Japan is on track to get its first female prime minister after the leading conservative party elected Sanae Takaichi as its new leader. 

Takaichi, the former economic security minister of Japan, beat Agriculture Minister Shinjiro Koizumi, the son of popular former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, in a runoff in an intraparty vote on Saturday by the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.

Takaichi is replacing Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba as the party looks to regain public support and stay in power. 

Despite suffering major election losses, the Liberal Democratic Party remains by far the largest in the lower house and determines Japan’s leader because opposition groups are highly splintered.

In the first round of voting, Takaichi finished first with 183 votes and Agriculture Minister Shinjiro Koizumi placed second with 164. Because neither candidate reached a majority in the first round, the winner was determined in an immediate two-way runoff. 

The LDP, whose consecutive losses in parliamentary elections in the past year have left it in the minority in both houses, sought a leader who can quickly address challenges both domestic and international, while seeking cooperation from key opposition groups to implement its policies.

Takaichi, a hard-line conservative who’s cited former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as her hero, has called for strengthening Japan’s military, and taking a tougher stance against China and North Korea. She also opposes same-sex marriage and retains ties to nationalist groups. 

Takaichi also faces a possible summit with President Donald Trump, who could demand that Japan increase its defense spending. A meeting is reportedly being planned for late October. Trump will travel to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea starting Oct. 31.

The LDP also needs help from the opposition, which it has long neglected. The party will likely look to expand its coalition with the moderate centrist Komeito with at least one of the key opposition parties, which are more centrist.

A parliamentary vote is expected in mid-October.  

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Senate Democrats blocked Republicans’ attempt to reopen the government again, all but guaranteeing that the government shutdown rolls through the weekend.

After a day off to observe Yom Kippur, lawmakers made little progress in finding an off-ramp to end the shutdown, which entered its third day on Friday. And as the government remains closed, both sides appear to be digging further into their positions.

Senate Republicans’ attempt to reopen the government failed on a largely party-line 54-44 vote for a fourth time, with the same trio of Senate Democratic caucus members — Sens. John Fetterman, D-Pa.; Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev.; and Angus King, I-Maine — joining most Republicans in backing the bill.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., plans to bring the bill to the floor again and again in a bid to chip away at Democrats’ largely unified front. He lamented the work that could be happening, like advancing spending bills and negotiating other bipartisan priorities, on the Senate floor rather than repeating the same exercise of trying to reopen the government. 

‘They have taken hostage the federal government and, by extension, the American people, who are the only losers in this,’ Thune said. ‘Everybody’s talking about who wins and who loses and who gets the blame. That’s not what this is about. This is about doing what’s in the best interest of the American people. And what’s in the best interest of the American people is keeping the government open and operating so it can continue to work on their behalf.’ 

Senate Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., demand that they get a seat at the table to negotiate a bipartisan continuing resolution (CR).

Their main rallying cry has been pushing for an extension to expiring Obamacare tax credits, which Senate Republicans have said they would consider only after the government is reopened. While the credits don’t expire until the end of the year, Democrats argue that if Congress doesn’t act now, people who use Obamacare will see their healthcare premiums skyrocket.

‘We know Americans want this, and we know many of my Republican colleagues want this as well,’ Schumer said. ‘But failure to act would be devastating. And Republicans know it. Even Donald Trump knows it. He talked about it a little bit with us in the White House.’

When asked if the pressure would mount to a point where Democrats cave, Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., told Fox News Digital, ‘We’re on the right side of history right now.’

Republicans largely agree it is an issue that should be dealt with, but they also want reforms in the program rather than the blanket, permanent extension that Democrats suggested in their counter-proposal.

Some Democrats also view the shutdown as a way to stand up to President Donald Trump.

‘The truth is, we shut down the government because Republicans wouldn’t negotiate, because Donald Trump wants to shut down,’ Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said. ‘He’s just bragging in the Oval Office about how good a shutdown will be for him. And we’re going to talk about the consequences of Republicans continuing to push these giant healthcare increases on people and the consequences of a lawless president.’

The administration is not resting on its laurels either and has targeted funding in blue cities and states, along with threats of mass firings beyond the typical furloughs of nonessential federal employees to get congressional Democrats to blink.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought announced Friday that $2.8 billion in Chicago infrastructure project funding would be put on hold to prevent ‘race-based contracting,’ a move that came on the heels of $18 billion in infrastructure money in New York City and $8 billion in ‘Green New Scam’ funding from going to 16 blue states being withheld earlier this week.

Thune argued that the administration is what Democrats ‘have wrought’ by continuing to withhold their votes. 

‘They are allowing the administration to do the very thing that, back in March, they said they didn’t want to give them the authority to do,’ he said. ‘And that’s to make decisions just like that. But that’s what’s going to happen.’ 

