The US Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will address a challenge presented by the Republican Party and supported by the Government of President Donald Trump to reduce the limits that have been imposed for decades on the expenses that political parties can make in a coordinated manner with individual campaigns.

The challenge was filed by the Republican national committees of the two Houses of Congress and two campaigns for the 2022 legislative elections, that of the current vice president, JD Vance, who ran as a senator for Ohio, and former congressman Steve Chabot, who lost the re-election of his seat, also for Ohio, in the House of Representatives.

In turn, the initiative has the support of the Federal Electoral Commission, currently under the direction of the Trump Administration, which has refused to defend the current legislative framework indicated that the restrictions in force violate the first amendment of the Constitution, which affects, among others, religious freedoms, of expression, press or assembly.

This leaves the Democratic National Committee and other related committees as the only advocates of these restrictions.

According to the current law, approved in 1971 and modified over the years by the Supreme Court and Congress, parties can invest money unlimitedly if they do so independently to support a candidate, but instead there are limits to the amounts if those expenses are made in a coordinated manner with the candidate’s campaign.

The challenge is the latest in a long series of cases that have sought to dynamite the restrictions on campaign financing agreed by Congress almost 55 years ago.

Already in 2010 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of not putting limits on expenses implemented independently by external entities.

The highest US court will attend to the oral arguments and issue a ruling in its next session, which begins in October.

The Administration of US President Donald Trump sued on Monday the city of Los Angeles for its “sanctuary city” immigration policies, claiming that these interfere with the application of federal government immigration laws.

The lawsuit filed in the Central District of California names the mayor of Los Angeles, the Democrat Karen Bass, the city council and the president of the city council, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, as defendants.

The legal letter accuses the city of having initiated the process to turn its sanctuary city policies into law after the electoral triumph of Donald Trump, who had campaigned with a platform focused on deporting millions of immigrants who illegally entered the country.

The lawsuit cites the ordinance ‘Prohibition of the Use of City Resources for Federal Immigration Enforcement’, signed by Bass in December 2024, which limits federal immigration agencies from using city resources to carry out immigration operations or arrests within local jurisdiction, an action that, according to the lawsuit, seeks to hinder the application of federal immigration law.

“By helping foreigners subject to deportation to evade the application of federal law, the city’s illegal and discriminatory ordinance has contributed to an anarchic and unsafe environment that this lawsuit will help eradicate,” said federal prosecutor Bill Essayli for the Central District of California, in a statement issued by the Department of Justice.

The lawsuit accuses the city of preventing officials from collaborating with immigration authorities, such as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

In addition, he points out that the city discriminates against the federal government and its immigration authorities by denying them access to resources.

It is also alleged that the city has promoted acts of resistance and riots related to federal immigration operations, including episodes of violence against agents, and that it has carried out actions that constitute obstruction of justice.

The lawsuit is filed during the fourth week of migration operations in the state of California, weeks after protests broke out against the presence of ICE in the city, which led President Trump to send 4,000 soldiers from the California National Guard, without the permission of the governor of the state, a measure that was not taken 60 years ago.

Although Los Angeles approved for a few months to officially declare a sanctuary for immigrants, its Police have maintained for almost 50 years the Special Order that prohibits officers from starting contact with a person for the sole purpose of determining their immigration status.

The White House indicated on Monday that Washington is still in contact with Tehran, despite what was said today by President Donald Trump, who said he was not talking to representatives of Iran, after the United States bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities executed more than a week ago.

“As I already told you from this podium last week; the administration, and in particular our special envoy (for the Middle East), Steve Witkoff, have been in communication, both directly and indirectly, with the Iranians,” White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt explained at a press conference today.

“That communication continues, but the president himself has not spoken directly with Iran, something he highlighted in his statement on Truth (Social),” Leavitt added in reference to the online message written shortly before by the president.

“I’m not offering Iran ANYTHING, unlike Obama, who paid them billions of dollars under the stupid ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) aimed at a nuclear weapon’ (which would now have expired!), I’m not even talking to them since WE totally DESTROYED their nuclear facilities,” Trump wrote today.

Signed in 2015 between Iran, the United States, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the European Union (EU), the JCPOA agreed to control Iranian nuclear developments in favor of lifting sanctions against Tehran.

Trump himself in his first term (2017-2021) withdrew his country from the pact because he considered that it did not undermine the atomic capacities of the Islamic nation enough or that it favored the financing of regional groups related to Iran.

On the other hand, Leavitt did not want to answer today when he was asked about whether the talks between Washington and Tehran have the possibility of focusing on aspects beyond the nuclear program; such as the aforementioned related groups – such as the Houthi or Hizbulá -, the Iranian ballistic missile program or the possibility of resuming bilateral trade relations.