Read the daily news to learn English

Police visited home of Tumbler Ridge suspect multiple times over mental health concerns

Police have said they were called on multiple occasions to the home of the teenage suspect behind one of Canada’s deadliest school shootings after concerns were raised regarding mental health problems and weapons. Six people, including a teacher and five children, were killed in a school shooting on Tuesday in the western Canadian town of Tumbler Ridge. About 25 other people were injured and two of them remain in critical but stable condition. The suspect’s mother and step-brother were also found dead at the family home, while the suspected shooter was found at the school with a self-inflicted gunshot wound, the authorities said. Police later identified the suspect as Jesse Van Rootselaar, 18. The office of the country’s prime minister, Mark Carney, said he would visit the small town of Tumbler Ridge, home to about 2,400 people, on Friday. Police said the motive for the attack remained unclear and that the investigation was still in its infancy. The family was known to authorities, Dwayne McDonald, a deputy commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), told reporters on Wednesday. “Police had attended that residence on multiple occasions over the past several years dealing with concerns of mental health with respect to our suspect,” McDonald said. On different occasions the suspect had been apprehended under the country’s mental health act for assessment and follow-up, he added. McDonald also said that at least one of the interactions with police related to weapons. “Police have attended that residence in the past, approximately a couple of years ago, where firearms were seized under the criminal code,” he said. “At a later point in time, the lawful owner of those firearms petitioned for those firearms to be returned and they were.” The suspect had a firearms licence that had expired in 2024 and did not have any firearms registered in her name, he said. With people across Canada horrified by the attack, questions were raised as to why firearms had been returned to a home where police had been called to attend to mental health concerns. “I have a lot of questions,” the premier of British Columbia, David Eby, told reporters on Wednesday. “I know the people of Tumbler Ridge have a lot of questions.” The former RCMP officer Sherry Benson-Podolchuk told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation(CBC) that for police to have proceeded differently, Canada would need to change its laws to allow officers to seize firearms if they spot them while carrying out a mental health check. While Canada has relatively high levels of gun ownership, it has much stricter laws than the US, including a ban on assault-style firearms and a freeze on the sale of handguns. The victims included Abel Mwansa Jr, according to local media reports. “I can’t handle this pain,” his mother, Bwalya Chisanga, wrote on Facebook. “In the morning my son went to school around 8:20am. The last word he said to me was, ‘Tell dad to come and pick (me up) at church when he comes back from work’.” His father, Abel Mwansa, described him as a child with a scientific mind and bright future, who loved carrying out experiments. “If I had power to give life, I would have brought you back to life together with others that were killed alongside you,” he wrote on Facebook. “But, son, my power is limited, and seeing your child murdered at this age is heartbreaking.” The family of Kylie Smith, 12, also said she had been killed in Tuesday’s shooting. She was the “light of her family,” her dad, Lance Younge, told CTV News. “She was just a beautiful soul. She loved art and anime. She wanted to go to school in Toronto and we just loved her so much. She was thriving in high school. She never hurt a soul.” He urged people to keep the focus on the victims, many of whom had lost their lives before they were teenagers. “You want to put someone’s picture up on the news?” he said. “Put my daughter’s picture up.” Those killed on Tuesday included two people in a home residence that police said was linked to the suspect. Police later identified the two people as Van Rootselaar’s mother, 39, and 11-year-old step-brother. The CBC identified Van Rootselaar’s mother as Jennifer Strang. Social media posts suggested a close-knit family where birthdays were celebrated and the children’s interests were championed. In 2021, Van Rootselaar’s mother linked to the suspect’s now-deleted YouTube channel, saying the posts were about “hunting, self reliance, guns and stuff”. Court documents from 2015 obtained by the CBC said Strang and her children had “led an almost nomadic life”, moving across Canada multiple times in the last five years. Speaking on Wednesday, police said they had “identified the suspect as they chose to be identified” in public and on social media. “I can say that Jesse was born as a biological male who, approximately six years ago, began to transition to female and identified as female, both socially and publicly,” said McDonald. After an independent provincial legislator in British Columbia claimed, without evidence, that the shooting rampage was related to the suspect’s gender identity, campaigners and gun violence experts warned against generalising an entire demographic based on the actions of one person. In the US, the Gun Violence Archive has said less than 0.1% of mass shootings between 2013 and 2025 were carried out by transgender people. Instead, research suggests that transgender people are more than four times more likely to be the victims of crimes, including sexual and aggravated assault, than cisgender people.

