Por Priscilla Alvarez, CNN

El Gobierno de Trump propuso aumentar el límite de admisiones de refugiados para el año fiscal 2026 a 17.500 para sudafricanos blancos, según una determinación de emergencia enviada al Congreso y obtenida por CNN.

El año pasado, la administración restringió el número de refugiados autorizados a ingresar al país anualmente a 7.500, con un enfoque en sudafricanos blancos, recortando el límite del año anterior de 125.000 y excluyendo a algunas de las poblaciones más vulnerables del mundo.

El presidente de EE.UU. Donald Trump ha justificado la decisión de su Gobierno de reasentar a afrikáners en Estados Unidos citando afirmaciones de que “se está produciendo un genocidio” en Sudáfrica, diciendo que “los agricultores blancos están siendo brutalmente asesinados y sus tierras confiscadas”.

Las autoridades sudafricanas han negado enérgicamente tales afirmaciones. CNN ha investigado las afirmaciones de “genocidio” blanco en Sudáfrica y no ha encontrado pruebas que las respalden.

La determinación de emergencia citó comentarios del presidente de Sudáfrica y un incidente el año pasado cuando el Gobierno sudafricano interrogó a personal estadounidense destinado en el país.

“Esta hostilidad creciente incrementa los riesgos para los afrikáners en Sudáfrica, quienes ya están sujetos a una discriminación racial de amplio alcance patrocinada por el Gobierno”, señala el informe. “Por estas razones, un límite revisado de 17.500 se justifica por graves preocupaciones humanitarias y en el interés nacional, tal como se detalla en la E.O. 14204, y promoverá los intereses de política exterior de Estados Unidos descritos en esa orden”.

CNN se puso en contacto con la Casa Blanca y el Departamento de Estado para solicitar comentarios.

Según la ley estadounidense, la administración debe consultar con el Congreso sobre el límite anual de refugiados.

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

The post El Gobierno de Trump propone admitir a más refugiados sudafricanos blancos appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

Por Jimena De La Quintana, Gonzalo Zegarra y Rocío Muñoz-Ledo, CNN en Español

Las aperturas tardías de mesas de votación durante la primera vuelta presidencial de Perú redujeron la participación electoral en Lima, aunque no existen evidencias suficientes para sostener que esas irregularidades hayan cambiado qué candidatos pasaron al balotaje, según concluyó un estudio elaborado por investigadores de la Universidad de Stanford.

La investigación, presentada como amicus curiae ante el Jurado Nacional de Elecciones (JNE), analizó el impacto de las fallas logísticas registradas el 12 de abril, cuando cientos de mesas abrieron con horas de retraso y algunas incluso tuvieron que abrir al día siguiente en una decisión inédita del JNE.

“La evidencia científica muestra que las aperturas tardías redujeron la participación electoral en determinados sitios de votación de Lima Metropolitana”, señala el informe, pero concluye que esos eventuales votos no habrían cambiado el orden de puestos.

Hasta ahora, el exalcalde de Lima Rafael López Aliaga (Renovación Popular), quien quedó tercero a solo 21.000 votos del segundo lugar (Roberto Sánchez, Juntos por el Perú) y no accedió a la segunda vuelta, considera que perdió hasta cientos de miles de votos por las demoras en la capital, su bastión electoral, pero no ha presentado evidencias para sustentar esos números. Este domingo, tras la proclamación de resultados del JNE, la agrupación ultraderechista dijo que firmó el acta “con reserva” y expresó que solicita la nulidad del documento.

El estudio del Laboratorio de Democracia en Acción de Stanford, elaborado por los académicos Beatriz Magaloni y Alberto Díaz-Cayeros junto a los investigadores Christopher Dann y Marcelo Peña, estimó caídas de entre 2,5 y 5 puntos porcentuales en la participación en las mesas afectadas.

Para realizar el análisis, los investigadores reconstruyeron una base de datos de más de 92.600 actas electorales usando información del sistema de la Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales (ONPE), documentos escaneados y herramientas de inteligencia artificial para extraer horarios de apertura de mesas.

