民调：俄罗斯民众对经济悲观程度达20年来最高

2026年6月30日 22:33 / 联合早报

6月28日，俄罗斯袭击乌克兰顿涅茨克州前线城镇多布罗皮利亚，导致公寓楼被毁。 （路透社）

盖洛普民调机构星期二（6月30日）公布的一项调查显示，俄罗斯民众对本国经济状况的悲观情绪达到了近20年来的最高点，且大多数人认为生活水平正在恶化。

路透社报道，这项于3月14日至5月6日期间进行的电话调查访问了1000名俄罗斯人，结果显示，在本月燃料供应急剧恶化之前，民众的悲观情绪就已经存在。

数据显示，60%的俄罗斯受访者认为他们居住的城市或地区的经济状况正在恶化，只有27%认为经济状况正在改善。

当被问及生活水平时，56%表示生活水平正在恶化，29%表示生活水平正在改善，14%认为生活水平没有变化。

盖洛普民调显示，民众对俄罗斯军方的信任度已从2022年的80%降至66%，对俄罗斯政府的信任度也从66%降至53%。

延伸阅读

普京：俄罗斯正经历困难时期 但也学到很多

盖洛普还公布了在乌克兰进行的调查的结果，这项调查访问了1000名乌克兰人。结果显示，民众对“美国的表现”的认可度已跌至7%，79%的受访者表示不认可。

盖洛普指出，在过去20年对140多个国家进行的民意调查中，没有哪个国家对美国的支持率在五年内下降如此之大。

盖洛普民调显示，24%的受访者认为乌克兰应该继续战斗直至取得胜利，66%则认为乌克兰应该尽快寻求通过谈判结束战争。

Supreme Court upholds state bans on transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports

June 30, 2026 / 11:10 AM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled states can prohibit transgender athletes from competing on girls’ and women’s sports teams, a decision that delivers the latest setback for transgender rights.

In two of the most closely watched cases of its term, the Supreme Court upheld laws from West Virginia and Idaho that restrict transgender athletes’ participation in school sports. The cases are known as West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the opinion for the majority, writing that under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, schools can base eligibility for women and girls’ sports teams on biological sex.

“Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the States may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America.”

The three liberal justices dissented from the majority’s finding when it comes to the Equal Protection Clause, but agreed with the court’s conservatives on Title IX.

The ruling protects similar laws in 27 states that have been enacted in recent years in response to high-profile instances of transgender athletes competing in girls’ and women’s sporting events. President Trump signed an executive order last year that prohibits educational programs that receive federal dollars from allowing transgender girls and women to play on the teams that align with their gender identity.

The NCAA and the International Olympic Committee have also updated their eligibility policies, limiting competition in women’s events to only athletes assigned female at birth.

The ruling is the latest to land before the Supreme Court that tested transgender rights. In its last term, the high court upheld a Tennessee law that restricts access to certain medical treatments for minors experiencing gender dysphoria. Half of the states have similar measures in place.

But in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal civil rights law known as Title VII prohibits an employer from firing a worker because of their sexual orientation or transgender status. Challengers to the athlete bans had argued that the court’s reasoning in that case should apply to Title IX. But Kavanaugh wrote that the civil rights law and its 2020 ruling “are not relevant in this very different statutory and factual context.”

“Title VII concerns employment, whereas Title IX as relevant here focuses on sports,” he said. “The two factual contexts are vastly different.”

The West Virginia law

West Virginia enacted its law, called the Save Women’s Sports Act, in 2021. The measure requires athletic teams to be designated based on biological sex at birth and bars students assigned male at birth from playing in girls’ and women’s sports.

Before the law took effect, a transgender girl named Becky Pepper-Jackson, who wanted to compete on her school’s girls cross-country and track teams, sued to block its enforcement. Pepper-Jackson began socially transitioning in third grade and has taken puberty-delaying medication and hormone therapy. She is now in high school.

A U.S. district court upheld West Virginia’s law in 2023, but a federal appellate court in 2024 ruled that the measure unlawfully discriminates against Pepper-Jackson on the basis of sex.

At issue in the case was whether Title IX or the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause prevented a state from forbidding transgender girls and women from playing on the athletic teams that match their gender identity.