Mexico sends aid to Cuba as Sheinbaum walks diplomatic tightrope with US

As the sun came up on a flat calm Florida Straits, two ships arrived off the port of Havana: the Isla Holbox, a squat logistics ship, followed by the more aggressive looking Papaloapan, whose bow ramp gave the appearance of a large beetle. The two Mexican navy ships docked on Thursday laden with humanitarian aid as part of Mexico’s efforts to support Cuba amid a deepening crisis exacerbated by Donald Trump’s economic pressure campaign. The boats, carrying more than 800 tons in aid, arrived at the Caribbean nation two weeks after Trump signed an executive order allowing the US to slap tariffs on any country selling or providing oil to Cuba, effectively choking off fuel to the island. Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, said on Thursday that her government was seeking diplomatic measures to allow the country to resume sending oil to Cuba, but emphasized that as soon as the ships return, “we will send more support of different kinds.” The Isla Holbox carried some 536 tons of food including milk, rice, beans, sardines, meat products, cookies, canned tuna and vegetable oil, as well as personal hygiene items. The Papaloapan carried just over 277 tons of powdered milk, according to the Mexican government. Mexico’s determination to aid Cuba in its moment of dire need – even as it bows to Washington’s pressure to stop sending oil – evinces the complex historical relationship between the three countries that stretches back more than a century. “The energy pressure that Trump is exerting on Cuba places Mexico in a dilemma that is very characteristic of its entire history of diplomatic relations with the United States and Cuba,” said Rafael Rojas, a Cuban historian at the College of Mexico. “Mexico is yielding to the demands of the United States – and on the other hand it maintains its solidarity with the island.” Mexico’s relationship with Cuba stretches back as far as the 19th century, when revolutions for independence from Spain in both countries saw waves of migration between the two countries, Rojas said. Migration from Cuba to Mexico increased again during the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, which stretched from 1952 to 1959. Among those who moved to Mexico were Fidel and Raúl Castro as well as an Argentinian exile named Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Guevara met the Castro brothers in Mexico City in 1955: together, they began planning what became the Cuban revolution, which toppled Batista in 1959. Afterwards, Mexico was one of the few countries in the region that did not yield to US pressure and maintained ties to the island. “The relationship with Cuba has historically served the Mexican government to distance itself from the United States,” said Rojas. And even though there was a tacit agreement that Cuba would never actively support guerrilla movements in Mexico, the Cuban revolution inspired Mexican leftists to protest and even to take up arms against the country’s one-party state. “In Mexico, there was a feeling of a certain fraternity and solidarity, even with the Revolution,” said Ricardo Pascoe, a former Mexican ambassador to Cuba. “People saw it as a good option in the debate on how to combat poverty in Latin America.” During the cold war, Mexico became a safe jumping-off point for Cubans wanting to travel to other countries, including its revolutionary leaders. Still, despite publicly maintaining its solidarity with Cuba, the Mexican government was keenly aware that it could not sever ties with its powerful northern neighbour, and even shared intelligence with the United States on Cubans who were coming in and out of the country. Throughout the following decades, including after the fall of communism, Mexico maintained this contradictory relationship in which it kept up strong ties to the island through trade and humanitarian aid – even as its relationship to the United States became increasingly important. That changed in 2018 with the election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, popularly known as Amlo, who, along with his leftwing Morena party, was much more aligned with the Cuban government, voicing public support for the island and condemning the US trade embargo. “When Morena comes to power, there is not only fraternity and solidarity, but also an ideological identification,” said Pascoe. That has placed Sheinbaum in a particularly precarious position between wanting to appease the pro-Cuban base of her party, while at the same time needing to maintain a good relationship with the Trump administration, particularly with the upcoming renegotiation of the US-Mexico-Canada agreement. Even after Mexico stopped oil deliveries to Havana, Sheinbaum was at pains to cast it as a “sovereign” decision. “There’s a discursive balance whereby … she’s presenting this policy of solidarity to appease her base, and on the other hand, she can’t hide the transaction with the United States,” said Rojas. “The fact that Mexico, under pressure from Donald Trump, has stopped sending fuel to Cuba means that Mexico has complied with the oil embargo imposed by the United States.” With Cuba’s energy crisis deepening, and life on the island becoming increasingly desperate, Sheinbaum has offered Mexico as a host for negotiations, and on Thursday said that her government was in dialogue with the US so that Cuba “can receive oil”. But if the regime crumbles, Sheinbaum will have to change her tune. “That pro-Cuba rhetoric won’t work for her any more if the regime falls – she’ll have to modify her message,” said Pascoe. “But for now, she’s at a crossroads, talking about sending food, medicine or humanitarian aid, but there’s no more oil.”

