“Más allá de extraordinario”: el mensaje de admiración de Shakira a Messi

Kraig Pakulski 0 61 Article rating: No rating

Por Erick E. Beltran, CNN en Español

Shakira se unió a las celebridades que han expresado su admiración por el futbolista Lionel Messi, luego de que él y la selección de Argentina derrotaran este miércoles a Inglaterra y consiguieran el pase a la final del Mundial 2026.

La colombiana compartió en sus historias de Instagram una fotografía del astro argentino y agregó un texto en inglés en el que escribió: “lo que Lionel Messi está haciendo es más allá de extraordinario”. Además, la intérprete destacó los valores del argentino y lo calificó como una persona “altamente comprometida” que desafía el tiempo y la adversidad. También afirmó que Messi está demostrando que una persona no se define por su edad ni por lo que los demás dicen de ella.

La superestrella de la música también aprovechó para mencionar a Antonella Roccuzzo. Dijo que está segura de que una mujer como ella, al lado de Messi, le da fuerza e inspiración al célebre futbolista.

Shakira ha sido vista en algunos partidos de la Copa del Mundo 2026 apoyando a Argentina. La colombiana estuvo en Dallas cuando la selección sudamericana se enfrentó a Austria y, unos días después, también apareció en el estadio de Miami para el partido contra Cabo Verde.

Shakira actualmente se prepara para ser una de las artistas que participarán en el espectáculo de medio tiempo del partido final del Mundial 2026, que se celebrará este domingo 19 de julio en el Estadio de Nueva York-Nueva Jersey. En el espectáculo también está previsto que participen Madonna, BTS, Justin Bieber, Gustavo Dudamel, Burna Boy, Coldplay junto con el coro PS22, así como los personajes de “Sesame Street” y “The Muppets”.

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

The post “Más allá de extraordinario”: el mensaje de admiración de Shakira a Messi appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

Climbing mortgage rates, brain health, celebrity ‘sex pass’: Catch up on the day’s stories

Kraig Pakulski 0 65 Article rating: No rating

By Gina Park, Kimberly Richardson, CNN

👋 Welcome to 5 Things PM! Apparently, the most competitive game of Ultimate Frisbee is played by nuns. The internet can’t stop watching these sisters talk about normal stuff.

Here’s what else you might have missed during your busy day.

5 things

1⃣ Financial strain

Geopolitical tensions are rippling through America’s housing market, and homebuyers are feeling the pain. The average mortgage rate climbed to its highest level in nearly a year after new strikes in Iran.

2⃣ Political failure?

President Donald Trump has repeatedly promised to produce an Iran deal better than Barack Obama’s 2015 agreement. CNN’s Aaron Blake explains why a majority of Americans doubt him.

3⃣ Disturbing deepfakes

Elon Musk’s xAI sued a South Carolina man after he allegedly used the Grok chatbot to create child sexual abuse materials. It’s one of the first tech company lawsuits against users accused of making explicit content.

4⃣ Brain damage

Football isn’t the only sport with potentially negative neurological impacts. New research shows another popular activity does too — but that doesn’t mean your kids shouldn’t play.

5⃣ ‘Sex pass’

If you could actually sleep with your celebrity crush, would you? A new comedy, starring Zoey Deutch, explores the ups and downs of turning that fantasy into reality — and it might just be a recipe for disaster.

Watch this

✈ Too close for comfort? Spectators on Florida’s Pensacola Beach got a great look at the Blue Angels when a jet flew low during an air show, sending umbrellas and tents flying. Squadron leaders are reviewing the safety of the maneuver.

Top headlines

Check this out

🌊 Toxic to trendy: The next time you visit Paris, consider adding a dip in the Seine to your itinerary. Once notorious for its pollution, the river has undergone a remarkable transformation and is now one of the city’s hottest

EE.UU. dirige ahora su guerra comercial contra Brasil: ¿por qué y quiénes pagarán el costo?

Kraig Pakulski 0 62 Article rating: No rating

Por Gonzalo Zegarra, CNN en Español

El Gobierno de Estados Unidos concretó este miércoles su amenaza de imponer nuevos aranceles del 25 % a miles de productos de Brasil, la potencia sudamericana con la que mantiene una tensa relación, aunque economistas advierten que el costo de esa medida se trasladará a los consumidores estadounidenses.