Meanwhile, bipartisan talks are brewing in the background, though no real deal nor compromise has materialized.

There have been suggestions of extending the credits for another year after the government is reopened or doing a shorter CR to match up with the beginning of open enrollment on Nov. 1. But Republicans engaged in talks are more keen to keep the government open until at least Nov. 21 to allow appropriators to finish their work on spending bills.

‘Nobody’s married to any of this, but we’ve got to get the 45 days in effect first,’ Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said. 

President Donald Trump signed an order Monday offering a U.S. guarantee for Qatar’s security, a significant commitment for the rising non-NATO Arab ally.

‘The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory, sovereignty, or critical infrastructure of the State of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States,’ the order, made public Wednesday, read in no uncertain terms.

‘In the event of such an attack, the United States shall take all lawful and appropriate measures — including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military — to defend the interests of the United States and of the State of Qatar and to restore peace and stability.’

The guarantee represented a level of support typically offered to Washington’s closest allies. It came after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized to Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani for a Sept. 9 Israeli strike on his territory. 

The strike was targeted at Hamas but killed one Qatari security official in the process.

Qatar also was attacked by Iran in June in a strike targeted at its U.S. base.

The order falls short of a NATO-style defense pact — it hasn’t been ratified by the Senate, so it isn’t binding.

It came as Netanyahu and Trump, during a visit to the White House Monday, announced a 20-point plan to end the war in Gaza, brokered with Qatari mediation. Hamas has not yet accepted the plan.

U.S. relations with Doha have come a long way since 2017, when Trump accused Qatar of harboring terrorism: ‘The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level,’ Trump said at the time.

From there, Qatar became a major non-NATO ally to the U.S. in 2022 under President Biden and is home to Al Udeid Air Base, one of the U.S.’ largest Middle East bases and a key hub for U.S. Central Command operations.

The nation is now gifting the U.S. with a new plane to serve as Air Force One.

Qatar welcomed the president’s executive order in a statement saying it reflects ‘the strong and longstanding ties between Doha and Washington.’

‘Qatar remains committed to working with the United States and international partners as a trusted mediator to address shared challenges, advance conflict resolution through diplomatic means, and support sustainable peace in the region,’ the statement said.

A security guarantee has long been a goal for Qatar and other Gulf allies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The nation has hosted a Hamas political office since 2012, but local officials say they were asked to do so by the U.S. to establish a line of communication for negotiations.

Before Qatar was involved in mediating the Gaza ceasefire, it was a bridge for U.S. and Taliban talks before the withdrawal in 2021 and has worked on prisoner exchanges between Russia and Ukraine. This year it’s been involved with the U.S. in working out a peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, signed at the White House in June.

President Donald Trump has an almost flawless record on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket this year, a streak that has delivered crucial moments of relief to the government as it fights hundreds of lawsuits challenging the president’s agenda.

The Supreme Court has ruled in Trump’s favor on government cuts, nationwide injunctions, immigration policies and more, leading the White House to tout what it recently counted as 21 victories before the high court.

Those victories are, however, temporary. The upcoming term, which begins Monday, will allow the justices to begin weighing the full merits of some of these court disputes and ultimately cement or undo key parts of the Trump agenda.

Jonathan Adler, a William & Mary Law School professor, attributed the interim wins to the Supreme Court’s desire to narrow the judicial branch’s role in policymaking.

Speaking during a Federalist Society panel this week, Adler said the high court’s thinking might be that ‘lower courts are doing too much. We’re going to scale that back because it’s not our place, and it’s for the executive branch and the legislative branch to figure that out.’

The Trump administration has only challenged about one-fifth of the adverse rulings it has received from the lower courts. Adler said Solicitor General John Sauer, who represents the government, is strategically selecting which cases to bring to the high court. 

‘If you go through them, setting Humphrey’s Executor stuff slightly to the side, what they all have in common is that there’s a kind of clear argument that … district courts were a little too aggressive here,’ Adler said.

He acknowledged that some might have a different view, that the Trump administration has been ‘too muscular’ and that court intervention is a necessary check.

The emergency docket, sometimes known as the shadow or interim docket, allows the Trump administration or plaintiffs to ask the Supreme Court to quickly intervene in lawsuits and temporarily pause lower court rulings. The process can take a couple of days, weeks or months, and is viewed as a much speedier, albeit temporary, way to secure court relief than if the high court were to fully consider the merits of a case, which can include a long briefing schedule and oral arguments.

The Supreme Court’s emergency docket this year has been extraordinarily active. Attorney Kannon Shanmugam, who has argued dozens of cases before the high court, said Trump’s high volume of executive actions is partly the reason for that.

‘[An increase in emergency motions] coincides with the rise of executive orders and other forms of unilateral executive action really as the primary form of lawmaking in our country with the disappearance of Congress, and that has posed enormous challenges for the court,’ Shanmugam said.