EU leaders agree to move ahead with ‘Buy European’ policy

EU leaders agreed to move ahead with a “Buy European” policy to protect “strategic sectors” of European industry, at a summit on how to secure the continent’s future in a more volatile global economy. At a moated castle in the east Belgian countryside, the EU’s 27 leaders gathered on Thursday for a brainstorming session on how Europe could regain its economic competitiveness relative to the US and China at a time of economic threats and political turbulence. Before the summit, Belgium’s prime minister, Bart De Wever, said Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands were facing “an existential crisis” because of factory closures and declining investment, a result of high energy costs, regulation and “Chinese dumping” – unfairly subsidised goods flooding European markets. “We all know we must change course,” he said. “Yet, it sometimes feels as if we are still standing on the bridge of the ship, staring at the horizon, without touching the helm.” After the summit, the European Council president, António Costa, told reporters there was a broadly shared understanding about the need to “protect and reinforce certain sectors”, naming defence, space, clean tech, quantum, artificial intelligence and payment systems. “On European preference, I feel that there is a broad agreement on the need to use it in selected strategic sectors in [a] proportional and targeted way,” he said. Speaking alongside him the European Commission, president Ursula von der Leyen, promised an action plan to boost Europe’s single market by March, including further “simplification”, reducing regulation at EU and national level; a new regime of company law to boost startups known as EU Inc, as well as plans to integrate Europe’s fragmented capital markets and cut energy prices. “The pressure and the sense of urgency is enormous and that can move mountains,” she said when asked about EU leaders’ ability to deliver on complex plans that threaten vested interests. The question of Europe’s declining competitiveness has long troubled the EU but gained new urgency when painful vulnerabilities were revealed by the sudden loss of Russian gas in 2022, Donald Trump’s trade wars and China’s pursuit of economic dominance through huge state subsidies. Against this backdrop, the EU is open to the once-taboo policy of European preference, namely favouring European companies in strategic sectors such as clean tech. Long promoted by France, “Buy European” could mean imposing requirements on governments to prioritise locally manufactured goods in public contracts. Later this month, the EU executive will publish an Industrial Accelerator Act, which is expected to set targets for European content in a range of strategic products, such as solar panels and electric vehicles. In a show of unity, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Friedrich Merz arrived together at the 16th-century Belgian castle. “We share this sense of urgency that Europe must take action,” Macron said. Merz said: “We want to make this European Union faster, we want to make it better, and above all we want to ensure that we have competitive industry in Europe.” But the two leaders have struck different tones on European preference. Macron told European newspapers this week that European preference should be focused on certain strategic sectors, such as clean technologies, chemicals, steel, automotive and defence, “otherwise Europeans will be swept aside”. He described European preference as “a defensive measure” and essential because “we are facing unfair competitors who no longer respect the rules of the World Trade Organization”. Merz, however, said “Made in Europe” rules may be too narrow and he favoured “Made with Europe” rules that favoured trading partners. He is championing a more aggressive deregulation agenda and trade deals. Ireland’s prime minister, Michéal Martin, said: “We must protect the open free trade ethos of the European Union in my view. And so there will be debates around that.” Merz and the Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, skirted the issue in a recent joint paper but found common ground on “legislative self-restraint”, or less EU regulation. Both would like the EU’s deregulation agenda to go further. In another sign of the vitality of the Berlin-Rome partnership, Italy, Germany and Belgium co-hosted a pre-summit gathering of 19 member states. The Italian prime minister’s office, the Palazzo Chigi, said the group discussed initiatives needed to “relaunch Europe’s industry”, including a review of the emissions trading system, the EU’s carbon pricing system. The flourishing German-Italian partnership has raised questions about the health of the Franco-German relationship, the traditional motor of the European project. Despite a rapprochement in Franco-German relations since Merz’s election, Paris and Berlin diverge on key economic questions. Merz and Macron also disagree on the EU’s long-sought trade deal with Mercosur. While the German leader has called for speedy entry into force of the agreement with South American countries, Macron dismissed it as “a bad deal”. Von der Leyen has also sounded a cautious note about “Buy European”. Speaking in the European parliament on Wednesday, she said European preference was “a necessary instrument” in strategic sectors. “But I want to be clear – it is a fine line to walk,” she said, adding that every proposal must be “underpinned by robust economic analysis and be in line with our international obligations”. The Buy European question is only one part of a sprawling summit agenda at Alden Biesen in Limburg, an estate founded in the 13th century by Teutonic knights. Leaders discussed deregulation, fragmented capital markets that constrain green and digital investment, and barriers in the European single market that hamper trade. Von der Leyen told MEPs there was “too much gold-plating” – extra layers of national regulation that made life harder for business. As an example, she said a truck in Belgium was allowed to weigh 44 tonnes but could carry only 40 tonnes if it crossed into France. The leaders heard from Mario Draghi and Enrico Letta, two former Italian prime ministers who produced agenda-setting reports on the economy. Draghi said last week that the current economic world order was “dead” and Europe risked becoming “subordinated, divided and deindustrialised at once”. He said Europe needed to move from “confederation to federation”, adding that veto power for individual member states in key policies made countries “vulnerable to being picked off one by one”. Acknowledging the EU’s difficulties in taking decisions, von der Leyen said she was open to moving ahead with passing laws on integrating the EU’s capital markets in a smaller formation, if there was no agreement at 27. “We have to make progress and tear down the barriers that prevent us from being a true global giant,” she said, referencing plans for integrating the European financial system.

