Donald J. Trump’s return to power as president has bolstered right-wing lawmakers in Israel and the United States who support Israeli annexation of the West Bank, an occupied territory long seen by Palestinians and the international community as part of an eventual Palestinian state.

On Friday, Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced bills that would bar the use of the term “West Bank” in United States government documents and materials, replacing the phrase with “Judea and Samaria,” the biblical names for the region that are widely used in Israel and the administrative name used by the state to describe the area.

The linguistic proposition is aimed at strengthening and supporting Israel’s historical claim to territory that it captured from Jordan in the 1967 war and has occupied militarily ever since. And it comes as the Israeli military has been conducting intense raids in the area, which it says are intended to eradicate terrorism.

“The Jewish people’s legal and historic rights to Judea and Samaria goes back thousands of years,” Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, said in a statement about the legislation. He called for the United States to “stop using the politically charged term West Bank”; opponents of annexation say it is the term Judea and Samaria that reflects a political agenda.

Representative Claudia Tenney, Republican of New York, another sponsor of the bill, also announced the recent creation of a congressional group — the Friends of Judea and Samaria Caucus — to advance policies that support Israeli claims to that land. By introducing the bill and creating the caucus, “we are working to reaffirm Israel’s rightful claim to its territory,” she said in a statement.

The legislation, which Ms. Tenney first introduced last year, is being proposed again amid drastically changed dynamics in Washington, where Mr. Trump has made his strong support for Israel explicit. Republicans now control Congress, with slim majorities in the House and Senate. The president has indicated support for expansionist Israeli policies, and in his first term proposed Israeli annexation of a large part of the West Bank.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel in Washington, Mr. Trump’s first visit with a foreign leader since returning to the White House last month. Asked on Monday at a news briefing, in anticipation of that meeting, whether he supported annexing parts of the West Bank, the president declined to respond directly, but he did not dismiss the idea altogether either.

“It certainly is a small country in terms of land,” he said in reference to Israel. Mr. Trump used an analogy to illustrate his point: “My desk is the Middle East. And this pen, the top of the pen, that’s Israel. That’s not good, right? It’s a pretty big difference.”

Since Israel seized control of the West Bank, hundreds of thousands Israeli civilians have settled there with both tacit and explicit government approval, living under civil law while their Palestinian neighbors, kept stateless, are subject to military law and have fewer rights.

The growing number and size of the settlements have steadily eroded the land accessible to Palestinians. Expanding Israel’s hold over the West Bank is a stated goal of many lawmakers in Mr. Netanyahu’s far-right governing coalition, and many settlers hope Mr. Trump will support the project.

The international community largely views the Israeli settlements as illegal, and Palestinians have long argued that they are a creeping annexation, turning land needed for an independent state into an unmanageable patchwork.

In 2019, the previous Trump administration declared that the United States did not consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal, reversing longstanding American policy under both Democrats and Republicans, and removing what had been seen as an important barrier to annexation. Last year, Antony J. Blinken, then secretary of state, said that Israeli settlements were inconsistent with international law and that the Biden administration opposed them.

Brad Brooks-Rubin, formerly a senior adviser in the State Department’s Office of Sanctions Coordination, argued in a recent post on Just Security, an online law forum, that the Trump administration’s revocation “provides a psychological and rhetorical victory” for the settlement movement and its allies, “especially in the United States.”

The move also heartened expansionist Israeli lawmakers. Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, a settler himself and a vocal opponent of a Palestinian state, welcomed Mr. Trump’s reversal as an expression of the president’s “deep connection to the Jewish people and our historical right to our land.” On Sunday, as Mr. Netanyahu was headed to Washington, Mr. Smotrich called Mr. Trump “a lover of Israel” on social media and said, “We must strengthen our grip and sovereignty over the homeland in Judea and Samaria.”

Still, Republican support for the settler movement and changes to the language of the discussion surrounding their effort have some pro-Israel lobbyists in Washington worried about Israel’s long-term prospects for peace and improved relations with regional neighbors.

“What’s dangerous about this proposal isn’t what they want to call the land; it’s the proposal to affirm Israeli sovereignty over it,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the Jewish pro-peace advocacy group J Street. “That’s called annexation, which is not just illegal under international law, but the death knell for any hope of Israel normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Arab world.”

