Even by the freewheeling standards of President-elect Donald Trump's first administration, former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) stood out as a surprising pick for a Cabinet position, to say nothing of being tapped to lead the Department of Justice as Trump's attorney general nominee. Gaetz had barely practiced law since earning his JD in 2007, and was being asked to head a department which had recently investigated him for an alleged 2017 sexual assault of a minor. 

No less shocking was Gaetz's decision to pull himself out of contention in the face of growing opposition. Trump turned to Pam Bondi as his new AG-in-waiting mere hours after Gaetz's withdrawal. In the wake of this process, observers got a glimpse into the president-elect's vision for his incoming administration.

Who came out on top?
Pam Bondi now stands on the precipice of one of the most consequential legal positions in the country. A "longtime Trump ally," the former Florida attorney general "appears more likely" than Gaetz to have an "easier path to confirmation," Politico said.

By voicing their (ultimately nomination-killing) concerns over Gaetz, Senate Republicans may have strengthened their standing. They demonstrated that while they want to "help Trump enact as much of his agenda as possible, they are not going to reflexively respond 'how high?' when Trump says 'jump,'" said National Review. The Senate GOP might "actually be a soft check on the leader of their party when they feel like he is going too far," said Politico.

Who's on the outs?
The most obvious loser is Gaetz himself, who is no longer in contention to become the next attorney general and has retired from Congress with no plans to return in the coming term. He has yet to articulate his next steps. Gaetz's departure also refocuses the national spotlight on other controversial Trump cabinet nominees, including Fox News host Pete Hegseth, who has a record of extremist views and alleged sexual misconduct.

Trump suffered a "stinging rebuke" by his nominee's resignation, Bloomberg said. The episode "illustrates the roadblocks" his administration faces in transforming his "campaign of 'retribution' into a governing coalition," said MSNBC.

A controversy is brewing in New Zealand, as thousands of Kiwis have taken to the streets to protest a bill that would legally define the country's founding treaty. It would enact a change that opponents say strips fundamental rights from the nation's Indigenous Maori people.

What would the bill do?
Known as the Treaty Principles Bill, the legislation argues that New Zealand should reinterpret and legally lay out the doctrine of the Treaty of Waitangi. Signed in 1840 between Maori leaders and British colonialists, this treaty "enshrines principles of co-governance between Indigenous and non-Indigenous New Zealanders" and is "considered one of the country's founding documents," said CNN.

The Treaty of Waitangi was signed in two languages, English and Maori, and "each contains differing language that has long sparked debate over how the treaty is defined and interpreted," said CNN. This includes differing interpretations of Indigenous autonomy and rights. To rectify this, the Treaty Principles Bill would define the treaty for all New Zealanders. But opponents say this "strikes at the core of the country's founding principles and dilutes the rights of Maori people."

How have New Zealanders reacted?
The proposal has caused backlash on both sides of Parliament after it was introduced by David Seymour, the leader of the right-wing ACT New Zealand Party. Seymour "says that misinterpretations of the treaty's meaning have effectively given Maori people special treatment. The bill calls for an end to 'division by race,'" said Al Jazeera. This has inflamed New Zealand's racial tensions, with thousands of people protesting in a walk across the country's North Island.

The bill is "widely opposed — by left- and right-wing former prime ministers, 40 of the country's most senior lawyers, and thousands of Maori and non-Maori New Zealanders," said The Associated Press. Many critics see the bill as a "desire to reverse decades of policies that aimed to empower Maori, who make up around 20% of the 5.3 million population but have higher levels of deprivation and incarceration and worse health outcomes than the broader population," said Reuters.