Lawyers for Pepper-Jackson had argued that the bans targeted only a small number of athletes — their client is the only transgender athlete in West Virginia, they said. Additionally, because of puberty-delaying medical treatment, Pepper-Jackson and other transgender girls like her do not have any biological athletic advantage over competitors designated female at birth, her lawyers said.

But state officials said the bans draw permissible distinctions between the sexes, classifications that are substantially related to their interest in protecting girls’ and women’s sports.

Title IX was enacted more than 50 years ago and prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. Two years after its passage, regulations were adopted to allow schools to operate sex-separated athletic teams, as well as separate locker rooms, restrooms and showers. Schools, though, must provide “equal athletic opportunity” for members of both sexes.

The Idaho law

The Supreme Court also weighed a challenge to a law from Idaho, which was the first state to forbid transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports.

Lindsay Hecox filed her lawsuit challenging Idaho’s law after seeking to compete on the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University and argued that the state’s ban was unconstitutional and a violation of Title IX. A federal appeals court ruled in 2024 that Idaho’s ban is likely unconstitutional.

GOP infighting over Trump’s voter ID bill erupts as top senator calls strategy ‘fantasy’

June 30, 2026 11:30am EDT / Fox News

Senators Mike Lee and John Cornyn trade barbs on social media over ‘talking filibuster’

By Alex Miller, Fox News

Trump, GOP senators clash over SAVE America Act

Fox News chief congressional correspondent Chad Pergram reports on President Trump’s push for GOP senators to pass the Save America Act on ‘Special Report.’

Senate Republicans are taking closed-door conversations online to snipe at one another over stalled voter ID and citizenship verification legislation.

President Donald Trump wants Republicans to pass the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, but the political reality in the Senate, albeit through extreme measures that don’t have unified support among the Senate GOP, makes passage unlikely.

Still, that has not stopped Trump, supporters online, and key proponents of the legislation in the Senate from pushing the message that the SAVE America Act can pass, but only if Republicans have the guts to do it.

That avenue would be through the “talking filibuster,” which proponents say would grind down Democrats’ resistance and ultimately lead to the SAVE America Act passing at a simple majority threshold.

‘IT’S A MESS’: GOP TURNS ON HOUSE CONSERVATIVES AS VOTER ID BLOCKADE STALLS TRUMP’S AGENDA

Discourse over the SAVE America Act, and the reality that it can’t pass in the Senate, is pitting Republican against Republican online.(Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

Opponents warn that doing so would dominate the Senate’s most valuable commodity — floor time — and allow Democrats to control the tempo of the upper chamber. And, there’s fear that Republicans wouldn’t stay unified to kill Democratic amendments on a variety of issues.

Those dueling positions have caused clashes typically kept behind closed doors in the Senate to manifest on social media, notably between Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and John Cornyn, R-Texas.

“There is not a single instance in the history of the United States Senate where a ‘talking filibuster’ has resulted in a favorable outcome for the proponent,” Cornyn said on X while sharing a memo that included numerous “issues” with launching a talking filibuster.

Among those were the arguments that it would make campaigning more difficult because of attendance requirements, that it would allow Democrats to force unlimited votes on politically tough amendments on “issues that divide” Republicans, and that Democrats could drag out the process so long that the SAVE America Act might not be implemented before the election. Lee shot back that Cornyn’s memo “perfectly illustrates why the talking filibuster is necessary — not why we should avoid it like the plague or pretend it doesn’t exist.”

SEN LEE DARES DEMOCRATS TO REVIVE TALKING FILIBUSTER OVER SAVE ACT, SLAMMING CRITICISM AS ‘PARANOID FANTASY’

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6399588066112

“The procedural hurdles you list (including the two-speech rule, quorum, calendar drag, and opportunity costs) are real,” Lee said. “But they’re also manageable—and in many instances can even be used to strengthen our negotiating position—if Republicans actually use the rules instead of surrendering to them.”

“The alternative — walking away from the SAVE America Act — has far higher costs: another election without proof of citizenship, more erosion of public confidence, and Democrats continuing to weaponize the same procedures against us,” he continued.

Cornyn’s response: “fantasy.”