Según los autores, las estimaciones más amplias sugieren pérdidas potenciales de entre 24.000 y 28.000 votos debido a las demoras. Sin embargo, aunque Sánchez contó con muy poco apoyo en la región Lima (quedó noveno en ese distrito electoral), y López Aliaga quedó primero, ello no implica que todos los votantes habilitados que no participaron hubieran apoyado al exalcalde.

El profesor Alberto Díaz-Cayeros, uno de los autores del estudio, explicó a CNN que esa cifra no puede interpretarse como un bloque de votos que habría ido a un solo candidato. “El número de votantes que dejaron de participar se reparte entre todos los partidos”, dijo.

En el caso de Lima Metropolitana, añadió, los investigadores asignaron esos votos de forma proporcional en función de patrones observados en mesas similares, es decir, aquellas con características comparables a las afectadas por las demoras. “Aún en la zona metropolitana de Lima López Aliaga no recibiría todos esos votos”, señaló.

Ese punto es clave para entender por qué el impacto no altera el orden entre candidatos. Aunque el exalcalde de Lima quedó tercero a poco más de 21.000 votos del segundo lugar, el estudio estima que el efecto neto sobre la diferencia entre él y Roberto Sánchez habría sido mucho menor: entre 5.000 a 5.700 votos debido a la dispersión entre los 35 candidatos y el voto en blanco o nulo.

“Bajo las especificaciones más conservadoras y metodológicamente precisas, el margen potencialmente perdido se ubica en el orden de algunos miles de votos”, indicó el documento. “En otras palabras, si las mesas no hubie

By Priscilla Alvarez, CNN

(CNN) — The Trump administration is proposing increasing the refugee admissions ceiling for fiscal year 2026 to 17,500 for White South Africans, according to an emergency determination sent to Congress and obtained by CNN.

Last year, the administration restricted the number of refugees allowed to enter the country annually to 7,500, with a focus on White South Africans, slashing the previous year’s ceiling of 125,000 and excluding some of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

President Donald Trump has justified the administration’s decision to resettle Afrikaners in the US by citing claims that “a genocide is taking place” in South Africa, saying that “White farmers are being brutally killed and their land confiscated.”

South African authorities have strongly denied such claims. CNN has investigated the claims of White “genocide” in South Africa and found no evidence to back them up.

The emergency determination cited remarks from the South African president and an incident last year when the South African government questioned US personnel on assignment in the country.

“This escalating hostility heightens the risks to Afrikaners in South Africa, who are already subject to far-reaching government-sponsored race-based discrimination,” the report states. “For these reasons, a revised ceiling of 17,500 is justified by grave humanitarian concerns and in the national interest as detailed in E.O. 14204 and will further the U.S. foreign policy interests described in that order.”

CNN reached out to the White House and the State Department for comment.

Under US law, the administration must consult with Congress on the annual refugee ceiling.

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

The post Trump administration proposes admitting more White South African refugees appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

By Marshall Cohen, CNN

(CNN) — Colorado Gov. Jared Polis justified his decision to release election denier Tina Peters from prison with a series of false and misleading claims, inaccurately distancing her case from efforts to undermine the 2020 election.

The former Mesa County clerk is set to be freed from state prison in two weeks, after Polis’ commutation cut her sentence in half. A jury convicted Peters of conspiring with allies of President Donald Trump to breach voting systems in her county in 2021, in hopes of proving his 2020 fraud claims.

Polis, a term-limited Democrat, granted the commutation Friday. He justified his decision in a series of press interviews, including with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, where he said the new 4 ½-year sentence was “tough but fair.”

He needed to “effectively resentence her,” Polis told local affiliate KCNC, in light of a recent ruling from the Colorado Court of Appeals that threw out her original nine-year sentence. The appeals court said the trial judge improperly based part of the punishment on Peters’ protected speech about elections.

Much of Polis’ rationale related to these First Amendment concerns. He said Peters holds “crazy” and “dangerous” beliefs about the 2020 election — but that she deserves a reprieve because she was unfairly punished for expressing them.

Still, the commutation drew bipartisan blowback from election officials and prosecutors. The district attorney who took Peters to trial said Polis “misunderstood” key facts, and Colorado’s attorney general said the governor’s rationale was “mind-boggling and wrong as a matter of basic justice.”

