MANILA, Philippines — Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte was impeached by the House of Representatives Wednesday after more than the required number of legislators, many of them allies of the president with whom she has had a bitter political feud, signed a petition to remove her from office.

House of Representatives Secretary General Reginald Velasco told a plenary meeting of the lower chamber of Congress that at least 215 lawmakers have signed a petition to impeach Duterte, more than enough for the powerful House to impeach her.

With enough endorsements by House legislators, the impeachment complaint was ordered transmitted to the Senate, which will serve as an impeachment tribunal that would try the vice president, the daughter of former President Rodrigo Duterte.

The vice president, who didn’t immediately react to the House move to impeach her, and her father have been politically at odds with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his camp, including a majority of House legislators.

The vice president, regarded as a possible presidential candidate after Marcos’s term ends in 2028, has faced at least four impeachment complaints by several legislators and left-wing activist groups over a range of issues.

Those included a death threat she made against the president, his wife and House Speaker Martin Romualdez last year, irregularities in the use of her office’s intelligence funds and her failure to stand up to Chinese aggression in the disputed South China Sea.

Only the latest impeachment complaint, accusing the vice president of violating the constitution, betraying the public trust, corruption and other high crimes, and signed by the 215 legislators would be sent to the Senate for her trial, according to legislators.

Efforts to impeach the vice president may be hampered by a lack of time. The House impeachment came on the last day of congressional session before campaigning begins for midterm elections in May that would select new legislators for the House and Senate. A special session could be called to allow the Senate to bring Duterte to a rapid trial.

The vice president’s legal troubles have unfolded with the backdrop of her increasingly bitter political feud with the president and his allies. She said in online news conference on Nov. 23 that she has contracted an assassin to kill Marcos, his wife and Speaker Martin Romualdez if she were killed, a threat she warned wasn’t a joke.

Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., center right, and Vice President Sara Duterte, daughter of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, raise hands during the inauguration ceremony at National Museum on Thursday, June 30, 2022 in Manila.

Aaron Favila/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Aaron Favila/AP

She later said that she wasn’t threatening him, but was expressing concern for her own safety.

The House has been investigating the alleged misuse of 612.5 million pesos ($10.3 million) of confidential and intelligence funds received by Duterte’s offices as vice president and education secretary. She has since left the education post after her political differences with Marcos deepened.

She has refused to respond to questions in detail in tense televised hearings last year. Duterte also vehemently protested when her chief of staff, Zuleika Lopez, was ordered temporarily detained for allegedly hampering the inquiry. Lopez has since been released from hospital detention.

Duterte has accused Marcos, his wife and Romualdez of corruption, weak leadership and attempting to muzzle her because of speculation she may seek the presidency in 2028.

The National Bureau of Investigation subpoenaed Duterte last year to face investigators about her threats against them.

The police, military and the national security adviser immediately boosted the security of the Marcos family after the threats.

Marcos and Duterte won landslide victories as running mates in the 2022 election, but have since fallen out over key differences. The two offices are elected separately in the Philippines, which has resulted in rivals occupying the country’s top political posts.

Marcos and Duterte differ on their approaches to China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea and their views on the deadly anti-drug crackdown conducted by Duterte’s father, who was the previous president and an ex-mayor of Davao.

The brutal drug crackdown by her father left thousands of mostly poor suspects dead in killings mostly by police that are being investigated by the International Criminal Court as a possible crime against humanity.

TEL AVIV, Israel — President Trump floated two bombshell ideas Tuesday about Gaza that has Palestinians, Israelis, and the wider Middle East scrambling.

The first: that the U.S. would take over the territory. “The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip,” Trump said in a White House press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “We’ll own it…We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal…the Riviera of the Middle East.”

The second: that Gaza’s entire population would relocate to other countries. “ We should go to other countries of interest with humanitarian hearts, and there are many of them that want to do this, and build various domains that will ultimately be occupied by the 1.8 million Palestinians living in Gaza, ending the death and destruction and, frankly, bad luck,” he said.