Church of England General Synod halts work on LGBTQ+ equality

The hopes of progressive Christians in the Church of England have suffered a big blow after years of bitter and divisive debate, with the C of E’s ruling body agreeing to halt work on LGBTQ+ equality. At a meeting in London on Thursday, the General Synod backed a document from bishops concluding that consensus between conservative and liberal camps within the church could not be reached. The issue will now be put in the deep freeze until a new synod is in place. Liberal and conservative factions are likely to campaign on the issue in elections later this year in the hope of breaking the deadlock in their favour. Synod members backed a proposal by bishops on Thursday to halt all work on a process known as Living in Love and Faith (LLF) by 252 votes to 132, with 21 abstentions. The bishops’ motion acknowledged the “distress and pain many have suffered during the LLF process, especially LGBTQI+ people”. The decision means that three years of work on allowing clergy to conduct special services to bless same sex couples in a civil marriage will end. The prohibition on clergy being married in a civil ceremony to same sex partners will stay in place. Sarah Mullally, the archbishop of Canterbury, said that LLF had “left us wounded as individuals and a church” but that the bishops’ proposals were a “sensible way forward … that will take us to the next steps”. In a five-hour debate, many synod members spoke of their pain, anger and feelings of betrayal at the C of E’s failure to progress on the issues. Charlie Bączyk-Bell, a London priest who has campaigned for LGBTQ+ equality, said his heart was broken. Addressing bishops and fellow synod members, he said: “How dare you and how dare we come again to lament and recognise distress and pain while we continue to inflict it? … What kind of church is this? How has it come to this?” Claire Robson, a priest in Newcastle, said it was now unlikely she would be able to marry her same-sex partner because of her age. “The changes we long for will be too late for many of us,” she said. The cost of the LLF process had been £1.6m, she added, “but the cost to my life and ministry is incalculable … Hopes have been dashed and apologies rendered meaningless”. Proposing the motion, Stephen Cottrell, the archbishop of York, said: “This is not where I want us to be and not where we hoped we would be three years ago … I know that many of you are feeling angry and disappointed. There is a lot of pain and that pain cuts across so called ‘party lines’ or theological convictions held.” But, he added, “knowing how divided we are on these issues, we haven’t been able to find further ways forward that honour the consciences of those who, faithfully led by their conscientious reading of scripture and their understanding of tradition and of lived human experience, arrive at different conclusions”. The bishops and the synod were “more deeply divided than I think we knew – or admitted”, he said. A new working group on “relationships, sexuality and gender” will be set up for “continuing work”, under the wording of the motion. This, said Vicky Brett, a lay member of the synod who spoke in the debate, fitted the definition of insanity: “do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result”. The issue of sexuality and same-sex marriage has brought the Anglican church close to schism in recent years. After more than a decade of often rancorous debate, the synod finally concluded in early 2023 that it would not support weddings of same-sex couples in church, but would allow priests to bless gay couples within regular services. That decision prompted church leaders in some developing countries, including South Sudan, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to say they no longer recognised Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, as the head of the global church. In July 2024, the C of E evangelical council said it would start a parallel province because of the decision to allow gay marriages to be blessed. Such blessings were “contrary to the teaching of the Bible”, it said. Some clergy have defied the C of E hierarchy to offer stand-alone services of blessing to same-sex couples, seen by some as a de facto church wedding although without legal standing. Campaigners for equality have said there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that LGBTQ+ Christians are leaving the C of E, feeling they are unwelcome.