Beijing was swift to retaliate after Trump’s tariffs

China struck back yesterday against President Trump’s 10 percent tariffs on all Chinese products with tariffs of its own on U.S. coal and gas as well as restrictions on exports of some minerals.

China’s tariffs will not take effect until Feb. 10, according to the Chinese government, meaning there is still some time for negotiations. The White House press secretary said that a call between Trump and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, was being scheduled and would happen very soon. Here’s the latest.

Details: China’s tariffs would cover about $20 billion of U.S. exports, compared with Trump’s tariffs on more than $450 billion of Chinese goods, economists estimated. Chinese authorities also started an antitrust investigation into Google.

Context: As Trump alienates allies and partners with the threat of tariffs, his actions give Beijing an opening to strengthen its global standing.

Trump was set to host Netanyahu in Washington

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel was set yesterday to become the first foreign leader to hold an in-person meeting with President Trump at the White House since his return to power.

The meeting was expected to focus on negotiations for the second phase of the cease-fire in Gaza, Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon, arms shipments and a possible deal with Saudi Arabia. Follow our live coverage here.

Speaking to reporters before the meeting, Trump said that Palestinians had no choice but to leave Gaza after the devastation wrought by Israel’s war with Hamas. He said he wanted Egypt and Jordan to take them in.

West Bank violence: Two Israeli soldiers were killed in a shooting attack in the northern West Bank as Israel pressed ahead with a military operation there.

“We have seen a brutal act of violence,” Sweden’s prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, said in a televised address. “This is the worst mass shooting in Swedish history.”

Context: Shootings are rare in Swedish schools, but the country has been grappling with a steady surge in gun violence.

MORE TOP NEWS

Two years after Sri Lankans cast out a strongman dynasty that destroyed the economy, a leftist movement is seizing a rare opportunity to rally more women into politics. Making up more than half of registered voters, women are slowly and steadily reshaping a political culture that allows them equal space.

Lives lived: Merle Louise Simon, the only person to play roles in the original Broadway productions of four Stephen Sondheim musicals, died at 90.

CONVERSATION STARTERS

Ukrainian musicians wonder if they’ll ever go home

Russia’s invasion turned the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra’s players into refugees. As they try to build new lives in Germany, they face shifting views on migrants while an unending war continues back home.

Three years into the conflict, they continue to perform to highlight their homeland’s struggle. Always on their minds are faraway loved ones, fears about what might happen next and worries over how long they will be allowed to stay.

“It’s a whole soup of anxiety,” one violinist said. “At some point, you start to wonder, ‘Will we ever go home?’” Read their story here.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A shooting at an adult education campus in central Sweden on Tuesday left at least 10 people dead and injured an undisclosed number of others, in what the prime minister called the worst mass shooting in the country’s history.

The suspect was among the dead, the country’s justice minister, Gunnar Strommer, said. But the authorities released few other details, including the person’s identity and a possible motive.

“We do not think there is any terror motive behind this, but it is too early in the investigation to say,” Roberto Eid Forest, the head of the local police, said on Tuesday evening. “We think we have the perpetrator,” he added, “but we are not ruling out anything.”

The shooting occurred in Orebro, a city about 120 miles west of the capital, Stockholm. It came as Sweden, more commonly associated with high living standards, women’s rights and relatively welcoming asylum policies, has been grappling with a steadily swelling epidemic of gun violence and one of the highest per capita rates of gun violence in the European Union, police statistics show.

The gunfire erupted about 12:30 p.m. local time at the Risbergska educational center, which caters to about 2,000 students and offers classes for adults studying for a high school diploma, along with Swedish-language classes and vocational classes, its website says, in a city that has a large population of immigrants and asylum seekers.

Cellphone footage broadcast on local TV stations showed students cowering under desks and chairs, and others running from the building to emergency service vehicles. The authorities said late Tuesday that the number of people injured was still unclear.

“I was eating with colleagues when, all of a sudden, a lot of students came running, saying we have to leave,” the center’s principal, Ingela Back Gustafsson, told Sweden’s public broadcaster, SVT. “When we were out in the schoolyard, I heard a lot of shots nearby. We yelled, ‘Run, run.’ And we ran for our lives.”

The authorities launched a “major operation,” with police cars swarming the campus, throngs of armed specials forces officers spilling out of vehicles and officials locking down the campus, several schools in the area and even a restaurant as they searched for the shooter.