Trump presented no specifics about how the U.S. would execute his proposal. They have met fierce resistance from Arab and Palestinian leaders, who have long hoped Gaza and the West Bank would form the basis for a future state alongside Israel.

Hamas has also rejected the idea, as it prepares this week to negotiate with Israel on the nextphase of their tenuous ceasefire agreement in Gaza. The two sides have been exchanging hostages and prisoners after a 15-month war that has traumatized both societies and left much of Gaza a wasteland, and Trump’s statements add more uncertainty to the future of Gaza and the ceasefire.

Here’s how the region is making sense of Trump’s words:

Israeli observers are taking Trump’s words with a “grain of salt”

Former Israeli officials cast doubt on the viability of a U.S. takeover of Gaza and removal of its population.

“On the day that I will see American soldiers coming in great numbers to Gaza, I will then make up my mind how serious it is,” former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert told NPR. “Every party involved except for Israel is completely against it.”

“It is utterly unrealistic, and it reflects a total lack of understanding of the historical process of where these Palestinians come from, what is their collective identity,” former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami told NPR. “ It’s somebody that came from the outer space and tries to impose a solution which is, you know, detached from a context.”

Israeli observers have suggested Trump could be using a negotiating tactic known in Israel as “putting in a goat” — laying down a demand for the purpose of removing it later and appearing to have granted a concession.

“This man is an actor in a global theater, and this has been his tactics, playing big, drawing the world’s attention to what he says, getting his rivals out of balance, and eventually something will happen that goes his way,” Ben-Ami said. “Maybe this is a tactical sort of move that tries to say a big thing in order to eventually get a more modest solution.”

A similar scenario played out in Trump’s first term: Netanyahu declared Israel would annex parts of the West Bank under Trump’s Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, then tabled annexation in exchange for a Trump-brokered deal for diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.

The negotiations Trump oversees now involve the future of Hamas rule in Gaza, and a deal for Saudi Arabia to establish diplomatic relations with Israel.

“Trump must be taken with a grain of salt,” Israeli journalist Amir Ettinger wrote Wednesday in the right-leaning Israel Hayom newspaper. “Senior figures in Israel do not rule out that a similar scenario could occur regarding the Gaza migration issue. The plan might be that Gaza is eventually taken off the table in exchange for the return of the hostages, the expulsion of Hamas leaders and many of its operatives, and normalization with Saudi Arabia without demands in exchange for promises regarding a Palestinian state.”

Whether or not it is a viable vision, the once-fringe Israeli idea of “transfer” — expelling or encouraging the emigration of Palestinians to other countries so Israel can take over their land — has quickly moved further into the Israeli mainstream with Trump’s comments in recent weeks about relocating Gazans.

In a poll published Monday, about seven out of ten Israelis supported the idea, with most Jewish Israelis polled calling it a “practical plan that should be pursued.” Most Arab citizens of Israel polled opposed the idea in the survey, conducted by the Jewish People Policy Institute think tank in Jerusalem.

Netanyahu did not explicitly endorse the idea Tuesday, but Trump’s statements serve a useful political purpose for the Israeli leader: they allow Netanyahu to appease his ultranationalist political partners who support expelling Gazans — and who have threatened to bring down the government if Israel does not end the ceasefire and return to fighting in Gaza.

Both Trump and Netanyahu were noncommittal Tuesday about extending the ceasefire deal under negotiation with Hamas. Israeli observers say the attention-grabbing headlines of Trump’s plans for Gaza distract from what Netanyahu and Trump may have agreed to behind closed doors — potentially a commitment not to resume the Gaza war.

Hamas, Palestinian leadership and region reject Trump’s idea 

Trump’s comments contradict other goals he has said he wants for the Middle East – like continuing the ceasefire in Gaza, and finalizing a deal that would normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

In a statement released by the militant group early Wednesday, Hamas called on Trump to retract his “irresponsible statements,” saying that they would “pour oil on the fire.”

