Por Riane Lumer y Aleena Fayaz, CNN

El presidente de EE.UU., Donald Trump, dijo este sábado que enviará un barco hospital a Groenlandia, la isla ártica y territorio danés que ha intentado adquirir.

“Trabajando con el fantástico gobernador de Louisiana, Jeff Landry, vamos a enviar un gran barco hospital a Groenlandia para cuidar a las muchas personas que están enfermas y que no están siendo atendidas allí. ¡¡¡Ya está en camino!!!” publicó el presidente en las redes sociales junto a una ilustración del buque hospital naval USNS Mercy.

No está claro a qué se refería Trump en su publicación. Groenlandia y Dinamarca tienen sistemas de salud gratuitos y nacionalizados.

CNN se ha puesto en contacto con la Casa Blanca, la Embajada de Dinamarca en Washington, la oficina de Landry, el Gobierno danés y el Parlamento de Groenlandia para obtener más detalles. El Pentágono remitió las preguntas al Comando Norte de Estados Unidos, que a su vez remitió las preguntas a la Marina de EE.UU. La Marina no respondió de inmediato a una solicitud de comentarios.

Landry, a quien Trump eligió en diciembre como enviado especial a Groenlandia, dijo en las redes sociales que está “orgulloso de trabajar” junto a Trump en “este importante asunto”.

La Marina de EE.UU. tiene dos barcos hospital móviles, el USNS Mercy y el USNS Comfort, que apoyan a las tropas durante despliegues y brindan servicios para operaciones de ayuda humanitaria y socorro ante desastres en EE.UU. Durante el punto álgido de la pandemia de covid-19 en 2020, la Marina desplegó el USNS Comfort en la ciudad de Nueva York, el epicentro del brote del virus en Estados Unidos.

Groenlandia, ubicada estratégicamente, es el territorio menos densamente poblado del mundo y, debido a la limitada red de carreteras, sus 56.000 habitantes se desplazan en barco, helicóptero y avión entre las ciudades de la isla. Estados Unidos tiene una base militar en Groenlandia, la Base Espacial Pituffik, que se encuentra en la costa occidental de la isla.

La publicación de Trump llega un mes después de que sus crecientes esfuerzos por obtener Groenlandia sacudieran a los aliados europeos, al afirmar que Estados Unidos no se conformaría con nada menos que el control total del país.

A finales de enero, Trump anunció “el marco de un acuerdo futuro” sobre Groenlandia con el jefe de la OTAN, pero su continuo interés en la isla ártica genera preguntas sobre la soberanía de Groenlandia.

La idea del liderazgo estadounidense ha inquietado a los groenlandeses, incluido el ingeniero municipal Ludvig Petersen.

Anteriormente dijo a CNN que su principal aversión al control estadounidense proviene del tema de la salud privada.

“No me gusta la idea de convertirnos en parte de Estados Unidos”, dijo. “Mi principal preocupación es toda esta privatización de la salud y la educación. No es algo a lo que estemos acostumbrados”.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post Trump dice que va a enviar un barco hospital a Groenlandia appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

Por Ana María Cañizares, CNN en Español

Con piel rayada, de colores vistosos, ágiles y muy pequeñas, así son a simple vista las ranas epipedobates tricolor que encontramos en el Centro Jambatu de Investigación y Conservación de Anfibios, ubicado a las afueras de Quito. La visita de CNN tuvo el objetivo de conocer más detalles, características y efectos de este tipo de rana venenosa después de un curioso hallazgo asociado al opositor ruso Alexey Navalny, quien murió en prisión en Rusia hace dos años.

Esta especie de rana venenosa originaria de Ecuador contiene en su piel una sustancia tóxica denominada “epibatidina”, que fue encontrada en el cuerpo de Navalny, según un nuevo informe revelado la semana pasada por cinco países europeos. Los análisis de las muestras tomadas del cuerpo de Navalny confirmaron “de forma concluyente” la presencia de la epibatidina, una neurotoxina que no se encuentra de forma natural en Rusia.

De acuerdo con los Institutos Nacionales de Salud de Estados Unidos, la epibatidina es un “alcaloide natural” procedente de la piel de la rana venenosa epipedobates tricolor, que puede llegar a ser 100 a 200 veces más potente que la morfina y 30 veces mayor que la nicotina. Esta sustancia también mantiene a decenas de investigadores tratando de encontrar un mecanismo para desarrollar su potencial farmacológico.