It’s common for leaders to make false claims while justifying controversial clemency decisions. Trump did this during the Russia probe in his first term, and former President Joe Biden did so after pardoning his son in 2024.

Here’s a breakdown of three dubious claims from Polis.

The case was spawned by 2020

In his post-clemency interviews, Polis repeatedly distanced Peters’ case and her criminal conduct from the attempts to undermine the 2020 election.

“This was after the 2021 — it was a small municipal election in the town,” Polis said Friday on CNN. “The results were counted. No ballots were compromised. But she went in and illegally copied, tried to copy software before an update came. So, nothing to do with President Trump’s election.”

Polis also criticized Trump for linking Peters’ case to the 2020 election, saying: “He does not understand this case. He thought … it had something to do with the 2020 election. It did not. Nothing to do with the 2020 election.”

This is highly misleading, and misses the big picture about her case.

Polis is correct that Peters’ specific crimes were not about the 2020 election. She was never accused of manipulating 2020 votes or trying to directly overturn the results. Her crimes — official misconduct, failing to comply with election rules, and more — all occurred long after Trump left office in 2021.

But evidence from the trial established that these crimes were inspired by, and meant to help, the 2020 election denier movement. Peters conspired with associates of MyPillow CEO Read more

By Tierney Sneed, Devan Cole, CNN

The unprecedented lawsuit President Donald Trump brought against the Internal Revenue Service over the unauthorized disclosure of his tax returns years ago has led to an unprecedented arrangement that will make nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer funds available to allies of the president who say they were unfairly investigated by the government in the past.

The announcement of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” by the Justice Department on Monday immediately drew criticism from Democrats, public interest groups and former government officials who argued that Trump was using the levers of the government he controls to set up a vast piggybank for his supporters.

“It’s highly unusual. It seems to me that it’s a fairly thinly veiled attempt to funnel federal money to people that are sympathetic to the president’s cause and points of view without following the kind of usual procedures,” said retired Judge William Smith, who was appointed to the federal bench in Rhode Island by former President George W. Bush.

Later Monday, the federal judge in Miami who had been overseeing the case agreed to fully close the matter – scrambling hopes from some corners of the legal community for her to scrutinize the behavior of the Trump Justice Department attorneys and Trump’s personal lawyers who were involved in the lawsuit.

Legal experts, meanwhile, appeared torn over whether anyone opposed to the deal would have the ability to mount an effort in court to frustrate the settlement, which they agreed was a novel use of the legal system to advance Trump’s policy goals.

Here’s what to know about the issue:

What was the basis of Trump’s lawsuit?

Trump sued the IRS in his personal capacity in January over the disclosure of his and his company’s tax returns in 2019 and 2020. The lawsuit – seeking $10 billion in damages – accused the agency of failing to take proper steps to safeguard his sensitive tax information, which was leaked by a government contractor who has since been prosecuted for illegally releasing the returns.

While a law protecting the privacy of taxpayers protects the privacy of presidents as well, it was notable that a sitting president was suing an agency his administration controls.

“I am unaware of any other president suing the IRS in the manner that Trump has chosen to do,” said Joseph J. Thorndike, a contributing editor with Tax Notes magazine, who pointed out that President Richard Nixon’s tax returns were leaked. “And as a result, I’m not aware of the IRS having settled any suit with a sitting president.”

“The president is at top of the executive branch, when he sues the executive branch, he is in effect suing himself,” said Stacey Young, a former longtime attorney at the DOJ who now leads Justice Connection, which opposes politicization of the department.

Controversial claims

The claims Trump was bringing appeared to be barred by a two-year statute of limitations, a clock that starts once someone becomes aware their information has been improperly disclosed.

In the version of the timeline most generous to Trump, he should have filed his claims by October 2025, House Democrats said in a court filing, because he would have certainly known of the disclosure by the October 2023 plea hearing of the government contractor given that one of his personal attorneys showed up to the proceedings on Trump’s behalf.

Secondly, the way the Justice Department folded in the face of Trump’s lawsuit is a dramatic departure from how it’s defended the IRS against similar claims of unlawful disclosure – includin