The General Synod debate on equal marriages – a timeline

The latest General Synod debate on equal marriages comes after decades of bitter arguments between conservative and liberal factions that have frequently threatened to split the Church of England. 1979 The Gloucester report, prepared for the synod, acknowledges that individuals “may justly choose to enter a homosexual relationship involving a physical expression of sexual love”. But it is regarded as too radical to openly debate and is quietly shelved. 1987 The synod passes the controversial Higton motion stating that “homosexual genital acts are to be met by a call for repentance and the exercise of compassion”. The original motion, which says clergy who fail to urge homosexuals to repent should be removed from office, is not passed. 1988 The once-a-decade Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops exposes deep divisions over gay issues. It acknowledges that the issues remain “unresolved”. 1991 The house of bishops publishes Issues in Human Sexuality, which concludes that homosexuality is not an equal alternative to heterosexuality and that gay Christians who choose to be celibate should be praised. 1998 The next Lambeth conference upheld marriage as between a man and a woman, and rejected homosexual practice as incompatible with scripture. The move was the result of American conservative bishops enlisting the support of African and Asian allies in their battle with US liberals. While the conference condemned irrational fear of homosexuals, it opposed same-sex unions or any kind of blessing of them. It prompted 150 bishops to pledge to work for the full inclusion of the LGBTQ+ community into the church. 2002 The diocese of New Westminster in Canada becomes the first Anglican church to offer to bless same-sex unions. May 2003 Jeffrey John, a gay priest in a long-term celibate relationship with another cleric, is chosen as the bishop of Reading. Under pressure from Rowan Williams, the then archbishop of Canterbury, John withdrew after a backlash from conservatives who threatened to cut ties with the C of E if his appointment went ahead. November 2003 Gene Robinson, who was openly gay and living with his partner, is appointed as the bishop of New Hampshire. It prompted some conservatives to leave the US church and form a breakaway Anglican denomination. 2005 The introduction of civil partnership in England and Wales prompts the C of E to tell clergy that if they entered this new union they would have to pledge to remain celibate. 2014 Same-sex marriage is legalised in England and Wales. The house of bishops explicitly bars such unions for clergy on the grounds they undermine traditional teaching that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The ban was widely ignored. 2020 The C of E states that sex belongs only within heterosexual marriage, and that sex in gay or straight civil partnerships “falls short of God’s purpose for human beings”. The affirmation of traditional teaching was seen as caving to pressure from conservatives. 2023 After calls from some bishops to end the ban on same-sex marriage, a compromise is proposed to the synod under which the ban would continue but blessings for same-sex couples would be allowed. Later, the synod narrowly agrees to back blessing same-sex couples but only on a trial basis. However, it was asked to hold back from standalone services until a registration process was in place. July 2024 The synod votes to remove restrictions on using prayers for same-sex blessings in standalone services. The conservative C of E evangelical council says it would start a parallel province because of the decision.

