Everton club captain Seamus Coleman has signed a one-year contract extension to take his stay at the club into a 17th season.
The 36-year-old right-back has made 428 appearances for Toffees across all competitions, and his 369 Premier League appearances is the club record.
“I love Everton so to continue playing for this special club means everything to me and my family,” said Republic of Ireland defender Coleman.
“Like every one of our passionate fans, I’ve lived and breathed what has been a difficult past few years for the club and have put my heart and soul into doing all I can to help us get through it.”
Coleman’s previous deal was due to expire last week.
Everton move to the new Hill Dickinson Stadium next season after leaving Goodison Park, their home for 133 years.
“Thanks to the hard work of many people, we’ve been able to get into our magnificent new stadium and pave the way for a brighter future under ambitious new owners, which I want to be part of,” said Coleman
“After a disappointing time with injuries last season, my focus will be on working hard, spending as much time on the pitch as possible, and helping Everton any way I can.”
‘More than just a player’
Getty Images
Having been the man to sign Coleman for the club back in January 2009 for just £60,000, Everton manager David Moyes hailed the veteran defender’s influence on the dressing room during his two spells in charge.
“His leadership, his professionalism and his humanity are second to none. He’s helped carry the club through some difficult periods in the past few years and his influence in the dressing room has been key to that,” said Moyes.
“He’s had to deal with some really difficult injuries, too, but he has done that and still been able to help inspire inside the dressing room at the same time.
In an effort to end a trade war between the world’s two largest economies, the United States and China have reached an agreement to speed up the delivery of rare earth minerals to the US.
Donald Trump, the president of the US, claimed on Thursday that he had already signed a deal with China the day before, but he would not provide further details. He also said that he anticipates signing a trade agreement with India in the coming days.
The US and China’s reduction of mutual tariffs came after talks in Geneva in May led to Thursday’s announcement.
Talks in London began in June, setting the stage for negotiations. The announcement made on Thursday appeared to confirm that understanding.
A White House official stated on Thursday that the Trump administration and China had reached an additional understanding regarding the implementation of the Geneva agreement.
China’s Ministry of Commerce stated that it would review and approve applications for items that fall under the export control laws, as well as providing a framework for a deal.
On June 9, 2025, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao, and China’s International Trade Representative and Vice Minister of Commerce Li Chenggang take a photo in London with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng.
What are our current knowledge of the US-China deal?
Following Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement on April 2 during US-China trade talks in Geneva, Beijing pledged to remove non-tariff countermeasures imposed against the US.
Washington first announced so-called “reciprocal” import duties when it halted them for 90 days, with the exception of its 145 percent tariff on China. On July 9, this pause is scheduled to come to an end.
China retaliated by imposing a 125 percent tariff on US goods, suspending exports of a wide range of crucial minerals, and endangering US carmakers, semiconductor companies, and military contractors’ supply chains.
However, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated to Bloomberg TV on Thursday that “they’re]China going to deliver rare earths to us,” and that “we’ll take down our countermeasures” once they do so. Export restrictions on materials like chip software and ethane, which are used to make plastic, are among those US countermeasures.
The Chinese Commerce Ministry’s spokesperson stated on Friday that “both sides have further confirmed details about the framework after approval.”
According to the spokesperson, “The Chinese side will evaluate and approve eligible applications for controlled item exports in accordance with the law.” A number of restrictive measures against China will also be repealed by the US side.
According to two people with knowledge of the situation, China granted temporary export licenses to the top three US automakers in early June as supply chain disruptions started to appear as a result of export restrictions on those goods.
By codifying the conditions set out in Geneva, such as a commitment from China to deliver rare earths to all US businesses, Lutnick claimed the agreement from this week, which was signed on Wednesday, would amount to a wider agreement.
What makes Chinese rare earth minerals so crucial?
The US’s ongoing trade negotiations with China are centered on their export of rare earth elements. The world’s rare earths are mined to roughly 90 percent of their size, and Beijing is almost at the top of that field.
The auto industry, which relies on rare earth magnets for steering systems, engines, and catalytic converters, has grown particularly interested in critical minerals, a group of 17 elements that are crucial to a number of manufacturing processes.
Automobile manufacturers have already voiced concerns about the lack of rare earths and the magnets used to make them in their factories, which have already been shut down. A Ford executive claimed earlier this week that the business was “hand to mouth.”
Rare earths are used in a variety of products, including televisions, smartphones, and windmills, which are essential for the transition to clean energy. Additionally, they are used to produce AI processors, missile systems, and fighter jets.
What other trade agreements does Trump claim to be close to reaching?
Before his July 9 deadline for reinstating higher trade tariffs, which he paused on April 9, Lutnick told Bloomberg that Trump is also working on a number of trade agreements in the near future.
He said, “We’re going to do the top 10 deals, put them in the right category, and then these other countries will fall behind.”