Meanwhile, the House is facing its own SAVE America Act dispute, which has threatened to blow up the perennial, must-pass National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., demanded that House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., include the legislation in the colossal NDAA package.

He relented, but it will be the same version of the voter ID bill that the House already passed and that the Senate has been unable to move. And during negotiations over the NDAA in the coming weeks and months, the Senate can easily strip the measure out to ensure that the Pentagon authorization bill passes.

The House will take its first step on that plan Tuesday afternoon.

Most Senate Republicans support the original SAVE America Act, which includes voter ID, citizenship verification to register to vote, giving the Department of Homeland Security access to voter rolls, and other policies.

But Trump wants his version of the SAVE America Act, which tacks on tight restrictions on mail-in ballots, halts biological men from participating in women’s sports and bans transgender surgeries on minors, which does not have 50 votes of support among the Senate GOP.

TRUMP HEADS TO CAPITOL HILL FOR PIVOTAL MEETING AS SENATE GOP DIVISIONS DEEPEN

President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 22, 2026.(Jacquelyn Martin/AP)

That version of the bill has also not passed through the House.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday to allow mail-in ballots that arrive late to still be counted has again stoked Trump’s interest in the legislation and directed his ire toward the Senate.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“In a time when there is a powerful Communist Movement taking place in our Country, one more dangerous than World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or September 11th, all Dumocrats, and our five Republican Senate Hold Outs, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, and Mitch McConnell must vote to SAVE OUR COUNTRY,” Trump said on Truth Social. “There can be no more excuses!”

Notably, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., has never voted against the SAVE America Act in its many different variations in the Senate, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, supports the original version of the bill that passed the House.

Alex Miller is a writer for Fox News Digital covering the U.S. Senate.

‘A huge victory for common sense’: West Virginia Atty General reacts to Supreme Court ruling on transgender athletes

2026-06-30T14:59:32.329Z / CNN Politics

By Hannah Choi, CNN

Published 10:59 AM EDT, Tue June 30, 2026

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/30/politics/video/west-virginia-attorney-general-reaction-supreme-court-transgender-athlete-digvid

‘A huge victory for common sense’: West Virginia Atty General reacts to Supreme Court ruling on transgender athletes

West Virginia Attorney General (R) JB McCuskey reacts to the Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday which ruled that states may bar transgender students from playing on girls sports teams.

4:10 • Source: CNN

美伊谈判未定 伊朗：未与美方安排任何会谈

2026年6月30日 22:53 / 联合早报

黎巴嫩总统奥恩（右）周一（6月29日）在贝鲁特会见美军中央司令部司令库珀将军（左二）。 （法新社）

（华盛顿／德黑兰综合电）美国和伊朗本周分别派代表到卡塔尔首都多哈，但伊朗表明，前去多哈的是负责跟进美伊谅解备忘录的技术代表团，未来几天不会同美国举行任何级别的谈判。

美国总统特朗普日前称，美伊代表将于本周在多哈会谈。不过，伊朗外交部发言人巴加埃星期一（6月29日）告诉媒体，伊方尚未进入最终协议谈判阶段，并未与美方安排任何会谈。

卡塔尔外交部发言人星期二（30日）也说，美国和伊朗并无计划在多哈直接会谈，而美国总统特朗普的特使维特科夫和女婿库什纳当天在多哈是与卡塔尔调解员会面。

伊朗一名官员则透露，美伊技术团队将在星期三（7月1日）分别同卡塔尔和巴基斯坦的调停官员会面。

巴加埃周一说，伊朗当前的重点是确保美伊谅解备忘录相关条款得到执行。他指出，谅解备忘录第10条涉及的石油销售问题，美方已签发必要许可。至于第11条涉及的解冻伊朗资产问题，相关执行进程也在推进中，而前往多哈的伊朗专家代表团将负责跟进相关事项。

美国和伊朗预留至少60天，以逐步落实谅解备忘录的14项条款。然而，进展一直断断续续，双方互相指责对方违反协议，也互相攻击，使得脆弱的停火协议愈发岌岌可危。

伊朗称周一与阿曼首次开会谈海峡管理

此外，伊朗副外长加里巴巴迪周一在社交媒体发文说，伊朗与阿曼当天在阿曼首都马斯喀特举行了关于管理霍尔木兹海峡的首次会议。

伊朗和阿曼都声称拥有这条国际重要航道的主权。加里巴巴迪说，双方就未来如何管理海峡交换了意见，也达成共识，并指阿曼也认为应该根据所提供的服务收取费用。两国据说已决定就此成立技术委员会。

