to withdraw from the organization, which he accused of interfering in U.S. affairs.
“The ICC represents an intolerable threat to American sovereignty: it claims the authority to prosecute and even imprison military personnel and officials acting in defense of the national interests of the United States,” Rubio said.
He also accused the court of waging “a war against our country, not with bullets or missiles, but with statutes, agreements and the power of what they call international law.”
The United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. The Trump administration has previously imposed sanctions on senior court officials over investigations into alleged war crimes committed by U.S. personnel in Afghanistan and actions targeting Israeli officials, a key U.S. ally.
“Step by step, if necessary”
The new State Department initiative proposes banning ICC personnel from entering the United States and expanding sanctions against court members and affiliated organizations.
The plan also includes increasing pressure on Washington’s allies, particularly countries that “benefit from the U.S. security umbrella,” to publicly reject ICC actions and distance themselves from the institution.
The Trump administration will summon foreign ambassadors and senior officials to highlight what it describes as “ICC abuses” and encourage them to withdraw from the court.
Washington also plans to increase scrutiny of countries that refuse to reject what the administration calls the ICC’s “claimed authority” while continuing to rely on U.S. assistance.
Rubio said the ICC seeks to become “a global unaccountable arbiter.” In an opinion piece published Monday in The Wall Street Journal, the secretary of state said that with the support of its allies, the United States would dismantle the ICC “step by step, if necessary.”
International
ICE reverses course and moves forward with New Jersey migrant detention facility project
The administration of President Donald Trump has reversed course and resumed plans to convert a warehouse in New Jersey, purchased for $129.3 million, into a migrant detention facility with capacity for up to 1,500 people, according to a court filing in the state.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) submitted a document Friday to a federal court in New Jersey stating that it will continue moving forward with plans to establish the facility in the township of Roxbury.
According to the court filing, ICE had previously informed the court on June 29 that it had decided to abandon the plan to convert the property into a detention center.
However, on July 8, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials notified attorneys that, “after reconsideration,” the agency intended to continue evaluating the renovation of the warehouse for use as a migrant detention facility.
“DHS officials further informed counsel that, as of July 10, the agency’s deliberations remain ongoing,” the document stated.
The decision to revive the project comes two weeks after The New York Times reported that ICE had decided not to proceed with plans to establish new detention facilities as part of the Trump administration’s immigration detention and deportation strategy.
According to that report, the agency had planned to sell seven warehouses, including the Roxbury property, for more than $700 million or transfer them to other federal agencies.
The New Jersey facility proposal is part of broader efforts by the Trump administration to expand immigration enforcement infrastructure amid its push to increase detention capacity and accelerate deportations of undocumented immigrants.
International
Judge rules Trump’s IRS lawsuit was a “bad faith” attempt to manipulate the judicial process
A federal judge ruled Monday that a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was an attempt to “manipulate the judicial process” and determined that the case was brought in bad faith.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams ordered sanctions against the attorneys involved in the lawsuit, which led to an effort to create the now-defunct $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund aimed at addressing alleged political targeting by government institutions in favor of Trump allies.
The lawsuit was also used to justify a government order that sought to provide Trump and his companies with immunity from any past tax-related matters.
In a 56-page opinion, Williams sharply criticized both the Department of Justice (DOJ) — saying the government’s response to the case disregarded agency policies and may have violated the law — and the private attorneys who filed the lawsuit on Trump’s behalf.
“The very nature of the lawsuit and the conduct of the parties and counsel since its filing make clear that this was an attempt to use the court to provide legitimacy to an agreement designed to grant immunity to individuals and entities connected to the president and to allocate billions of taxpayer dollars to remedy grievances that the law does not recognize,” Williams wrote.
The judge also ordered that her opinion be referred to attorney disciplinary authorities in New York and Washington, which are already reviewing previous ethics complaints involving Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Deputy Attorney General Stanley Woodward.
Williams criticized the Justice Department for abandoning its responsibility to defend the interests of the United States, arguing that the government entered into an agreement that departed from its position in similar legal cases, ignored DOJ policies and pursued objectives beyond what is permitted by law.
“By abandoning its responsibility to vigorously defend the interests of the United States, the government entered into an agreement that deviated from its litigation position in similar cases, ignored Department of Justice policies and achieved objectives that exceeded those authorized by law, as well as others expressly prohibited,” Williams wrote.
The judge also referred one of Trump’s private attorneys to the Florida Bar for possible disciplinary action and barred another lawyer representing the president from appearing before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for one year.
The ruling adds another legal setback for attorneys involved in cases connected to Trump’s administration and raises new questions about the conduct of government lawyers and private counsel involved in the IRS lawsuit.
Marco Rubio launches U.S. campaign to “dismantle” the International Criminal Court
ICE reverses course and moves forward with New Jersey migrant detention facility project
Judge rules Trump’s IRS lawsuit was a “bad faith” attempt to manipulate the judicial process
Tec de Monterrey honors one of its students for his contribution to nanotechnology in medicine
Defense Minister commends salvadoran soldier for Central American Cross Country victory
Extension of the state of emergency approved in southern Chile
-
Central America3 days agoPanama launches anti-drone measures as prison security crisis deepens
-
International4 days agoDeadly Drug Trade Rivalry Suspected After Eight Bodies Discovered in Southern Mexico
-
Central America4 days agoRegional Naval Operations Strike Drug Cartels, Disrupting Cocaine and Weapons Trafficking Routes
-
International4 days agoTensions Escalate in Middle East as U.S. Bombs Iran After Maritime Attacks
-
International23 hours agoVenezuela Earthquake Death Toll Rises to 4,490 as Rescue Efforts Continue
-
International44 minutes agoMarco Rubio launches U.S. campaign to “dismantle” the International Criminal Court
-
International3 hours agoJudge rules Trump’s IRS lawsuit was a “bad faith” attempt to manipulate the judicial process
-
International50 minutes agoICE reverses course and moves forward with New Jersey migrant detention facility project