Pentagon policy chief tells European Nato members to step up combat capabilities

The Pentagon’s policy chief, Elbridge Colby, has told European Nato defence ministers in Brussels that they need to step up their combat capabilities and take the lead in protecting their continent from the Russian threat. The influential undersecretary for war, sent by the White House in place of his boss, Pete Hegseth, said the US would reduce conventional forces in Europe but insisted Washington remained committed to the military alliance. Colby said Europe had to go “beyond inputs and intentions toward outputs and capabilities” as he sought to reset relations after last month’s damaging row over Greenland, which Donald Trump had demanded from Denmark. “It means prioritising war-fighting effectiveness over bureaucratic and regulatory stasis. It means making hard choices about force structure, readiness, stockpiles and industrial capacity that reflect the realities of modern conflict rather than peacetime politics,” Colby told Nato allies on Thursday. Last summer, Nato European members agreed to increase core defence spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 to reach US levels, but it is unclear what this increased militarisation will mean in practice. Colby’s comments were made behind closed doors in a short speech to Nato’s 31 other members, at the start of a meeting of alliance defence ministers in Brussels. Unusually, they were released by the Pentagon shortly after delivery. Though he emphasised that the US would continue to provide an “extended nuclear deterrent”, he said Washington’s forces – currently numbering about 85,000 in Europe – would be deployed “in a more limited and focused fashion”. The undersecretary is one of the most vocal proponents in the Trump administration of shifting US military attention away from Europe. The “most consequential” interests for the US were in deterring China and in the Americas, he said, while Europe would have to take “the lead for its conventional defence”. However, Colby also made clear the US “will continue to ready our forces to do our part” under Nato’s article 5, which states that an attack on one ally is considered an attack on all – a pledge that has at times been questioned by Trump. Last month the US president made repeated efforts to force Denmark into handing over Greenland, with the White House at times indicating that it would not rule out using military force to capture the Arctic territory from its Nato ally. Mark Rutte, Nato’s secretary general, sought to move on from the unprecedented row, arguing that an alliance of democracies would always have “debates and discussions”, and he said Colby’s remarks showed that the US was “anchored in Nato”. “The good news is that this alliance always finds a way forward, to come together, to focus again on our overarching goal, which is to keep 1 billion people safe,” Rutte said, arguing that article 5 remained intact. Though the decision to send Colby instead of Hegseth was a clear attempt to demonstrate that Nato had reduced significance for the US, European diplomats insisted he was still an important figure, close to the vice-president, JD Vance. In December, Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, skipped a meeting of Nato foreign ministers and sent the deputy secretary Christopher Landau instead. After addressing counterparts in Brussels, Landau left the meeting early. Colby stayed for the entirety of the three-hour meeting on Thursday, listening to the other 31 defence ministers each giving speeches of up to three minutes in length. It was taken as sign of respect to Nato members. Ukraine’s allies committed $35bn in military aid this year following the Nato defence ministers meeting, according to UK defence secretary John Healey. Pledges were made at a meeting of the Ukraine contact group, a group of 50 countries, which came in the afternoon after the Nato session.