La epibatidina puede ocasionar espasmos musculares, parálisis, convulsiones, insuficiencia respiratoria, problemas cardíacos severos, asfixia y la muerte.

A miles de kilómetros de Rusia, en Ecuador, los expertos estudian y analizan a esta especie de rana que se encuentra en la parte tropical y subtropical de Ecuador, en las provincias de Azuay, El Oro y Loja y en el noroccidente de Perú hasta cerca de 2000 metros de altitud. El biólogo y director del Centro Jambatu de Investigación y Conservación de Anfibios, Luis Coloma, dijo a CNN que para multiplicar el veneno de estos anfibios o producir un efecto letal se necesitarían cientos de ranas para —por ejemplo— obtener apenas 1 miligramo de la toxina.

“En el caso de esta rana el veneno está en su piel. Las cantidades que tiene este animal de epibatidina son mínimas, estamos hablando de submiligramos. Inicialmente para extraer un miligramo se tuvo que extraer la piel de 750 ranas. Entonces en ciertos laboratorios especializados con las tecnologías actuales es posible sintetizar esta molécula y producir en cantidades mayores”, explica.

El biólogo Coloma insiste en que para aumentar la cantidad de epibatidina se podría requerir el apoyo de un laboratorio para su multiplicación. “Eso es frecuente en la investigación farmacológica. El primer paso es conocer la estructura química de la molécula. A partir de eso, una vez que ya se conoce la estructura, los laboratorios la pueden sintetizar. En el caso de la epibatidina no es tan fácil pero laboratorios especializados sí lo pueden hacer”, agrega.

El veneno que producen estas ranas depende mucho de la alimentación que obtengan en su vida silvestre. Se alimentan de ciertos animales que determinan la producción de la epibatidina. “Las ranas cuando están en el campo tienen una dieta particular. Son especializadas en comer tipos de ácaros, tipos de hormigas, algunos coleópteros. La epibatidina proviene de su alimento en el campo”, comenta Coloma.

Esta sustancia puede ser almacenada bajo condiciones de refrigeración o a través del uso de metanol para su preservación. Coloma insiste en que la epibatidina tiene un alto potencial para tratar una variedad de patologías o enfermedades como el Alzheimer

By Billy Stockwell, Tim Lister, CNN

(CNN) — French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said Sunday he would ⁠summon the US ambassador to France, Charles Kushner, over comments made about the death of a French far-right activist earlier this month, which he labeled as “interference.”

Quentin Deranque, 23, died two days after suffering severe head injuries in a brawl in the city of Lyon on February 12, drawing criticism from the Trump administration which described the death as the result of left-wing violence.

“We are summoning the US ambassador to France because the embassy issued a commentary on this event which concerns the national community. We reject any interference in this event,” Barrot said in an interview with radio station France Inter.

On Friday, the US embassy in France shared an X post from the US State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau which said reports that Deranque “was killed by left-wing militants, should concern us all.”

“Violent radical leftism is on the rise and its role in Quentin Deranque’s death demonstrates the threat it poses to public safety,” the X post said.

The fatal brawl was caught on video, which showed several masked people kicking and punching a man on the ground, causing widespread shock and anger in France.

Authorities have charged two people with murder in connection with Deranque’s death, and altogether 11 have been arrested.

The incident has also sparked a diplomatic spat between France and Italy, after Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said Deranque’s death was caused “by groups linked to left-wing extremism” and condemned “a climate of ideological hatred sweeping several nations.”

This is not the first time that Kushner has been summoned amid criticism from the French authorities.

In August 2025, the Foreign Ministry summoned Kushner after he accused the French government of a “lack of sufficient action” in confronting antisemitism.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post France summons US ambassador over comments about death of far-right activist appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

CNN

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — On the surface, the Supreme Court’s massive decision shutting down Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs was a case about the president’s power to pursue a global economic agenda and levy what the majority said amounted to a $134 billion tax on American consumers.

But just below the court’s bottom-line repudiation of Trump’s tariffs, a testy debate unfolded among the court’s conservative justices about a little understood — and often criticized — legal theory known as the “major questions doctrine.” It is a fight that could have enormous consequences for the remainder of Trump’s term, and beyond.