El arancel adicional que Estados Unidos anunció el miércoles sobre parte de los productos procedentes de Brasil afectará a exportaciones brasileñas por unos US$ 11.200 millones (casi el 30 % del total), según cálculos de la Cámara Americana de Comercio para Brasil (Amcham Brasil), pero con un enorme asterisco.

De los 3.000 productos afectados que calculó Amcham Brasil, quedaron exceptuados varios altamente sensibles para el consumo en EE.UU., como las carnes, el café, el petróleo y los aviones, según confirmó en su anuncio el representante comercial de Estados Unidos (USTR). Es decir, el impacto sería mucho más fuerte de no ser por esas excepciones.

En la práctica, la mayor parte del costo de los aranceles no es absorbido por los exportadores brasileños ni los importadores estadounidenses, sino por el consumidor final en los supermercados u otros comercios, según explicó a CNN el economista y consultor brasileño André Perfeito.

“Es un tema de oferta y demanda. Para los productos que no tengan sustitutos, el empresario va a pasar esa tarifa al precio. Hay algunos que tienen alternativas similares, pero la oferta va a disminuir”, comentó.

Entre los más afectados, Perfeito destacó el sector de la madera y maquinarias.

En el reacomodamiento de Estados Unidos, el analista dijo que el país podría buscar importar más madera de Canadá (con quien tiene sus propias discusiones) y aumentar la producción local de etanol, pero consideró que los cambios no representarían una complicación macroeconómica significativa para Brasil, que tiene a China como su primer socio comercial. “Hay capacidad de conseguir otros socios comerciales que absorban parte de eso”, afirmó.

Amcham Brasil, que agrupa a las grandes empresas brasileñas y estadounidenses con negocios en los dos países, calificó la medida como “muy negativa” para la relación bilateral. Según su análisis, la sanción pone a Brasil entre los países con las condiciones más restrictivas en el mundo para acceder al mercado estadounidense.

Perfeito afirmó que las compañías de Estados Unidos, conscientes del impacto de los aranceles, son quienes intentan que no se materialicen para no ver reducida su competitivdad. “Muchos empresarios de EE.UU. alertan a su gobierno que gravar todo eso sería complicado, porque no tienen una oferta a corto plazo. Hay una discusión allí, hacen lobby por Brasil”, comentó.

A diferencia de los aranceles de 2025 que Trump impuso a decenas de países denunciando una “desventaja comercial” (que no aplicaba en el caso de Brasil, ya que EE.UU. cuenta con un amplio superávit), esta vez la medida fue anunciada tras concluir una investigación de un año que determinó que el país sudamericano había incurrido en prácticas comerciales “desleales”.

El presidente de Brasil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, afirmó que “no existe justificación” para estos aranceles “ilegales” y arbitrarios, por lo que adelantó que responderá en virtud de su Ley de Reciprocidad.

Las exportaciones de Brasil a EE.UU. bajaron un 13 % en el primer semetre del año. Según datos oficiales, las que más cayeron fueron las de petróleo (-30 %), semimanufacturados de hierro y acero (-21,7 %) y café (-34 %).

Las nuevas medidas comerciales entrarán en vigor el 22 de julio, por lo que el impacto se sentirá cuando las empresas tengan que renovar su stock o incluso antes si deciden ir amortigúandolo. Aunque el comunicado de Estados Unidos menciona la posibilidad de mantener las conversacion

GOP leaders forced to abandon signature veterans benefits bill amid intra-party dispute

Kraig Pakulski 0 56 Article rating: No rating

By Sarah Ferris, Lauren Fox, CNN

(CNN) — Speaker Mike Johnson suffered another humiliating political defeat at the hands of his own party on Thursday when he was forced to abandon plans to pass a veterans benefits bill designed to be one of the GOP’s big legislative wins before the midterms.

Just minutes before the bill was slated to come to the floor, Johnson and his team were forced to pull it from the schedule as more than a half-dozen holdouts refused to back the measure.

The bill has been in trouble for weeks. It’s been a major source of tension in the military community, with powerful groups like the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Disabled American Veterans opposed to the measure because it reduces certain disability coverage — while others, like there American Legion, have backed it.

But Johnson and his deputies decided to go ahead with the vote. On Thursday, those concerns persisted and Johnson attempted to salvage it at the eleventh hour, holding a meeting just off the floor with a group of GOP moderates who had concerns about the bill but they could not get the votes needed.