Through the emergency docket, the Supreme Court has greenlit Trump’s mass firings of career employees and high-profile terminations of Democratic appointees. It has curtailed nationwide injunctions and cleared the way for controversial deportations and immigration stops. The high court has said the government can, for now, withhold billions of dollars in foreign aid and discharge transgender service members from the military.

In other instances, parties on both sides in a court fight have construed Supreme Court outcomes as wins.

In one such order, the Supreme Court said the Trump administration must attempt to return Salvadoran migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the government admitted in court to improperly deporting to a Salvadoran prison. But at the same time, the high court noted that district court judges must also be deferential to the executive branch’s authority over foreign policy.

Similarly, the high court said the administration must allow deportees under the Alien Enemies Act a reasonable chance to fight their removal through habeas corpus petitions. The justices have not yet weighed in on the merits of Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, one of his most aggressive deportation tactics, which the president employed to swiftly remove alleged Tren de Aragua members.

Conservative lawyer Carrie Severino, president of the legal watchdog JCN, said one criterion the Supreme Court considers when making fast decisions is whether parties are at risk of irreparable harm.

As an example, Severino pointed to the Supreme Court recently allowing Trump to fire Biden-appointed FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a case that the high court is now using as a vehicle to revisit in the coming months the 90-year precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

Severino said, ‘If one assumes, ‘Okay, if Trump’s right,’ then this is a serious burden on the government to have a good chunk of their four years being taken up with not being able to actually staff the government as they want to. If Trump’s wrong, then Commissioner Slaughter should have been in that position, and they can remedy that by providing her back pay.’

‘When you’re balancing those types of harms, this is the kind of case where the government’s going to have a leg up,’ Severino said.

In a small defeat for Trump on Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to allow the president to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and instead said it would hear her case in January. The move was a deviation from the court’s typical posture and underscored its unique view on the Federal Reserve compared with other agencies.

The Supreme Court’s majority has often split along ideological lines and offered little reason for its emergency decisions. This differs from final orders from the court, which can be lengthy and include numerous concurring opinions and dissents.

Attorney Benjamin Mizer, who served as a top DOJ official during the Biden administration, cautioned during the panel that the Supreme Court could reverse its shadow docket positions down the road.

‘As cases reach the court on the merits, we shouldn’t presume that the administration will win them all,’ Mizer said.

Iran reportedly executed six prisoners Saturday who the regime claimed carried out deadly attacks in the country’s oil-rich southwest on behalf of Israel, marking the latest surge in executions that rights groups say have reached levels unseen in decades.

The six executions were reported by The Associated Press, as well as Iranian news agency Mizan. 

A seventh prisoner, accused of killing a Sunni cleric in 2009, along with other crimes, was executed in Kurdistan province. 

Saturday’s executions follow the 12-day Iran-Israel war in June, which ended with Tehran vowing it would target its enemies at home and abroad.

According to Amnesty International, Iranian authorities have executed more than 1,000 people so far in 2025, the highest annual figure recorded by the group in at least 15 years.

Iran said the six men linked to Israel killed police officers and security forces, as well as orchestrated bombings targeting sites around Khorramshahr in Iran’s restive Khuzestan province. Iranian state television aired footage of one of the men talking about the attacks, saying it was the first time the details were being made public.

A Kurdish group called the Hengaw Organization for Human Rights said the six were actually Arab political prisoners who had been arrested during the 2019 protests. Hengaw said Iran accused them of having links to the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz, a separatist group blamed for pipeline bombings and other attacks in the region.

The group insisted the men were tortured and forced into giving televised confessions under duress.

The seventh prisoner, Saman Mohammadi Khiyareh, a Kurd, was convicted over the 2009 assassination of Mamousta Sheikh al-Islam, a pro-government Sunni cleric in the Kurdish city of Sanandaj.

Activists have questioned Khiyareh’s case, noting he was only 15 or 16 at the time of the assassination, was arrested at 19 and was held for more than a decade before his execution. His conviction, they said, relied on confessions extracted under torture — a practice activists accuse Iranian courts of using regularly.

The number of state executions has drastically escalated since President Massoud Pezeshkian took office in July 2024. At least 975 people were executed in 2024, according to figures from the United Nations. Pezeshkian answers to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who holds ultimate authority in the country.

Iran has been putting prisoners to death at a pace unseen since 1988, when it executed thousands at the end of the Iran-Iraq war.

Independent U.N. human rights experts have sounded the alarm about the sheer number of executions, calling it ‘a dramatic escalation that violates international human rights law,’ according to a recent press release from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

‘With an average of more than nine hangings per day in recent weeks, Iran appears to be conducting executions at an industrial scale that defies all accepted standards of human rights protection,’ the body said.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report