霍尔木兹海峡的控制权一直处于混乱状态。伊朗近日不断重申它控制着霍尔木兹海峡，并且警告所有船只必须按照伊方划出的通行航线航行，否则将被对付。

自美国与伊朗上周爆发新一轮互击后，船只近日纷纷避开阿曼外海的航行通道，霍尔木兹海峡周末的通行量急剧下降。

研究机构HFI Research称，上星期天（28日）只有四艘油轮和一艘集装箱船在美国海军的护航下，经由阿曼南部水域通道进入波斯湾。航运分析公司Kpler的数据则显示，当天没有船只经此通道离开波斯湾。

以防长：可能随时与伊朗爆发冲突

另一方面，以色列国防部长卡茨周一受访时说，鉴于复杂的安全局势和在黎巴嫩的军事行动，以色列随时可能再同伊朗爆发冲突。

以色列媒体报道，卡茨列举两种可能重启战争的情况：一是特朗普认为美伊停火谈判破裂，不会有成果；二是伊朗攻击以色列。

卡茨说，以色列军方已做好防御和进攻的两手准备，如果以方发现有真实的危险，将发起攻击。

针对黎巴嫩局势，卡茨重申以军在黎巴嫩真主党解除武装之前，不会撤退。

黎巴嫩总统奥恩周一在贝鲁特会见美军中央司令部司令库珀将军，讨论美以黎上周签署的三方框架协议。

奥恩说，黎巴嫩打算在全国范围内行使主权，并将军队部署至紧邻以色列边境的地区。

库珀周一还与黎巴嫩武装部队总司令海卡尔会晤，双方讨论黎巴嫩最新局势发展。

根据三方框架协议，黎巴嫩真主党将被解除武装，而这个任务由黎巴嫩武装部队执行。

获得伊朗支持的真主党强烈反对三方协议，指这出卖黎巴嫩的主权，使以色列占领黎巴嫩合法化。真主党要员已警告，如果把协议强加于他们，黎巴嫩国内可能爆发冲突。

Supreme Court strikes down coordinated campaign spending limits

2026-06-30 10:28 EDT / CBS News

By

Updated on: June 30, 2026 / 11:11 AM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down federal limits on the amount of money a political committee can spend in coordination with federal candidates, further unwinding restrictions on the flow of money into congressional campaigns just months ahead of the midterm elections.

In the case National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the court divided 6-3 along ideological lines in finding that the caps on what are called coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment.

The decision joins a line of recent rulings from the court’s conservative majority that have invalidated campaign finance limits on the grounds that they restrict political speech.

In an opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the high court’s conservative majority said its decision “treats all political parties equally. It will allow all political parties — including the DNC and RNC and the respective Senate and House campaign committees, as well as other parties and party committees — to participate more freely and compete more fully in the political process, and to coordinate more closely with their candidates.”

At the center of the case were limits imposed by Congress through the Federal Election Campaign Act, which was passed to regulate the financing of federal campaigns. In the 2026 election cycle, party committees can spend between $65,300 and $130,600 in coordination with congressional campaigns, and between $130,600 and $4 million with Senate candidates, according to the FEC. Congress amended the law in 2014 to allow unlimited coordinated spending on certain activities, such as election-recount lawsuits or other legal proceedings.

In 2022, then-Senate candidate JD Vance, then-Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio and two Republican committees filed a lawsuit challenging the spending limits as violations of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. A federal appeals court upheld the caps, citing a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that had left an earlier version of the limits intact.

But in the 25 years since that ruling, the composition of the high court changed considerably. It now has a 6-3 conservative majority.

When the dispute arrived at the high court, the FEC under the Trump administration joined with the Republicans in urging the justices to strike down the caps. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the limits violate the First Amendment by restricting parties’ right to engage in political speech in coordination with their candidates.