Police officers investigated several addresses in the city, the authorities said. In a statement, they did not rule out the possibility that the shooter might have worked with others. After several hours, the police evacuated the center’s classrooms, allowing dozens of students and children to leave.

Mr. Forest said that the shooter most likely had acted alone, was not affiliated with a gang and had not been known to the police.

The shooting sent shock waves across the Scandinavian country.

“We have seen a brutal act of violence,” Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said in a televised address. “This is the worst mass shooting in Swedish history.”

Mr. Kristersson also said in a statement on social media: “It is a very painful day for all of Sweden. Being locked in a classroom, fearing for your life, is a nightmare that no one should have to experience.”

Shootings are rare in Swedish schools, but the country has seen an increase in violent crime in recent years. Its homicide rate has risen to among the highest in the European Union, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention said this year.

While Sweden has strict gun laws, with licenses usually limited to hunting rifles, criminologists have linked a rise in shootings to the illegal drug trade and stockpiles of firearms smuggled in from postwar Balkan countries, Eastern Europe and Turkey. Gangs are also known to groom and recruit children as young as 11 as contract killers, the police say.

The record for the highest number of shootings was set in 2022, with 391 episodes, police figures show.

In 2022, an 18-year-old student wielding an ax, a knife and a hammer killed two teachers in the southern city of Malmo. In 2015, Sweden was stunned when a 21-year-old man, armed with a sword, killed a teacher and a student at a school in the southwestern part of the country.

The mass shooting on Tuesday left Swedes reeling.

“We haven’t had these kinds of shootings in Sweden before,” Anders Svahn, a teacher at another school in Orebro, said by phone on Tuesday. “One is very touched and affected by this. I know people who work there.”

Last year, teachers and students at Mr. Svahn’s high school, which also offers adult education, practiced a shelter-in-place drill for the first time, he said.

“It’s a risk that has increased, but it’s not something you think about every day,” he added.

Classes at the Risbergska center are unlikely to take place on Wednesday, and it was not clear if other schools in the area would reopen.

Nooshi Dadgostar, the leader of the opposition Left Party, said on social media: “Shocked by the terrible news from Orebro. The violence our country is going through is an abyss we must find our way out of together.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada went for a threat of immediate retaliation and a late-night emotional address that produced a cliffhanger compromise.

President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico opted for carrots over sticks, and backroom talks that led to an early deal.

In the end, when all was said and done on Monday, hours before what would have been the start of a North American trade war, both leaders negotiated reprieves from President Trump on his threat to impose tariffs on the United States’ two top trading partners.

And both had to provide relatively little in exchange.

The different routes Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Sheinbaum followed to the same outcome — a 30-day delay in U.S. tariffs in exchange for toughening their borders to stem the flow of drugs and unauthorized migrants into the United States — tell a tale of two different styles of leadership, and two countries with different relationships to the United States.

Mr. Trudeau had been preparing the ground for compromise — and retaliation — since November. Three days after Mr. Trump first issued his tariff threat on Nov. 25, the Canadian prime minister got on a plane to Mar-a-Lago to talk to him about averting what would amount to a fraternal trade war that would deeply hurt the Canadian economy.

By all accounts, that first meeting set the scene for Canada’s groundwork to directly address what Mr. Trump said he wanted: a safer northern border, with fewer unauthorized migrant crossings, and a tighter grip on fentanyl flowing across the border.

The parallel story of how Mexico’s leader got the same tariff delay for her country, with a few hours’ advantage over Canada, highlights Ms. Sheinbaum’s firm and composed leadership style, and her willingness to focus on partnership in her talks with Mr. Trump.

Even before being voted into office in June, Ms. Sheinbaum and her team had been preparing for the possibility that Mr. Trump would return to the White House. And since his victory in November, Ms. Sheinbaum has reiterated that she wasn’t concerned despite his threats of mass deportations and tariffs. The day after the U.S. elections, she promised to “establish communication and good relations.”

In Canada, the weeks since the meeting at Mar-a-Lago between Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Trump have been packed with developments that normally take months, or even years, to unfold. For starters, Mr. Trudeau, who has become increasingly unpopular at home, announced that he would resign. On March 9 his party, the Liberals, will elect a new leader and that person will become Canada’s next prime minister, at least until a federal election is called later this year.