‘Big step forwards’: emboldened activists take to the streets of Venezuela

Protesters have taken to the streets of cities across Venezuela in the latest sign of an embryonic political shift after Nicolás Maduro’s recent downfall. Student demonstrators gathered on the campus of the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas on Thursday to demand the release of all of the country’s political prisoners, the return of exiled activists and a full transition to democracy. “Who are we? Venezuela! What do we want? Freedom!” they shouted. “I refuse to live in a country without freedom of expression,” said Angel Gutiérrez, a literature student who was one of hundreds to attend the peaceful march – a public show of dissent unthinkable just a few weeks ago, before US special forces seized Venezuela’s 63-year-old dictator. As the crowd grew, 27-year-old Gutiérrez complained that throughout his entire adult life the will of the people had been ignored. “I’m here because I refuse to continue to accept my country carrying on under these conditions … A young person without hope is dead,” he said. In another hint of a possible thaw, the protest was publicised by Venezuelan television networks including Venevisión, which for years have been forbidden from covering such events. Rallies were also held in cities including Barquisimeto, Ciudad Guayana, Maracaibo and Mérida. “It’s incredible that we are back in the streets. They should know that they will never silence us,” said John Pérez, an international relations student, who joined the march in Venezuela’s capital. The student-led demonstrations were the latest – and largest – of a series to take place since US troops abducted Maduro on 3 January and partially transformed Venezuela’s authoritarian political landscape. While much of Maduro’s regime remains in place, led by his vice-president Delcy Rodríguez, the country’s new leaders have been forced to make a series of important concessions, including freeing more than 430 political prisoners, proposing an amnesty, tolerating a growing number of protests and rewriting energy laws to allow the greater involvement of foreign oil firms. A small number of foreign journalists were also allowed into the country this week. “It’s a really weird moment because we are not really in a transition to democracy. We don’t have a date for a fair and free election. The same regime is in power,” said Jesús Armas, a prominent opposition leader who was released on Sunday after 14 months behind bars and attended the university protest. “But at the same time, because of the pressure of the United States, we are starting to see things like the freedom of political prisoners and the people are starting to lose [their] fear,” Armas said, adding: “But of course the regime is the same.” Yerwin Torrealba, a youth leader from the mid-western state of Yaracuy who was released from prison last month, said he had been astonished to attend a recent protest without being molested by the police. “Two months ago, you couldn’t do this,” said Torrealba, 26, an activist for the movement led by the exiled Nobel laureate María Corina Machado. “[Before] you’d post a photo [on social media] and they’d issue an arrest warrant just for doing that,” added Torrealba. Now, he felt things were changing. Many activists who went underground after Maduro was accused of stealing the 2024 presidential election from Machado’s surrogate were coming out of hiding. “This is a big step forwards. People are becoming active in the streets once again,” said Torrealba, voicing confidence that Venezuela was entering a new, less authoritarian era. “It’s still moving a little slowly, but the transition is steadily playing out.” Thursday’s rallies came one day after the US energy secretary, Chris Wright, landed in Caracas promising “a flood of investment” in the economically distressed South American nation. In more scenes that would have been unimaginable just a few weeks ago given the toxic state of US-Venezuela ties, Trump’s envoy was serenaded by a group of young Venezuelan musicians with maracas and harps. Speaking to reporters on the steps of the Miraflores presidential palace, Wright said: “I bring today a message from President Trump: he is passionately committed to absolutely transforming the relationship between the United States and Venezuela, part of a broader agenda to make the Americas great again.” Delcy Rodríguez told her North American guest: “We are sure this first visit will open the door to many more.” Little more than a month earlier, Rodríguez had accused Trump’s administration of using military action to “capture” Venezuela’s natural resources, which include the largest known oil reserves in the world. Venezuela’s acting president struck a more diplomatic note in a rare interview with NBC News on Thursday, announcing that she was considering accepting an invitation to visit the US. If such a visit materialises it would be the first of its kind since 1999, the year Maduro’s mentor, Hugo Chávez, took power. Observers remain skeptical about the degree to which Rodríguez’s interim administration will be willing to cede control and warn limited signs of democratic reform could easily be reversed. On Sunday, the opposition leader Juan Pablo Guanipa was taken back into detention by armed men just hours after being released from an eight-month stint in prison and later placed under house arrest. Hundreds of political prisoners remain behind bars. Speaking to a pro-Trump television network last weekend, Rodríguez’s brother, the national assembly president, Jorge Rodríguez, ruled out holding fresh elections in the “immediate” future, while the country was being “stabilised”. Many view their concessions to the White House as a ploy to remain in power, by delaying a vote until after the next US presidential election, in 2028. “I think if they’re smart, they’re going to be stringing the Trump administration along until the Trump administration is no longer in office – and then hope that everyone just kind of forgets about things,” said Michael Paarlberg, a former Latin America adviser to Bernie Sanders. “I think Trump has already largely forgotten about Venezuela,” Paarlberg added.