The Palestinian leadership in the occupied West Bank — which hopes to take part in ruling postwar Gaza — also rejected the proposal. “We will not allow the rights of our people, for which we have struggled for decades and made great sacrifices to achieve, to be infringed upon,” said Palestinian Authority President President Mahmoud Abbas.

Trump’s plan also goes against the central demand from Saudi Arabia for any normalization of relations with Israel: a pathway to a viable Palestinian state.

While Saudi Arabia didn’t respond directly to Trump’s comments, hours after the press conference, the country’s Foreign Ministry released a statement, saying that its position on establishing a Palestinian state was “firm and unwavering,” and rejecting attempts to displace the Palestinian people from their land.”

Some Gazans left homeless would leave. Others refuse on principle.

In Gaza City, hundreds of thousands of people displaced during the war have returned to find the city largely destroyed – homes and businesses reduced to rubble, running water and electricity almost non-existent.

Some have returned to Gaza’s south, where humanitarian aid and services are more plentiful. But many are remaining amongst the debris in tents or in what’s left of homes.

Bassam Muhammad Abdulraouf, 29, says he has no plans to leave Gaza.

“Even if there was a place that was a million times better than Gaza, and even if I could be sure that life there would be luxurious, I would still be ready to live among the rubble and in tents here,” he says. “If they come with the army, with military force, I will still never leave.”

Nehad Ghonaim, a surgeon at Kamal Adwan hospital, says he refused to leave the enclave’s north during Israel’s heavy bombardment, and would also refuse Trump’s proposal.

“This is my homeland and I have no intention to leave even if Trump provides me with the best of everything somewhere else,” Ghonaim says, noting that he would not abandon the graves of his family killed during the war. He said his children were also killed and remain buried under rubble.

Yahia Barakat, 30, says he would leave if given the chance.

“My home is gone, my life is gone, my future is gone,” he says. “If I travel and find a country that embraces me, provides me with safety and a good life, I will leave my country, leave my homeland, leave my home, because it will provide me with security and a good life.”

Anas Baba in Gaza City, Itay Stern in Tel Aviv, Yanal Jabarin in Jerusalem, Abu Bakr Bashir in London and Ahmed Abuhamda in Cairo contributed to this report.

For the second week in a row, Republicans on Capitol Hill are facing questions about whether recent moves by the Trump administration are eroding Congress’ constitutional power of the purse. And for the second week in a row, most GOP lawmakers have responded to those questions by largely shrugging them off.

The issue has been front and center this week after Elon Musk, President Trump’s pick to lead a newly established entity called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), announced he was in the process of “shutting down” the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). His comments came after the Trump administration had already announced a 90-day pause on foreign aid.

Last week, the concerns were fueled by a memo from the Office of Management and Budget instructing federal agencies to pause all federal grants and other payments. The memo was later rescinded after a court challenge that resulted in a temporary restraining order — but the White House has said its broader effort to rein in spending will continue.

With each episode, Republicans in Congress have so far demonstrated little willingness to get crosswise with the new administration — even when it moved to reverse past decisions by lawmakers on how the government spends money.

“I think the administration has every right to demand accountability and transparency in all these programs,” John Barrasso, the senate’s number two GOP leader, told NPR about Musk’s work to rein in USAID.

Barrasso pointed to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s comments on Monday raising concerns about getting information about USAID’s spending. Rubio later said he would be overseeing the agency and sent a letter to congressional committees saying he was reviewing and reorganizing its operations.

Congress authorized spending for the agency through the annual appropriations process, but many Republicans are now saying that a review of foreign aid programs is warranted.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., maintained Tuesday that USAID wasn’t closing down, but told reporters the Trump administration has “the right to review funding and how those decisions are made and what priorities are being funded.”