The court appointed an outside lawyer, Roman Martinez, to argue in defense of the limits. Democratic campaign committees also urged the Supreme Court to uphold the caps.

Since 2010, the Supreme Court has issued a series of rulings knocking down campaign finance restrictions. In the landmark case Citizens United v. FEC, decided that year, the high court struck down prohibitions on political spending by corporations. Then, in 2014, the Supreme Court invalidated the limit on the amount of money a donor could contribute to federal candidates in a two-year election cycle.

Its latest decision came in 2022 in a case involving Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican. In that ruling, the high court said a cap on the amount of post-election contributions that can be used to repay a candidate who loaned their campaign money was unconstitutional.

Republicans and Democrats react to ruling

Democrats criticized the ruling as weakening safeguards against corruption in elections, while Republican leaders applauded the court’s decision on free speech grounds.

“This is a decisive First Amendment victory and a major win for the integrity of our political system,” NRCC Chair Rep. Richard Hudson and NRSC Chair Sen. Tim Scott said in a statement. “The Supreme Court made clear that the federal government has no authority to place arbitrary limits on how political parties support the candidates they nominate. By striking down these unconstitutional caps on coordinated spending, the Court has restored core political speech and ensured parties can compete on a level playing field.”

They added, “We are ready to fully support our candidates and put them in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.”

President Trump, in a social media post, declared it “A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!”

Meanwhile, Democratic Party leaders called the ruling “a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption.”

“Republicans have failed the American people with a record that has ripped away health care and raised costs on families, and they know voters will hold them accountable in November — which is exactly why they are rewriting the rules in an effort to drown out the will of the voters by flooding elections with more money from their billionaire backers,” said the statement from DSCC Chair Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, DCCC Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene and DNC Chair Ken Martin.

“Democrats are fighting back for the American people, and in November, voters will reject Republicans’ toxic agenda and efforts to rig the system and weaken our democracy by electing a Democratic House and Senate majority,” they said.

美伊谈判未定 伊朗：未与美方安排任何会谈

2026年6月30日 22:53 / 联合早报

黎巴嫩总统奥恩（右）周一（6月29日）在贝鲁特会见美军中央司令部司令库珀将军（左二）。 （法新社）

（华盛顿／德黑兰综合电）美国和伊朗本周分别派代表到卡塔尔首都多哈，但伊朗表明，前去多哈的是负责跟进美伊谅解备忘录的技术代表团，未来几天不会同美国举行任何级别的谈判。

美国总统特朗普日前称，美伊代表将于本周在多哈会谈。不过，伊朗外交部发言人巴加埃星期一（6月29日）告诉媒体，伊方尚未进入最终协议谈判阶段，并未与美方安排任何会谈。

卡塔尔外交部发言人星期二（30日）也说，美国和伊朗并无计划在多哈直接会谈，而美国总统特朗普的特使维特科夫和女婿库什纳当天在多哈是与卡塔尔调解员会面。

伊朗一名官员则透露，美伊技术团队将在星期三（7月1日）分别同卡塔尔和巴基斯坦的调停官员会面。

巴加埃周一说，伊朗当前的重点是确保美伊谅解备忘录相关条款得到执行。他指出，谅解备忘录第10条涉及的石油销售问题，美方已签发必要许可。至于第11条涉及的解冻伊朗资产问题，相关执行进程也在推进中，而前往多哈的伊朗专家代表团将负责跟进相关事项。

美国和伊朗预留至少60天，以逐步落实谅解备忘录的14项条款。然而，进展一直断断续续，双方互相指责对方违反协议，也互相攻击，使得脆弱的停火协议愈发岌岌可危。

伊朗称周一与阿曼首次开会谈海峡管理

此外，伊朗副外长加里巴巴迪周一在社交媒体发文说，伊朗与阿曼当天在阿曼首都马斯喀特举行了关于管理霍尔木兹海峡的首次会议。

伊朗和阿曼都声称拥有这条国际重要航道的主权。加里巴巴迪说，双方就未来如何管理海峡交换了意见，也达成共识，并指阿曼也认为应该根据所提供的服务收取费用。两国据说已决定就此成立技术委员会。

