By Luc Cohen NEW YORK Here are five takeaways from Tuesday's indictment accusing former U.S. President Donald Trump

Angelina Jolie's Brad Pitt was surprised by Emily Ratajkowski's decision to break up and assumed things were getting more serious at the time

The post from the user of the X platform included a video of MrBeast celebrating surpassing one billion subscribers on YouTube

The national emergency around Covid-19 ends in the United States on Thursday, May 11. What does that mean about the threat that Covid-19 still poses to people? CNN Medical Analyst Dr. Leana Wen answers our questions.

Some of the outfits on display at the BET Awards 2023 were truly out there and failed to find any resonance whatsoever with the crowd

By Naomi Rovnick and Dhara Ranasinghe LONDON Markets have high hopes for a soft landing for the economy,

The hospitals in northern Gaza have been forced out of service amid fuel shortages and intense combat, with the death toll inside the territory's largest facility rising...

After several weeks of tense negotiations, President Joe Biden and House Republicans have reached an agreement in principle to raise the debt ceiling and cap spending.

The collapse of Afghanistan’s government at the hands of the Taliban forced thousands of the nation’s people to flee their homeland, including many of those who served as translators and other aides to US military forces. But in the more than a year and a half since, the United States has failed to offer immigration assistance to most Afghans who helped American forces, which would allow them to stay in the country on a more permanent basis. According to International Rescue Committee, the US admitted 76,000 Afghans as part of Operation Allies Welcome. And as the global war on terror has stretched on for more than two decades, Afghans have aided service members on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean – including the United States’ closest ally. In the United Kingdom, the government pledged to allow Afghans who assisted British forces to build a life in safety and security. Instead, many who have made the dangerous trip from Afghanistan to Britain have been told they face deportation. One pilot who served with distinction fled Afghanistan even as his wife and young family stayed behind, arriving in Britain in a small boat because there was no safe and legal route to escape the Taliban, since British and Nato forces left him and his squadron behind. Now he has been told by UK authorities that he faces being sent to Rwanda under a controversial immigration policy. “Everyone knew that one day the American and British armies would leave as they had supported us for a long time. But when the withdrawal came, our territorial leaders failed us,” the pilot, who is not named in order to protect his family, told The Independent earlier this year. The Independent is campaigning for the British government to give a home to those who fought with the UK against the Taliban. It has been backed by politicians of all parties, as well as religious leaders, senior military figures and celebrities including Sting and director Guy Ritchie. But the United Kingdom is not alone in its failure to fulfill the pledges made to those who assisted the war efforts. Despite broad bipartisan support in both houses of US Congress and from President Joe Biden, Congress has failed to live up to its commitments to Afghans despite supportive rhetoric. Most Afghans who came to the United States after the withdrawal of US military forces from the country, arrived on what is called humanitarian parole, wherein people who may be otherwise ineligible for admission into the United States are allowed to enter for humanitarian reasons. “And those folks have two years of parole, which is about to run out,” Shaun VanDiver, the founder of #AfghanEvac and a US Navy veteran, told The Independent. “The issue with the parolees is that for every other population, where there's been a big influx like this, Congress has passed Adjustment of Status.” Adjustment of Status would allow people who were given humanitarian parole to adjust their status to that of a permanent resident. In the months following the collapse of the Afghan government and more Afghans entering the United States, a bipartisan group led by Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota sponsored the Afghan Adjustment Act. “It's strongly supported by veterans it should be must pass,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, told The Independent. “But there are all kinds of time pressures, a lot of competing issues.” Those competing interests meant the bill was not included in must-pass legislation like last year’s omnibus spending bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, and an aid package to Ukraine, which means that many of the people given humanitarian parole risk losing their status by August, which marks two years since the Taliban took control in Afghanistan. Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York told The Independent that the United States has had a double standard when it comes to Afghanistan and other nations enduring conflict. “I feel like we saw even in the outbreak of Ukraine, the difference between how things were expedited depending on country of origin,” she said. “And I believe that translators and many folks ... we should be really filling up the visa allotments that we have, and we have not yet.” Mr VanDiver explained that the Trump administration weakened parts of the immigration system like Special Immigrant Visas and created massive backlogs by weakening the resettlement programmes. “The impact that Afghans are feeling right now can be attributed to Stephen Miller and Donald Trump, the way that they purposely deconstructed the system for welcoming vulnerable people into our country and cares for their inaction,” he said. The legislation would need to pass through the judiciary committees in the US House and Senate. Senator Chuck Grassley, who last year served as the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, opposed the legislation. Mr Grassley told The Independent that at the time he led the GOP on the committee, he was speaking for the concerns of other Republican senators. “I think it would be based on this issue of vetting,” he said. “I think that's very important. You know, when we have 98 people across the border that haven't been vetted and they're on the terrorist watch list, I think we have to be very careful.” Since then, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the co-sponsors of the Afghan Adjustment Act, has stepped up to ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said lawmakers may act on the Afghan Adjustment Act towards the end of the year when Congress must fund the government. “I think it’s important we keep our commitment to those who helped us in Afghanistan,” Mr Graham told The Independent, adding that he is not concerned about missing the August deadline. “I just want to try to rally the House and Senate around the concept that we need to do better, and that's very important,” he said. Since 2022, Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives, making it much harder to pass the legislation in the era of hyper-polarised government. While Mr Graham is the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Representative Jim Jordan, a hardliner on immigration, now leads the House Judiciary Committee, making it even tougher for the bill to pass. “But that's okay,” Mr VanDiver said. “So long as we could get (House Majority Leader Steve) Scalise and (House Speaker Kevin) McCarthy to be supportive, then we could do it.” Until then, Mr VanDiver has helped launch an Afghanistan Community Ambassadors Program so any Afghan in the United States can sign up and get direct information about immigration. “It's meant to ensure that every Afghan here has access to the same information,” he said. “So it's not like you have to know somebody.” Read More Britain’s faith leaders condemn ‘heartless’ threat to send Afghan war hero to Rwanda Our government is blinded by an obsession that is morally repugnant Minister roasted over claim ‘hundreds of thousands’ of Afghans want asylum in UK Minister roasted over claim ‘hundreds of thousands’ of Afghans want asylum in UK Rail strikes could see injured veterans miss ‘vital’ reunion G7 urges China to press Russia to end war in Ukraine, respect Taiwan's status, fair trade rules