“I think that’s true of any administration when they come in,” Thune said.

Many Republicans say foreign aid needs review

The reaction to Musk and the DOGE initiative has underscored the already sharp divide on Capitol Hill in the opening weeks of the new administration. While Democrats have sought to frame Musk’s work as an undemocratic power grab by an un-elected billionaire, Republicans have described it as a long overdue review of foreign aid.

“There’s a lot of the spending that goes on through USAID that does not appear to be consistent with U.S. policy, and so I’m all for a review to make sure that taxpayer dollars are going to programs and people that are consistent with our government’s policies,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told reporters.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said the agency was due for a review, especially when it comes to overhead costs. But she was a rare GOP lawmaker who publicly raised questions about how Musk was proceeding.

“The law is every specific and if there’s going to be a reorganization of USAID then Congress has to be informed 15 days in advance and a detailed explanation of any changes has to be provided.”

Collins said she saw the Rubio letter about reviewing the agency but did not believe it “satisfies the requirements of the law.” Collins did not say what her panel would do in response.

Elon Musk arrives ahead of the Inauguration of Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20. Trump has tasked the billionaire owner of Tesla and X with leading a new government entity being called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

Pool/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Pool/Getty Images

DOGE was created by President Trump, but it is not a separate Cabinet or federal agency. That has not stopped it, however, from taking fast and dramatic action, like when Musk detailed on his social media platform X that his team had gained access to payment systems inside the Treasury Department.

While some Republicans have admitted they have questions about DOGE, none have joined Democrats in calling for Musk to stop his work.

Collins, for example, voiced concerns about any access by Musk or his assistants to the personal information of government employees.

“I am not sure where the authority of that would come from and it’s my understanding that some of Musk’s assistants have requested access to classified information or may have for which they are not cleared,” she said.

“I don’t think we know exactly what he is doing right now,” said another GOP appropriator, Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas. “We are in the process of finding out what the path forward is,” he told NPR, adding that he expected a briefing on the details of DOGE’s plans.

Others say there is nothing out of the ordinary

Other Republicans have said there’s nothing unusual about a new administration wanting to come in and review spending.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., did acknowledge that an executive branch move to turn off a federal agency “runs afoul of the Constitution in the strictest sense.” But he argued that former President Joe Biden took similar steps.

“It’s not uncommon for presidents to flex a little bit on where they can spend and where they can stop spending,” Tillis said. “Nobody should bellyache about that.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., pointed specifically to the Biden administration’s efforts to forgive student loan debt as an example of an administration stepping on Congress’ spending authority. That push, Hawley said, “remains the high watermark for presidential lawlessness vis-à-vis Congress in my lifetime.”

“What Trump is doing in terms of his top to bottom review of government is not unusual,” Hawley said.

The upcoming fight over funding the government

For now, the reaction inside the GOP about giving Trump and Musk broad leeway over how federal money is spent centers on the debate over foreign aid. In recent years there has been a split in the party about how much the U.S. should be directing to other countries. During the 2024 campaign, Trump’s “America first” message resonated with the party’s base, and that dynamic could continue to play out in upcoming congressional debates on federal funding.

The OMB action last week involved trillions in federal spending for both international and domestic programs that Congress debated and authorized. Few GOP lawmakers publicly objected, even as they admitted constituents in districts across the country called their offices warning about the prospects of losing access to day care programs, Meals on Wheels, school lunch programs and other forms of assistance. The pause also risked funding for projects many Republicans inserted into spending bills for roads, water projects and other community programs in their states and districts.

Republican lawmakers will soon face another chance to put their stamp on federal spending. Agencies are scheduled to run out of money on March 14 unless Congress approves legislation to avoid a partial shutdown.

It’s unclear what the White House or Musk will demand in any spending deal. But two weeks into the Trump administration’s shock and awe of executive actions aimed at reshaping the federal government, there’s little sign congressional Republicans will stand in the way of additional efforts to step on their own authority.