São Paulo names new law after dog that stayed by owner’s grave for 10 years

A dog that remained beside his former owner’s grave for 10 years has now given his name to a new state law allowing pets to be buried alongside their loved ones in São Paulo. The new law – already being informally referred to as the Bob Coveiro (the Gravedigger) Law, in tribute to its inspiration – was signed this week by the governor of Brazil’s most populous state, the conservative Tarcísio de Freitas. The law “recognises the emotional bond between guardians and their pets”, according to the state government, and authorises dogs and cats to be buried in graves and family plots whose concessions belong to their owners’ families. Bob’s former owner died in 2011. After her burial, the brown long-haired mixed-breed dog reportedly refused to leave her side at a cemetery in Taboão da Serra, a city of 285,000 inhabitants about 12 miles from the state capital, São Paulo. Relatives are said to have tried several times to take the dog away, but he always returned and was eventually adopted by cemetery staff, who provided him with a kennel and regularly fed, bathed and vaccinated him. Gravedigger Bob gained national fame for accompanying other funeral processions while reportedly carrying a small ball in his mouth, trying to play with visitors – something many saw as a gesture of comfort in moments of grief. In 2021, after leaving the cemetery grounds, the dog was struck by a motorcycle and died. There was widespread public commotion, and, as there was no legal provision at the time, the Taboão da Serra city council made an exception and allowed it to be buried alongside its former owner. The NGO Patre, which works with stray animals, launched a crowdfunding campaign to install a statue in the cemetery, where it has stood since 2022. “Our tribute and gratitude for your lessons in love and loyalty,” reads the plaque beneath the statue, adding that “in the face of grief, [Bob] taught us to ‘offer little balls’ and attention when others need it most”. One of the authors of the bill, Eduardo Nóbrega, the the conservative state deputy, posted that “anyone who has lost a pet knows: it’s not just an animal. It’s family.” He said the law provides a “dignified and accessible” alternative to the previous requirement of cremation, whose high costs often led families to dispose of remains improperly. São Paulo is not the first Brazilian state to authorise the burial of pets alongside their owners, which is already in force in Rio de Janeiro and Santa Catarina. A federal bill has also been pending in the lower house of congress since 2023. In the city of Apucarana, in the state of Paraná, a similar law faced strong opposition in 2024, with city councillors arguing, for example, that it would be “inappropriate” because a cemetery is “sacred ground”, but it was ultimately approved.