In an opinion running more than twice as long as the 21 pages Chief Justice John Roberts used to resolve the case, Justice Neil Gorsuch took his colleagues on the left and the right to task for their views of the doctrine, which stipulates that Congress “speak clearly” when it is granting a president power to deal with matters of “major” economic or political significance.

The Supreme Court, therefore, may say that presidents can’t find a specific and significant power in an ambiguous law.

Roberts also pushed back on an idea raised by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas that Congress intended to give presidents flexibility with broad language. It is precisely in cases dealing with major issues, the chief justice wrote, that the court should be skeptical of sweeping claims of presidential power.

“There is,” Roberts wrote, “no major questions exception to the major questions doctrine.”

The spirited back-and-forth may explain why the tariffs case took months for the court to resolve, and it exposed rifts that could prove meaningful for Trump and for future presidents.

Conservatives seemed united about how the major questions doctrine worked when they were applying it to a Democratic president. They cited it to invalidate President Joe Biden’s policies — including his student loan forgiveness program, environmental policies and his responses to the Covid-19 pandemic.

But those same justices were nevertheless deeply divided Friday about its use when it came to Trump’s tariffs.

Three conservatives in dissent claimed it didn’t apply, three liberals in the majority said it wasn’t needed and two conservatives spent dozens of pages debating what, exactly, it is.

“Past critics of the major questions doctrine do not object to its application in this case,” Gorsuch, who was Trump’s first nominee to the high court yet voted against the president Friday, wrote of the three-justice liberal wing that also declared the tariffs illegal.

“Still others who have joined major questions decisions in the past dissent from today’s application of the doctrine,” he wrote of the three conservative justices who would have allowed Trump to continue his tariffs. “It is an interesting turn of events.”

In the end, a combination of

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — On the surface, the Supreme Court’s massive decision shutting down Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs was a case about the president’s power to pursue a global economic agenda and levy what the majority said amounted to a $134 billion tax on American consumers.

But just below the court’s bottom-line repudiation of Trump’s tariffs, a testy debate unfolded among the court’s conservative justices about a little understood — and often criticized — legal theory known as the “major questions doctrine.” It is a fight that could have enormous consequences for the remainder of Trump’s term, and beyond.

In an opinion running more than twice as long as the 21 pages Chief Justice John Roberts used to resolve the case, Justice Neil Gorsuch took his colleagues on the left and the right to task for their views of the doctrine, which stipulates that Congress “speak clearly” when it is granting a president power to deal with matters of “major” economic or political significance.

The Supreme Court, therefore, may say that presidents can’t find a specific and significant power in an ambiguous law.

Roberts also pushed back on an idea raised by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas that Congress intended to give presidents flexibility with broad language. It is precisely in cases dealing with major issues, the chief justice wrote, that the court should be skeptical of sweeping claims of presidential power.

“There is,” Roberts wrote, “no major questions exception to the major questions doctrine.”

The spirited back-and-forth may explain why the tariffs case took months for the court to resolve, and it exposed rifts that could prove meaningful for Trump and for future presidents.

Conservatives seemed united about how the major questions doctrine worked when they were applying it to a Democratic president. They cited it to invalidate President Joe Biden’s policies — including his student loan forgiveness program, environmental policies and his responses to the Covid-19 pandemic.

But those same justices were nevertheless deeply divided Friday about its use when it came to Trump’s tariffs.

Three conservatives in dissent claimed it didn’t apply, three liberals in the majority said it wasn’t needed and two conservatives spent dozens of pages debating what, exactly, it is.

“Past critics of the major questions doctrine do not object to its application in this case,” Gorsuch, who was Trump’s first nominee to the high court yet voted against the president Friday, wrote of the three-justice liberal wing that also declared the tariffs illegal.

“Still others who have joined major questions decisions in the past dissent from today’s application of the doctrine,” he wrote of the three conservative justices who would have allowed Trump to continue his tariffs. “It is an interesting turn of events.”

In the end, a combination of conservative and liberal justices concluded that the 1977 emergency powers law Trump relied on to impose his sweeping tariffs did not give him the authority to do so. The president has other authorities to levy those duties and made