霍尔木兹海峡的控制权一直处于混乱状态。伊朗近日不断重申它控制着霍尔木兹海峡，并且警告所有船只必须按照伊方划出的通行航线航行，否则将被对付。

自美国与伊朗上周爆发新一轮互击后，船只近日纷纷避开阿曼外海的航行通道，霍尔木兹海峡周末的通行量急剧下降。

研究机构HFI Research称，上星期天（28日）只有四艘油轮和一艘集装箱船在美国海军的护航下，经由阿曼南部水域通道进入波斯湾。航运分析公司Kpler的数据则显示，当天没有船只经此通道离开波斯湾。

以防长：可能随时与伊朗爆发冲突

另一方面，以色列国防部长卡茨周一受访时说，鉴于复杂的安全局势和在黎巴嫩的军事行动，以色列随时可能再同伊朗爆发冲突。

以色列媒体报道，卡茨列举两种可能重启战争的情况：一是特朗普认为美伊停火谈判破裂，不会有成果；二是伊朗攻击以色列。

卡茨说，以色列军方已做好防御和进攻的两手准备，如果以方发现有真实的危险，将发起攻击。

针对黎巴嫩局势，卡茨重申以军在黎巴嫩真主党解除武装之前，不会撤退。

黎巴嫩总统奥恩周一在贝鲁特会见美军中央司令部司令库珀将军，讨论美以黎上周签署的三方框架协议。

奥恩说，黎巴嫩打算在全国范围内行使主权，并将军队部署至紧邻以色列边境的地区。

库珀周一还与黎巴嫩武装部队总司令海卡尔会晤，双方讨论黎巴嫩最新局势发展。

根据三方框架协议，黎巴嫩真主党将被解除武装，而这个任务由黎巴嫩武装部队执行。

获得伊朗支持的真主党强烈反对三方协议，指这出卖黎巴嫩的主权，使以色列占领黎巴嫩合法化。真主党要员已警告，如果把协议强加于他们，黎巴嫩国内可能爆发冲突。

Supreme Court lifts Watergate-era caps on campaign spending

2026-06-30 10:26 AM ET / CNN

By Fredreka Schouten, John Fritze

Updated Jun 30, 2026, 11:35 AM ET

PUBLISHED Jun 30, 2026, 10:26 AM ET

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 29, 2026.

Cheney Orr/Reuters

The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a Watergate-era cap on how much money political parties may spend in coordination with candidates, siding with Republicans in a case initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance that experts say could ultimately benefit the GOP in this year’s midterm election.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a 6-3 conservative-liberal court.

In the opinion, Kavanaugh wrote that keeping limits in place could “help consign political parties to continued second-tier status as compared to outside groups.”

“Weakened political parties distort the political system,” he added.

The dissent of the court’s liberals, written by Justice Elena Kagan, blasted the Supreme Court for another decision that dismantles campaign finance reforms.

“I’m not sure what to call a remnant of a remnant, but that is what the Court has left today,” she wrote, warning that the legal regime created by the rulings is “increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.”

Since the 1970s, political party committees, such as the fundraising arm of Senate Republicans, have been capped at how much money they may spend in coordination with a campaign. That has pushed a flood of campaign money toward super PACs, which have no spending limits but are unable to run their advertising and other messages past the candidate they want to help.

In 2022, Vance and several party committees — including the National Republican Senatorial Committee — challenged the law as a violation of the First Amendment. From the beginning, they appeared to have the upper hand at the 6-3 conservative court.

The majority has in recent years repeatedly invalidated campaign regulations. Several years ago, the court struck down a limit on campaigns’ ability to use post-election funds to repay loans made by candidates. In 2014, the court eliminated limits on how much donors could give to all candidates and parties in aggregate during a two-year period. Four years before that, the court handed down its decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which allowed corporations to spend unlimited sums in candidate elections.

Republicans argued that the caps on coordinated party spending were hopelessly out of step with the court’s modern approach to campaign finance law. And they asserted in briefing that the law “harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,” such as super PACs.