Several of his top ministers said they would not run to replace him in order to focus on the looming tariff showdown. The foreign minister, Mélanie Joly, and the finance minister, Dominic LeBlanc, both close Trudeau allies and potential successors, instead threw themselves at lobbying key Republicans.

Mr. LeBlanc developed a “bromance” with Howard Lutnick, Mr. Trump’s pick to be commerce secretary. Ms. Joly visited the United States five times, lobbying senior Republicans and talking to Mr. Trump’s border czar, Thomas Homan.

She told them that Canada would take the lead in protecting the border so that the United States would not need to use too many resources.

“I said, we know that the southern border is a preoccupation for you, so we will put the resources at the northern border,” Ms. Joly said in an interview about her message to Republicans she met. “That way you can have your resources at the southern border.”

But Mr. Trudeau also made it clear that he would level retaliatory tariffs against the United States if Mr. Trump decided to go ahead with his threat. Government officials said that the outgoing Canadian leader believed it was vital to stand up for Canada in a more aggressive way, while simultaneously working to satisfy Mr. Trump’s demands.

Canada in December rolled out, and budgeted for, a multiyear $900 million plan to bolster its border protections. That included immediately deploying two Blackhawk helicopters, 60 U.S.-made drones and additional border guards.

On Saturday, after the White House had announced that Mr. Trump would go ahead with the tariffs, Mr. Trudeau addressed not just Canadians, but also made clear he was speaking directly to Americans, in an emotional late-night speech.

“We don’t want to be here,” Mr. Trudeau said, evoking the deep bonds between the two neighbors and close trading partners. “We didn’t ask for this.”

But, as he detailed his own retaliatory tariff plan, he added: “We will stand strong for Canada.”

In the end, it came down to the wire. Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Trump failed to reach a compromise in a Monday morning call. That prolonged the anxiety for a few hours, but, a second call in the late afternoon yielded a deal, with Mr. Trump agreeing to push tariffs back by a month.

The foundations of the eventual deal announced on Monday afternoon had been in place for weeks, but Canada also pledged to do more on the fentanyl front, appointing a “fentanyl czar” and committing fresh resources to combating organized crime and cartels.

In Mexico, Ms. Sheinbaum’s predecessor and mentor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, had forged a close working relationship with Mr. Trump in the early years of his administration, despite similar circumstances: Mr. Trump’s repeated threats to impose tariffs on Mexico and make the country pay for a border wall. In an effort to stave off levies, Mr. Lopez Obrador agreed to bolster immigration enforcement, including deploying the National Guard.

Conditions, though, have changed since then. Mexico has eclipsed China as the largest trading partner in goods with the United States. And Mexico emerged as the top market worldwide for U.S. food and agriculture exports, with those imports surging to more than $29 billion.

But there is a key difference between Mr. López Obrador and Ms. Sheinbaum: While he at times adopted a confrontational tone toward the United States, she maintains a more measured and coolheaded demeanor.

Unlike Canada, which was clear both about its plans to retaliate with its own tariffs on U.S. goods and with its border plans to address Mr. Trump’s demands, Ms. Sheinbaum and her team were more tight-lipped.

After Mr. Trump ordered the tariffs on Saturday, Ms. Sheinbaum still bided her time, promising to reveal her “Plan B” response later — but she first asked that Mr. Trump respond to her request to form a working group of security and health officials from both countries.

Later that Saturday, Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Sheinbaum got on the phone to swap notes. A Canadian official with knowledge of the call said that they updated each other on their respective strategies, and acknowledged that they were slightly different approaches, but had the exact same goals.

On Monday morning, Ms Sheinbaum and Mr. Trump spoke on the phone, a call that yielded a faster outcome than the one Mr. Trump held with Mr. Trudeau. Shortly after, Ms. Sheinbaum posted on X that a compromise had been reached.

Addressing reporters later, Ms. Sheinbaum said the discussion had been “very respectful.” Mr. Trump described the call as “very friendly.”

She, too, secured a 30-day reprieve for Mexico in exchange for border and fentanyl measures, most of which, like in the case of Canada, had been part of existing plans.

“We have this month to work, to convince each other that this is the best way forward,” Ms. Sheinbaum said at her regular morning news conference after speaking to President Trump. Suggesting that she might be able hold off the penalties altogether, she said she had told her American counterpart: “We are going to deliver results. Good results for your people, good results for the Mexican people.”

As for Mr. Trudeau, when the 30-day reprieve lapses, he will be in his last week in office.