The latest Twitch ban of Amouranth lasted for one day, seven minutes, and 12 seconds, as noted by the StreamerBans bot

A Christian website designer in Colorado did not want to provide her services to same-sex couples, potentially running afoul of state law that prohibits public-facing businesses from discriminating against LGBT+ people. The designer didn’t have any same-sex clients. She didn’t receive any requests from gay couples to work on their wedding websites. But in her legal challenge, supported by an influential right-wing legal group that backed a lawsuit ending Roe v Wade, she argued that Colorado’s law infringed on her First Amendment rights. In its final day of its current term, the US Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority agreed, potentially endangering already vulnerable rights of LGBT+ Americans and state governments’ abilities to protect them. But a crucial piece of evidence in the case appears to have been fabricated. A man who is named throughout the case, and whose phone number and email address were attached in court filings, claims he has nothing to do with it. In 2016, Lorie Smith claimed in filings that a man named “Stewart” contacted her website to help with his upcoming wedding to a person named “Mike”: “We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website.” The New Republic found “Stewart”. He said he is straight, married to a woman, and never contacted Ms Smith. His alleged request for services came within 24 hours after Ms Smith first filed her lawsuit in state court. “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” he explained to The New Republic. “I’m married, I have a child – I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.” It remains unclear, even after the Supreme Court’s decision, how and why he is involved. In a statement to The Independent, attorneys for Ms Smith dismissed his reaction and claimed that the service request was genuine. A spokesperson for Colorado’s attorney general pointed to earlier claims that there was no proof that it was. Meanwhile, the statements “Stewart” claims to never have made, and arguments from attorneys who use his name and alleged statements, remain printed across several court documents. In a motion filed by attorneys for Colorado in 2016 to dismiss the case, they pointed out that Ms Smith had never received any request for services and had no standing to sue. A response from the Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative Christian group representing Ms Smith, asserted that it was not necessary to have received any such inquiry before challenging state law. Months later, in February 2017, in an effort to bolster their challenge to state law, attorneys for the group said that Ms Smith received an inquiry, weeks before Colorado attorneys asked to dismiss the case. “Notably, any claim that Lorie will never receive a request to create a custom website celebrating a same-sex ceremony is no longer legitimate because Lorie has received such a request,” according to the filing. Later that year, following a court ruling in Colorado’s favour, the group mentioned “Stewart” and “Mike” in a press release. In a December 2021 filing with the Supreme Court, attorneys for Colorado responded to the alleged request again, noting that the inquiry “was not a request for a website at all, but just a response to an online form asking about ‘invites’ and ‘place-names,’ with a statement that the person ‘might also stretch to a website.’” The Alliance Defending Freedom fired back in a reply brief, once again mentioning a request that may not even exist: “Colorado’s claim – that a request from ‘Mike’ and ‘Stewart’ for a wedding website does not reflect a same-sex wedding request – blinks reality.” The Independent asked representatives for the Alliance Defending Freedom how “Stewart” became involved with the case. Senior counsel Kellie Fiedorek said The New Republic’s findings are a “last-minute attempt to malign Lorie [that] smacks of desperation to delegitimize her civil rights case and our judicial system.” “It’s undisputed that Lorie received this request through her website. She doesn’t do background checks on incoming requests to determine if the person submitting it is genuine,” she added. “Whether Lorie received a legitimate request or whether someone lied to her is irrelevant. No one should have to wait to be punished by the government to challenge an unjust law.” A spokesperson for the office of Colorado’s attorney general did not have a comment prior to the ruling but pointed The Independent to its brief with the Supreme Court noting that Ms Smith did not take “any steps to verify that a genuine prospective customer submitted the form.” The Supreme Court’s decision is a blow to LGBT+ advocates who fear the case could open the door for rollbacks to discrimination protections, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor noting that the ruling comes in the middle of a wave of state laws targeting LGBT+ people. “This case cannot be understood outside of the context in which it arises,” she wrote in her dissent. “In that context, the outcome is even more distressing. … In this pivotal moment, the Court had an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to equality on behalf of all members of society, including LGBT people. It does not do so.” A statement from Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT+ civil rights organization, said the court’s decision “is a dangerous step backward, giving some businesses the power to discriminate against people simply because of who we are.” President Joe Biden, noting the decision’s arrival on the final day of Pride Month, said he is “deeply concerned that the decision could invite more discrimination” against LGBT+ Americans. “More broadly, today’s decision weakens long-standing laws that protect all Americans against discrimination in public accommodations – including people of color, people with disabilities, people of faith, and women,” he added. Read More Supreme Court allows Colorado designer to deny LGBT+ customers in ruling on last day of Pride Month The Supreme Court just made me a second-class citizen ‘It’s hard on our family’: For these lawmakers with trans children, Republican attacks are personal

Voters in one Iowa county have rejected a GOP-appointed auditor who had previously made social media posts that questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, among other conspiracy theories