Which countries would be included in that first wave of trade agreements, Lutnick did not specify. Trump made the suggestion that the US was close to reaching an agreement with India earlier on Thursday.
According to Bloomberg News, chief negotiator Rajesh Agarwal and other Indian trade officials are scheduled to meet in Washington for two days this week.
US officials have also spoken with nations like Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, and the EU in recent months.
Only the UK and the US have so far reached a trade agreement, while China and the United Kingdom have both signed lower reciprocal tariffs in Geneva.
Despite the agreement with the UK, there were still some issues raised, including the discounts that were imposed on some British metal exports.
What agreements are the US still trying to strike?
Prior to the expiration of reciprocal tariffs in early July, the majority of America’s major trade partners, including Canada, Vietnam, and South Korea, are anticipated to engage in contentious discussions with Washington.
There is no certainty for any of them as of yet, but the majority of nations are hoping to have their tariffs as much as possible and, if not, to extend the deadline for July.
Talks on particular topics have included:
European Union
A deal with the European Union, which had a $ 235.6 billion trade surplus with the US in 2024, remains a significant stumbling block.
The issue is whether EU leaders and the European Commission, which oversees trade issues for the 27-member bloc, agree to an “asymmetrical” trade agreement with the US, which would require terms that would be more advantageous to the US in order to close a deal more quickly.
Some member states are viewed as opposed to tit-for-tat retaliation, favoring a quick tariff cut over a flawless one.
Others are in opposition, though. France has pushed for the removal of tariffs and has rejected the idea of any deal favoring the US.
Japan
Japan wants to ratchet up any potential US tariffs in one go. However, Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on cars and car parts have been a sticking point in the negotiations.
Because autos account for the majority of its trade deficit with Japan, Washington is focused on the auto industry.
Tokyo’s automotive sector, which accounts for about 10% of the country’s GDP, is seen as a key component of its economy.
Tokyo’s top trade negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, reiterated Tokyo’s position on Thursday by saying, “We find the 25 percent car tariff to be unacceptable.”
Could the US’s tariff deadline go beyond July?
The White House said on Thursday that President Trump might choose to extend the deadline for reimposition of tariffs on most of the world’s nations.
Trump’s July deadline for resuming tariffs is “not critical,” according to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.
Leavitt said, “Perhaps it could be extended, but the president has to make that choice.”
She added that the president can “merely provide these countries with a deal” if any of those nations refuse to sign a trade agreement with the US by the deadlines.
The president can choose a reciprocal tariff rate that she believes will benefit both the American worker and the United States, she continued.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that lower courts likely overstepped their authority in issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential actions, limiting the ability of the judicial branch to check executive power.
Friday’s decision came in response to injunctions from federal courts in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts which sought to block President Donald Trump’s ability to curtail the right to birthright citizenship.
“Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,” the court’s majority said in its decision. “The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions.”
But the majority added that its decision applies “only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary”. The injunctions could still apply, the court suggested, to the plaintiffs in the cases at hand.
The ruling split the court once again along party lines, with its six conservative judges forming the majority and its three liberal judges issuing a dissent. Amy Coney Barrett, the court’s newest judge and a Trump appointee, penned the majority’s decision.
The Supreme Court’s decision was a major victory for the Trump administration, which has denounced “judicial overreach” as an unconstitutional obstacle to its policies. It will likely have wide-ranging ramifications for other cases where Trump’s agenda has been blocked by lower-court injunctions.
“Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on the social media platform X.
Trump himself celebrated the decision on his platform Truth Social: “GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!”
The Supreme Court’s ruling, however, did not allow Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship to come into immediate effect.
It provided a 30-day period before Trump’s order could be applied and ordered the lower courts to bring their injunctions in line with the new decision. Class action appeals are likely to be filed within that window.
How did this case arrive at the Supreme Court?
Lower courts had come out strongly against Trump’s efforts to redefine birthright citizenship, a right established under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which was adopted in the wake of the US Civil War.
The amendment declared that “all persons born” in the US and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would be citizens.
The courts have repeatedly interpreted that text as granting citizenship to nearly all people born in the US, regardless of their parents’ nationalities. There were limited exceptions, including for the children of diplomats.
But in his 2024 re-election bid, Trump campaigned on a platform that would see the Fourteenth Amendment reinterpreted to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants.
The new policy, his platform said, “will make clear that going forward, the children of illegal aliens will not be granted automatic citizenship”.
On the first day of his second term, January 20, he followed through on that campaign promise, signing an executive order called, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”.
But immigration advocates said that Trump’s policy violated the Constitution and could render some children stateless. Lower courts sided with them, issuing nationwide injunctions that barred the executive order from taking effect.
What did the Supreme Court majority say?
In Friday’s decision, the Supreme Court sidestepped making any decisions about the constitutionality of Trump’s proposed interpretation of birthright citizenship.