Greenland’s Parliament banned foreign and anonymous political funding on Tuesday, in the semiautonomous island’s latest reaction to President Trump’s stated intentions to acquire it. Greenland’s lawmakers fast-tracked the law — an effort to protect against outside interference — before upcoming parliamentary elections.

The law is Greenland’s most aggressive effort yet to push back against Mr. Trump, who refused last month to rule out using military force to take the island. The law does not directly name him as a potential campaign contributor, but a proposal that laid out the law and its rationale made clear that his insistence inspired its authors.

“Given the geopolitical interest in Greenland and the current situation — where representatives of an allied great power have expressed interest in acquiring and controlling Greenland — the country is particularly vulnerable to attempts to influence its elections and political decision-making processes,” the proposal read.

The law was billed as an effort “to safeguard Greenland’s political integrity” in the proposal. Mute B. Egede, Greenland’s premier, proposed holding parliamentary elections on March 11.

Greenlanders were initially shocked and confused by Mr. Trump’s repeated desire that the United States take control of the territory. Donald Trump Jr., Mr. Trump’s son, briefly visited the island last month, which added to the speculation.

For the United States, Greenland sits in a strategic location: The island is home to an American military base and, as climate change melts the Arctic ice, commercial and naval competition is growing in the far north. Greenland also has enormous reserves of rare elements and other minerals used to make advanced technology.

“We need it for national security,” the president has said.

Greenland has long been tied to Denmark, first as a colony and then as a semiautonomous territory. Since 2009, it has had the right to declare independence after a referendum, but it still relies on Denmark for its defense, security and other international affairs.

Greenland’s mostly Inuit population has increasingly chafed against Copenhagen’s oversight. Greenland’s leadership has flatly and repeatedly rejected Mr. Trump’s advances.

“Greenland is ours,” Mr. Egede said in a statement late last year, as Mr. Trump eyed the island. “We are not for sale and will never be for sale.”

Denmark, too, has been rattled: Last week, it said it would increase its military spending in the North Atlantic by $2 billion.

The Nordic country does not want to set off a trade war with the United States. After an icy phone call with Mr. Trump, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen of Denmark traveled across Europe last week to meet with European and NATO leaders to increase support, do damage control and discuss how to respond to Mr. Trump’s intense demands.

“Trump will not have Greenland,” said Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Denmark’s foreign minister and its prime minister during Mr. Trump’s first term.

Greenland’s Parliament, the Inatsisartut, does not need Denmark’s approval to pass the law. Its lawmakers moved exceptionally quickly — the bill was only introduced on Saturday.

“Given the current geopolitical situation and the upcoming Inatsisartut election, the need for such regulation is considered urgent,” the proposal read.

Other countries, including the United States, restrict or ban foreign political funding. Greenland previously did not limit or prohibit such contributions, according to the proposal.

The proposal notes that foreign powers have tried to influence other democratic elections around the world in recent years. The authors specifically pointed to the enormous amount of private political donations in the United States.

“The initiative is obviously urgent,” said Ulrik Pram Gad, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies.

He said donations had not previously influenced Greenland’s politics and called the law “primarily a preventive measure.”

Greenland is also trying to ward against foreign interests by limiting real estate purchases.

On Monday, lawmakers approved new regulations that would restrict land purchases to Danish citizens or people who have been permanent residents of Greenland for at least two years. The rules are expected to take effect later this year.

Greenland has about 56,000 residents and is mostly covered in ice. It is opening up to the world — it has said that it is ready for business and recently opened a new international airport — but its tourism infrastructure is sparse.

Foreign campaign contributions — even those seen as tiny by American standards — could drastically change Greenland’s political structure: Parties have been mostly financed by public subsidies, while private contributions have “constituted an insignificant part” of its political financing, the proposal read.

“The perspectives of this potential threat are alarming,” it read. “Donations that would be modest on an international scale would be colossal in a Greenlandic election campaign.”

Political parties will no longer be allowed to receive foreign or anonymous contributions. Neither will local and youth branches of parties, lawmakers, aides and candidates.

The new law will also cap the amount of private political donations. A political party can receive only about $28,000 in private donations a year. Individual donors can only give about $2,800. The law also strengthens and broadens disclosure requirements, among other considerations.

“Disproportionately large private donations could weaken public confidence in the integrity of political processes,” the proposal read.