US & Canada

Washington, DC – For United States President Donald Trump, 2025 was a year of crisis.

Roaring into office on January 20 on the heels of a raucous political comeback, the president’s own telling describes a series of actions that have been swift and stark.

To name a few, he has envisioned rooting out a migrant “invasion” that includes staunching legal immigrants, and, potentially, targeting US citizens; he has touted a hard reset of uneven trade deals that pose “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security”; and, in the final months of the year, he has gone on the military offensive against “narcoterrorists” that he claims seek to topple the US through illicit drugs, possibly used as “weapons of mass destruction”.

For legal observers, Trump’s approach has been a yet-undecided stress test on presidential power, cranked by the gears of broadly interpreted emergency statutes and untrammelled executive authority.

Decisions by the court, lawmakers and voters in the 2026 midterm elections could determine how that strategy resonates or is restrained.

“The use or abuse of emergency powers is only one corner of a larger picture,” Frank Bowman, professor emeritus of law at the University of Missouri, told Al Jazeera.

“In many cases, the administration is simply doing stuff that certainly any pre-existing understandings of executive authority would have said you cannot do,” he said.

Emergency powers and ‘national security’

The US Constitution, unlike many countries, has no catch-all emergency power authorisation for presidents.

In fact, the US Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that presidents have no such implied authorities, explained David Driesen, professor emeritus at Syracuse University College of Law. Still, Congress has passed “numerous statutes that grant the president limited emergency powers under limited circumstances to do specific things”.

Nearly every modern president has used emergency powers with varying degrees of gusto, with Congress and the Supreme Court historically wary of reining in those actions.

Like many US presidents, Trump has also used broad and ambiguous national security claims to justify expanding his reach.

But several factors have set Trump’s second term apart, most notably the lack of distinct inciting events for many of the powers claimed, Driesen said.

“I’ve never seen a president invoke emergency powers to justify practically all of this policy agenda,” he told Al Jazeera, “and I’ve also never seen a president use them to seize powers that really are not in the statutes at all.”

Put simply, he added, “to Trump, everything is an emergency”.

The tone was set on day one, with Trump’s broad executive order declaring that irregular crossings at the southern border meant nothing less than “America’s sovereignty is under attack”. The order has been used to indefinitely suspend US asylum obligations, surge forces to the border, and seize federal land.

The same day, Trump declared a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to designate Tren de Aragua (TdA) and La Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) as “foreign terrorist organizations”, posing a threat to the “national security, foreign policy, and economy” of the US.

The administration has, in part, relied on and expanded that order in efforts to circumvent due process in its mass deportation push and to rhetorically justify a militaristic approach to Latin America.

Simultaneously, Trump also declared a wide-ranging energy emergency on his first day in office, laying the groundwork to bypass environmental regulations.

To be sure, as Bowman explained, Trump’s use of official emergency statutes has been only a piece of the puzzle, combined with his broad interpretation of constitutionally mandated power to reshape the government in ways big and small.

That has included cleaving civil servants from congressionally created government departments via the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), trying to fire heads of independent agencies, renaming institutions – possibly illegally – in his likeness, and allegedly bypassing required approvals to physically transform the White House.

But the invocation of emergency statutes has remained a backbone of his second term. Trump invoked an emergency to justify sanctioning the International Criminal Court (ICC) for its investigations into Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

He used the “emergency” of fentanyl smuggling to justify tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, later unilaterally labelling the drug “weapons of mass destruction”.

In April, in one of his most challenged uses of an emergency authority, Trump cited an emergency statute to impose sweeping reciprocal tariffs against nearly all US trading partners.

A ‘mixed picture’

In review, 2025 has shown virtually no willingness from Congress, where both chambers remain narrowly controlled by Trump’s Republican Party, to challenge the president.

Rulings from lower federal courts, meanwhile, have offered a “mixed picture”, according to the University of Missouri’s Bowman, while the country’s top court has left wider questions unanswered.

Bowman noted the six conservative members of the nine-judge panel ascribe to varying degrees to the “unitary executive theory”, which argues the drafters of the constitution envisioned a strong consolidation of presidential power.

“On the one hand, Trump is obviously willing to declare emergencies where no rational person would really believe they exist,” Bowman said.

“On the other hand, at least the lower courts have pushed back, but it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will back them up.”

For example, Trump has been temporarily allowed to continue the deployment of National Guard troops in Washington, DC, a federal district where he declared a “crime emergency” in August. City officials have said the characterisation defies facts on the ground.

Despite claiming similar overlapping crime and immigration crises in liberal-led cities in states across the country, Trump has had far less success. Lower courts have limited deployments of the National Guard in California, Illinois, and Oregon.

Trump has also floated, but not yet invoked, the Insurrection Act, another law in the crisis portfolio dating back to 1792 that allows the president to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions”.

A judicial response to the tactics behind Trump’s deportation drive has also been mixed.

Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act – a 1798 law designed to quickly expel foreign nationals during times of war – to swiftly deport undocumented individuals without due process has been constrained, but allowed to proceed by the Supreme Court with limited due process protections.

In one of the most-watched cases on the docket, the Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling when it returns to session in January on the legal justification of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs.

A lower court has previously ruled that Trump deployed the emergency statute illegally. Some conservative justices on the top court have also expressed wariness over the president’s claim.

The panel has appeared more amenable in a landmark case determining whether Trump can fire heads of independent agencies, also set to be decided in the new year.

The spectre of war

When it comes to unilaterally making war, Trump has been bounding down a well-trodden path of misused presidential power, according to Matt Duss, the executive vice president of the Washington, DC-based Center for International Policy.

The end of the year has been marked by US military strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats from Venezuela, decried by rights groups as extrajudicial killings.

The administration has claimed, without evidence, that over 100 people killed had sought to destabilise the US by flooding it with drugs. Trump has made a similar claim about the Nicolas Maduro-led government in Venezuela, as he has continued to rattle the sabre of land strikes.

The actions have been accompanied by a pugilistic rebranding of the Department of Defense as the Department of War, a reframing of criminal Latin American cartels as so-called “narcoterrorists” and declaring a new drive to bring the Western Hemisphere firmly under the US sphere of influence.

“We have to understand this in the context of multiple administrations of both parties abusing executive authority to essentially go to war,” said Duss, who explained that the practice accelerated in the so-called “global war on terror” post-September 11, 2001 attacks.

Most recently, Republicans – and a handful of Democrats – in the House of Representatives voted down two separate war powers resolutions that would require congressional approval for future strikes on alleged drug boats or on Venezuelan territory.

The vote, Duss said, underscored “Trump’s near-total control of the Republican Party despite the fact that he is blatantly violating his own campaign promises to end wars, rather than to start them”.

Public opinion

Trump’s control over his party and his influence writ-large over the country will largely be tested in next year’s midterm elections. The vote will determine control of the House and the Senate.

A slate of polls has indicated at least some degree of wariness in Trump’s use of presidential power.

In particular, a Quinnipiac poll released in mid-December found 54 percent of voters think Trump is going too far in his authority claims, while 37 percent think he is handling the role correctly. Another 7 percent believe Trump should go further in using the power of the presidency.

Another Politico poll in November found that 53 percent of US residents think Trump has too much power, while the president has seen an overall slump in his approval ratings since taking office.

To be sure, a panoply of factors determine US elections, and it remains unclear if voters were more likely to respond to the results of Trump’s approach to the presidency, or to the approach itself.

“Does the average person really think much about any of the theoretical bases for the things Trump is doing? And frankly, would the average person care very much if the results were, in the short term, results of which they approved?” University of Missouri’s Bowman mused.

“I don’t know the answer … How all this is perceived across the country, and what’s going to happen next, is anybody’s guess.”

Trump’s meeting with Netanyahu comes after he touted progress in achieving a resolution to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy are talking up prospects of ending the war with Russia, after meeting in Florida. But they admitted there are ‘thorny issues’ to resolve about the status of the Donbas region which has been annexed by Russia.

Diplomacy over the Russia-Ukraine war is in its “final stages”, said US President Donald Trump as he welcomed Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy to his Florida estate.

The two leaders stood outside the Mar-a-Lago resort on Sunday and addressed reporters as they prepared to discuss a new proposal to end the bloody conflict.

The US president has been working hard to end the nearly four-year war in Ukraine for much of his first year back in office, showing irritation with both Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin while publicly acknowledging the difficulty of ending the fighting.

“I think we’re … in final stages of talking and we’re going to see. Otherwise, it’s going to go on for a long time, and millions of additional people will be killed,” said Trump, adding he did not have a deadline for the process.

“I do believe that we have the makings of a deal that’s good for Ukraine, good for everybody.”

He added there would be “a strong agreement” to guarantee Ukraine’s security, one that would involve European countries.

“We have two willing parties. We have two willing countries … The people of Ukraine want [the war] to end, and the people of Russia want it to end, and the two leaders want it to end,” Trump said.

Russia intensified its attacks on Ukraine’s capital in the days before the Florida meeting.

Zelenskyy, by Trump’s side, said he and the US president would discuss issues of territorial concessions, which have so far been a red line for his country. He said his negotiators and Trump’s advisers “have discussed how to move step by step and bring peace closer” and would continue to do so in Sunday’s meeting.

During recent talks, the US agreed to offer certain security guarantees to Ukraine similar to those offered to other members of NATO.

The proposal came as Zelenskyy said he was prepared to drop his country’s bid to join the security alliance if Ukraine received NATO-like protection designed to safeguard it against future Russian attacks.

Oleksandr Kraiev, an analyst with the think-tank Ukrainian Prism, said the people of Ukraine are “quite cynical” about the talks brokered by the United States.

