ICJ Ruling, Border Deal Falling Apart, Biden Administration LNG Pause

Israel.

in Gaza.

But can any court decision be enforced?

The Senate is close to a bipartisan deal pairing border security with Ukraine aid, but former

President Trump is telling Republican lawmakers to reject it.

A lot has happened in the past decade since this program was created, and we need to have

an even greater understanding.

The Department of Energy is looking into whether new natural gas facilities are in the public's

interest.

So stay with us, we'll give you the news you need to start your day.

Just moments ago, in a much-anticipated ruling, the U.N.'s top court in The Hague stopped

short of ordering a ceasefire in Gaza, but demanded that Israel do more to contain the

death and damage its military operation has wrought there.

This provisional ruling is in response to a lawsuit brought by South Africa alleging

that Israel's war in Gaza amounts to genocide against the Palestinian people.

A definitive ruling on that question isn't likely to come for another few years.

NPR's Lauren Freyer has been following this case from her base in London, and she joins

me now.

Good morning, Lauren.

judge, read out statements from U.N. officials about Gaza's destruction, about the plight

of Palestinian children there.

She also read out quotes from Israeli officials about how their military operation in Gaza

is not aimed at genocide, they claim.

And then she read out parts of the Convention on Genocide that both Israel and South Africa,

the plaintiff in this case, are signatories to.

And then she said that the court orders Israel to, quote, take all measures within its power

to prevent commissions of acts in this genocide convention.

And she listed them.

Here she is.

B. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.

C. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical

destruction in whole or in part.

Donahue said judges voted 15 to 2 on this.

There are 17 judges on the court.

The two dissenters were the one Israeli judge and another judge on the court.

Presumably Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials have been watching

this from afar.

In testimony before the court two weeks ago, Israel's attorneys pushed back very hard at

this genocide allegation, acknowledged that civilians in Gaza have suffered terribly,

but insisted that civilians are not Israel's target in Gaza.

And they say that the enemy is Hamas, which Israel accuses of using civilians as human

shields, of embedding its fighters in schools and hospitals.

One of Israel's attorneys two weeks ago in the court told the court that if the term

genocide applies to anyone, it applies to Israel's foes, militants who have called for

the destruction of Israel.

Here he is.

Israel is defending itself against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist

organizations whose brutality knows no bounds.

Attorneys for Israel listed in great detail efforts that Israel says it's made to warn

civilians in Gaza before attacks and to get aid shipments into Gaza, although the U.N.

and aid agencies that say have said it's not nearly enough.

But today, basically, the court said it is plausible that Israel has committed acts of

genocide, but that a final determination on that is still to come.

more to contain the death and damage its military operation has wrought in Gaza.

What happens now, though?

I mean, is this order binding?

Can it be enforced?

But in reality, it's pretty hard to enforce.

I mean, Israel's prime minister has said specifically that this court will not stop him from his

goal of destroying Hamas.

There is precedent here.

A 2019 case brought by the country of Gambia in West Africa sued Myanmar for alleged genocide

against the Rohingya minority.

The court ordered a similar emergency measure, urging Myanmar to do more, and Myanmar ignored

it then.

reform.

But after months of negotiating, the potential deal could topple just before crossing the

finish line as Republicans decide if they should defy former President Trump, who has

demanded a hard line Republican solution at the border.

Hey, Eric.

So where does the deal stand?

These talks have been going on a long time, but now negotiators say they're very close

to some sort of bipartisan agreement on a proposal.

That's notable, right?

In and of itself.

So Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma has been the chief Republican negotiator.

Kirsten Sinema of Arizona, an independent former Democrat, has been involved.

Democrat Chris Murphy of Connecticut is the point person for Democrats, and they have

worked by all accounts pretty tirelessly on this since the fall, with preliminary talks

happening as early as last spring.

Murphy told me yesterday that the policies here, what's involved, is basically decided.

Now they're dealing with dollar amounts and finalizing text.

And part of the reason we're seeing a bipartisan framework here, bipartisan negotiations at

all, is, well, the same reason we usually see them in Congress, which is a consensus

that the problem's now too big to ignore.

There are an all-time record number of people presenting themselves to border protection

agents, often more than 10,000 a day, to put in asylum claims, and the system just isn't

set up to deal with that as it stands.