The defeat for Johnson is the latest in a string of complications for leadership. Only days earlier, Johnson had struck a truce with GOP hardliners to reopen the floor after they’d effectively seized control and prevented the speaker from moving key bills for two weeks. Now, they are leaving Washington on Thursday without a clear path forward on the veteran benefits bill.

Those GOP centrists, among others, have opposed one piece of the sprawling measure — the plan to pay for expanded benefits by limiting payouts for future recipients’ disability claims. Critics say it would effectively eliminate compensation for tinnitus and sleep apnea from the government’s list of standalone disabilities to help pay for the expansion in other benefits.

And inside the room, the conversation grew so tense that one member, Rep. Zach Nunn, told his colleague, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, to stop talking mid-conversation, according to two sources in the room. Luna — who has drawn the ire of the GOP for holding up the floor in recent weeks over an unrelated election bill — had been explaining why she wasn’t backing down from calling for the bill to be sent back to the committee level.

Luna ended up leaving the meeting, the sources said.

“As a combat vet, I’ve worked with veterans to deliver. APL walked in late, threw a temper tantrum, and then left. She’s interested in clicks, we’re working for disabled vets, military spouses, and suicide prevention — that’s what matters,” Nunn said in a statement to CNN.

Luna later explained that she would not vote for the veterans bill because it took away certain medical benefits for service members.

“I’m not going to vote for it because I think that it’s bad to cut sleep apnea and also tinnitus and then bundle it with other things. I don’t think that it makes sense,” Luna said.

Luna posted to X Thursday afternoon, “As a veteran, and more importantly as the representative of a veteran-heavy district, I will never vote to cut veterans’ benefits, nor will I vote to prevent current service members from filing claims in the future. Today, I found myself at the center of an unhinged meltdown and was told to ‘stop talking’ simply for pointing out how wrong it is to cut veterans’ benefits.”

Another one of the GOP defectors, Rep. Jeff Van Drew, was clear he would not change his mind: “I’m not changing my vote.”

“I love the bill 90% of it, but I don’t like dripping away benefits for veterans to help other veterans. You don’t separate people out that way and you also make sure veterans groups should be behind us,” Van Drew said.

The collapse of

Trump Administration Facing Lawsuit Over Allegedly Illegal Deal with Wind Energy Company

Kraig Pakulski 0 56 Article rating: No rating

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KEYT) – The California Attorney General's Office informed the Trump Administration of its intent to sue over an allegedly illegal deal to terminate an offshore wind energy lease at the Morro Bay Wind Energy Area Thursday.

According to Thursday's Notice of Intent to sue issued to members of the Trump Administration, the latest deal to terminate an offshore wind energy lease with Invenergy California Offshore LLC. announced last month may violate the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

"California's anticipated OCSLA [Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act] citizen suit will challenge the purported settlement agreement between the United States and Invenergy California Offshore LLC. announced on June 17, 2026, and the cancellation of offshore wind Lease OCS P0565, which is held by Invenergy, set out in that Agreement for failure to comply with obligations under OCSLA, its implementing regulations, and associated requirements," explained Thursday's letter.

This isn't the first offshore wind energy company to receive payments from the Trump Administration to not pursue their projects and not the first time that the Attorney General's Office has noted the potential violations of federal law in the deals.

In fact, a Congressional investigation alleging the violations of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act was announced in April of this year.

According to Ranking Member Huffman of the House Natural Resources Committee and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Raskin, the Trump Administration issued two payments totalling almost $1 billion to French energy giant TotalEnergies from the Department of the Treasury's Judgement Fund, an account created by Congress in 1956 to pay court-ordered judgements and settlements against the government.

The language used in each of the deals has notably similar wording including that each of the offshore wind energy companies make investments into oil and natural gas projects as well as the use of the Judgment Fund to process the payments.

"The monies refunded to developers were paid by developers; these are not taxpayer dollars," argued the Department of the Interior in response to Your News Channel's questions specifically about the origin of the payments to TotalEnergies.

Despite those claims, the Department of Treasury's Judgement Fund website states, "An agency may only ask for payment from the Judgment Fund if funds are not legally available to pay from the agency's own appropriations. If another source of funds exists to pay the award, the Judgment Fund cannot be used even if the other source does not have enough money. In that case, the agency with the other source of funds

RSS
First250251252253255257258259Last