Instead, it focused specifically on the federal court injunctions that would stymie the president’s executive orders.
The decision came on the last day of the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 term, when big decisions are often unveiled.
Writing for the majority, Justice Coney Barrett advanced an argument with threads of originalism, saying that the judicial system had strayed from its original mandate with such wide-reaching injunctions.
“Nothing like a universal injunction was available at the founding, or for that matter, for more than a century thereafter,” she wrote.
The majority asserted that injunctions historically had a limited scope, pertaining to the specific parties involved in a lawsuit.
“Traditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit,” Coney Barrett wrote.
Sean “Diddy” Combs used “power, violence, and fear” as the head of a decades-long criminal enterprise, prosecutors told jurors Thursday as they presented closing arguments in the final stages of the high-profile trial.
Attorney Christy Slavik told jurors how Combs “created a climate of fear” and “counted on silence and shame to keep his crimes hidden.”
“Up until today, the defendant was able to get away with these crimes because of his money, his power, his influence. That stops now,” she said as the 55-year-old looked on, occasionally passing notes to his legal team.
Combs, once one of the most powerful figures in music and entertainment, denies all charges.
READ ALSO: Anna Wintour Steps Down As US Vogue Editor After Nearly 40 Years
For nearly five hours Slavik methodically walked the jury through the charges, weaving nearly seven weeks of testimony and thousands of phone, financial and other records into an intelligible narrative.
And she told them how each thread meets the legal threshold for guilt.
“Lots of that evidence was hard to hear or hard to see,” Slavik told jurors. “And now it’s all before you.”
Core to the prosecution’s racketeering argument is that high-level employees were well-aware of Combs’s crimes and helped him carry them out.
Racketeering — the most serious charge against him — could send Combs to prison for life.
Combs can be found guilty of racketeering if jurors are persuaded that he ran a criminal enterprise and that it committed at least two offenses from a list of eight, including drug distribution, kidnapping, arson, forced labor and bribery.
Slavik spent hours vying to connect those dots for jurors.
“He became more powerful and more dangerous because of the support of his inner circle and his businesses,” Slavik said.
“This is Mr Combs’s kingdom.”
‘Imagine the terror’
Beyond the alleged racketeering conspiracy, Combs also faces two charges of sex trafficking and two of transportation for purposes of prostitution.
These accusations say he personally coerced two women — the singer Casandra Ventura and a woman who testified under the pseudonym Jane — into years of drug-addled sex with paid escorts.
Both women were in long-term relationships with Combs, and the defense team said in opening statements the sex was consensual, if unorthodox.
But Slavik emphasized to jurors that the case is “not about free choices” and that the women involved were “drugged, covered in oil, sore, exhausted.”
Pointing to what she dubbed “crystal clear” examples of trafficking and forced labor, Slavik explained how both women were forced into so-called “freak-off” sex marathons.
“If the defendant wanted a freak-off, it was going to happen,” Slavik said, repeating her central thesis: “He didn’t take no for an answer.”
She recounted the harrowing physical abuse Ventura said she suffered for years, and how Combs had exclusive control over her career.
She detailed how he paid for Jane’s apartment and thus wielded financial power over her.
And she pointed to how he threatened both women that he would ruin their reputations by releasing explicit videos of them engaging in sex acts with escorts — encounters prosecutors said he orchestrated.
Throughout her arguments Slavik referenced testimony from a forensic psychologist who explained to jurors how victims become ensnared by their abusers.
And in one powerful moment she asked jurors to put themselves in the shoes of Ventura: “Imagine the terror of never knowing when the next hit might come.”
“Now imagine trying to say no to that person.”
Defense arguments next
Combs’s defense lawyers will make their closing arguments on Friday, and are expected to insist that the alleged victims were adult women making adult choices.
Jurors were shown many phone records that included messages of affection and desire from both women, but prosecutors have said those texts are taken out of context.
Government witnesses included former assistants and other employees, as well as escorts, friends and family of Ventura, and a hotel security guard who said he was bribed with $100,000 in a paper bag.
Combs opted against testifying on his own behalf, a common strategy of defense teams who are not required to prove innocence, only to cast doubt on government allegations of guilt.
The 12 New Yorkers tasked with determining Combs’s fate could go into deliberations as early as Friday afternoon.
Chiamaka Nnadozie, a goalkeeper for Nigeria, has been free agent from Paris FC.
When her contract with the French side expires on July 1st, the 24-year-old will join the club.
Nnadozie made her senior debut in 2018 with 55 appearances for her country.
She has made 16 European appearances for Paris FC between 2022 and 2025, and she has experience in the Women’s Champions League.
Dario Vidosic, manager of Brighton, said, “She’s a talented and commanding goalkeeper who will bring consistency and confidence to our defensive line.”