It's worth remembering that Republicans also told Biden that the only way to get a deal

on Ukraine aid, something that's important to him, Israel aid, was to address the crisis

at the U.S. border with Mexico.

Biden agreed to that, which is how all of this got linked together.

It's a pretty common strategy in Congress to link things together that people feel strongly

about.

That way, if you're a lawmaker, maybe you can overlook your hang-up about some details

or policies that you care less about in order to get the whole package through.

Now, there is some uneasiness on the part of Republicans.

It was a little, kind of, folks were on tenterhooks yesterday on the Hill, and I think we'll

have to wait and see where things end up on Wednesday.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, acknowledged

in a closed-door meeting with his Republican colleagues that this could be a politically

hard vote.

He supports the deal, but GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has said he opposes

it.

And in the House, where this was always going to be, sort of, a long shot just because of

the dynamics in that chamber, there are immigration hardliners, much like Trump himself, for whom

any deal with Democrats won't go far enough.

You know, it's just not worthwhile.

And with a narrow majority, they don't want to risk opposing Trump, which is a bit like

kicking a hornet's nest for a Republican lawmaker.

Say he backed a primary challenge or somehow otherwise opposed you, and they might not

want to send it through.

So we're in this weird position.

Republicans want to see the text of the deal, whether they're going to take a policy win,

i.e. securing the border, and risk a potential Biden political win, credit for that deal,

taking action on immigration reform.

It's all in open question.

Many Republicans really do earnestly want to see something like this get through, want

to send money to Ukraine, but as ever, there are other political concerns involved.

When's this going to be a deal, if it's going to be a deal?

Kyrsten Sinema told reporters yesterday, in a rare gaggle, that we could see this as early

as next week.

We want to see what the reforms are, to see whether Republicans react positively to it

once they've actually seen the policy, and to see if there are defections from the left.

This thing needs 60 votes in all to pass the Senate.

NPR congressional reporter Eric McDaniel.

Thanks, Eric.

export facilities.

especially given their outsized contribution to climate change.

The decision comes as Louisiana has been moving forward with what would be the country's largest

natural gas export terminal.

Hi, Hallie.

Over the past few years, there's been this massive, rapid buildout of new natural gas

terminals in the US, so much so that the US is now the world's largest exporter of gas.

The projects that are being built right now could almost double US export capacity by

the end of the decade, even without the 17 other proposals that are in front of the Energy

Department.

Here in Louisiana, we've really been ground zero for this expansion that the gas industry

is proposing.

Well, us in Texas.

And this decision would start to slow that development down.

On a call yesterday with reporters, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm put it this way.

an even greater understanding.

buildout have been, whether that's economically, on public health, and also when it comes to

addressing planet warming emissions that cause climate change.

Industry groups argue this decision could hurt relationships with allies like Europe

that started importing more gas from the US after the Ukraine war began.

They're framing this as Europe needs this gas to survive, and industry groups say this

flies in the face of Biden's promises back in 2022 when he pledged to supply countries.

But I will say that's not entirely true.

Numerous studies and senior administration officials say the pipeline of projects that

are already underway are enough to meet those energy needs.

What are you hearing in Louisiana?

have ramped up their own campaigns against this expansion for natural gas exports.

Just last week, I was at a protest in New Orleans and hundreds of people from fishermen

and climate activists across the Gulf Coast came together.

People like Rochetta Ozein, who's been opposing this project for years.

She says this decision signals the Biden administration is finally listening and the president is

delivering exactly what they've asked for.

Yeah.

Ozein says they're playing a long game and they're going to look to ensure that the people

that are most affected by these plans are included in the Department of Energy's review.

I mean, how long does this go on?

What happens next?

So the Energy Department is going to start this review of the proposed natural gas export

projects, but senior administration officials say it's not clear how long this review will

take.

The pause is going to last as long as the review takes, but it will likely go through

November and the election.

Thanks, Hallie.

I'm Layla Fulden.

Today's episode of Up First was edited by Mark Katkoff, Kelsey Snell, Sadie Babbitt,

and Mohamed El-Bardisi.

It was produced by Ziad Butch, Ben Abrams, and Katie Klein.

We get engineering support from Stacey Abbott, and our technical director is Zach Coleman.

Please start your day here with us on Monday.

Ayesha Roscoe and Scott Simon have the news, and it'll be here in this feed.