Related article In this October 2020 photo, Jim Slowikowski oversees the unloading of pallets filled with Washington and Oregon mail-in ballots at a US Postal Service processing and distribution center in Portland, Oregon. Nathan Howard/Getty Images The Supreme Court handed Trump an election case defeat. Is a bigger win for him coming? 6 min read

Financial advantage

Even before the court’s decision was handed down, Republicans entered the election year with a substantial financial advantage over Democrats. The Republican Party has had significantly more cash on hand than the Democratic National Committee in recent disclosure reports.

In recent cycles, however, individual Democratic candidates in key races for Congress typically have outraised Republicans, powered by small-dollar donations. The ruling paves the way for Republican campaign committees to counter Democratic candidates’ longstanding grassroots fundraising edge.

Both Democrats and Republicans have been preparing for the ruling and looking for ways to capitalize on it — although they have been reluctant to telegraph their specific strategies publicly, according to strategists. But the impact of the court’s decision already has been felt by political operatives in Washington.

As they prepared for a new fundraising landscape, some party committees held off on establishing and hiring staff and consultants for so-called “independent expenditure” operations — arms that are firewalled from political parties’ day-to-day functions to focus on advertising in the most competitive races.

What voters will likely see is a flood of new political commercials this year, as party committees race to seize on their newfound ability to work directly with candidates and take advantage of lower advertising rates that broadcasters must offer to candidates close to Election Day under federal law.

This story has been updated with additional information.

CNN’s Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.

联合国：埃博拉可能让非洲损失36亿美元

2026年6月30日 23:57 / 联合早报

5月21日，刚果民主共和国的医护人员正在接收一名感染埃博拉的患者。 （路透社）

联合国星期二（6月30日）说，埃博拉疫情可能给非洲造成高达36亿美元的损失，导致数十万人失业，甚至可能引发发展危机。

路透社报道，刚果民主共和国政府称，自5月15日宣布爆发埃博拉疫情以来，目前已有1307人感染、377人死亡。

这次疫情的源头是邦迪布焦埃博拉病毒株，目前尚无针对它的疫苗或治疗方法。

乌干达报告的病例数量远少于刚果，专家警告称，疫情有可能蔓延至其他邻国，例如南苏丹。

联合国开发计划署驻刚果代表马马说：“如果我们拥有足够的资源并加大力度，就能控制疫情，防止进一步的损失。”

“如果我们不采取行动，这场突发公共卫生事件就有可能演变成一场影响整个区域乃至整个非洲大陆的更加严重且旷日持久的发展危机。”

联合国开发计划署概述了应对疫情的三种方案。报告指出，在疫情控制在两国范围内的最佳情况下，刚果（金）的国内生产总值损失为10亿美元（约13亿新元）。

在疫情蔓延至卢旺达和安哥拉等国的情况下，加上伊朗危机导致的燃料价格上涨，非洲大陆的国内生产总值将减少36亿美元，并造成32.8万人失业。

联合国：埃博拉可能让非洲损失36亿美元

2026年6月30日 23:57 / 联合早报

5月21日，刚果民主共和国的医护人员正在接收一名感染埃博拉的患者。 （路透社）

联合国星期二（6月30日）说，埃博拉疫情可能给非洲造成高达36亿美元的损失，导致数十万人失业，甚至可能引发发展危机。

路透社报道，刚果民主共和国政府称，自5月15日宣布爆发埃博拉疫情以来，目前已有1307人感染、377人死亡。

这次疫情的源头是邦迪布焦埃博拉病毒株，目前尚无针对它的疫苗或治疗方法。

乌干达报告的病例数量远少于刚果，专家警告称，疫情有可能蔓延至其他邻国，例如南苏丹。

联合国开发计划署驻刚果代表马马说：“如果我们拥有足够的资源并加大力度，就能控制疫情，防止进一步的损失。”

“如果我们不采取行动，这场突发公共卫生事件就有可能演变成一场影响整个区域乃至整个非洲大陆的更加严重且旷日持久的发展危机。”

联合国开发计划署概述了应对疫情的三种方案。报告指出，在疫情控制在两国范围内的最佳情况下，刚果（金）的国内生产总值损失为10亿美元（约13亿新元）。

在疫情蔓延至卢旺达和安哥拉等国的情况下，加上伊朗危机导致的燃料价格上涨，非洲大陆的国内生产总值将减少36亿美元，并造成32.8万人失业。