“We tried this in 2015, 2016, 2017, and unfortunately each time the Russians broke even the ceasefire regime, not even talking about the peace process,” he told Al Jazeera.

“So we have little faith that a proper peace process will take place. As of now we’re striving for a ceasefire as a precondition for any kind of talks… We cannot trust the Russians with a peace deal, but a ceasefire is something we’re working on.”

‘Blindsided yet again’

Trump’s upbeat tone comes despite widespread scepticism in Europe about Putin’s intentions after Russia carried out another massive bombardment of the Ukrainian capital just as Zelenskyy headed to Florida.

Before Zelenskyy arrived, Trump spoke with Putin by phone for more than an hour and said he planned to speak again after the Zelenskyy meeting – catching Ukrainian leaders off guard, reported Al Jazeera’s Shihab Rattansi.

“From what we’re hearing, the Zelenskyy delegation here have been blindsided yet again by Donald Trump. And according to the Russians, it was at the Americans’ insistence there should be a call with Vladimir Putin the hour before Zelenskyy arrived,” said Rattansi, speaking from Palm Beach, Florida.

Meanwhile, while there is talk about land concessions from Ukraine’s side, they are outside the framework Zelenskyy is hoping for.

The Kremlin gave a more pointed readout of Trump’s talks with Putin, saying the US leader agreed a mere ceasefire “would only prolong the conflict” as it demanded Ukraine compromise on territory.

Zelenskyy said last week that he would be willing to withdraw troops from Ukraine’s eastern industrial heartland as part of a plan to end the war, if Russia also pulls back and the area becomes a demilitarised zone monitored by international forces.

Putin has publicly said he wants all the areas in four key regions captured by his forces, as well as the Crimean Peninsula, illegally annexed in 2014, to be recognised as Russian territory. He also insisted that Ukraine withdraw from some areas in eastern Ukraine that Moscow’s forces have not captured.

Kyiv has publicly rejected all those demands.

Trump has been somewhat receptive to Putin’s conditions, making the case that the Russian president can be persuaded to end the war if Kyiv agrees to cede Ukrainian land in the Donbas region, and if Western powers offer economic incentives to bring Russia back into the global economy.

Months after being attacked by the United States and Israel, Iran finds itself in the crosshairs again, with Israeli officials lobbying US President Donald Trump to address Tehran’s ballistic missiles.

Veteran Iranian diplomat Javad Zarif tells host Steve Clemons that “everybody lost any faith in diplomacy” after Israel and the US attacked Iran following five rounds of reconciliation talks between Washington and Tehran.

Zarif added that Israel has historically thwarted every opportunity for reconciliation between Iran and the US, and that Trump’s style of diplomacy is disastrous, as it creates “negotiations that end up in war”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit the United States to meet with President Donald Trump as regional turmoil approaches a boiling point amid Israel’s attacks in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria and mounting tensions with Iran.

Netanyahu is to hold talks with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Monday as Washington pushes to complete the first phase of the Gaza truce.

The visit comes as the US continues to pursue its 20-point “peace plan” in the Palestinian enclave despite near-daily Israeli violations of the truce.

Israel is also escalating attacks in the occupied West Bank, Lebanon and Syria as Israeli officials suggest that another war with Iran is possible.

What will Netanyahu discuss with Trump, and where do US-Israel ties stand?

Al Jazeera looks at the prime minister’s trip to the US and how it may play out.

When will Netanyahu arrive?

The Israeli prime minister will arrive in the US on Sunday. However, the talks will not take place at the White House. Instead, Netanyahu will meet Trump in Florida, where the US president is spending the holidays.

The meeting between the two leaders is expected to take place on Monday.

How many times has Netanyahu visited Trump?

This will be Netanyahu’s fifth visit to the US in 10 months. The Israeli prime minister has been hosted by Trump more than any other world leader.

In February, he became the first foreign leader to visit the White House after Trump returned to the presidency.

He visited again in April and July. In September, he also met with Trump in Washington, DC, after the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

What has the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu been like so far?

Netanyahu often says Trump is the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House.

During his first term, Trump pushed US policy further in favour of Israel’s right-wing government. He moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognised and claimed Israeli sovereignty over Syria’s occupied Golan Heights and cut off funding to the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA).

Since returning to the White House this year, Trump has shown a greater willingness to publicly disagree with Netanyahu. Still, his administration has provided unflinching support for Israel, including the decision to renew the genocidal war on Gaza in March after a brief ceasefire.

Trump joined the Israeli attack on Iran in June to the dismay of some segments of his base. And he pushed to secure the current truce in Gaza.

The US president also opposed the Israeli attack on Doha in September. And he swiftly lifted sanctions against Syria despite some apparent Israeli reservations.

The ties between the two leaders have seen some peaks and valleys. In 2020, Trump was irked when Netanyahu rushed to congratulate Joe Biden on his election victory against Trump, who has falsely insisted the election was fraudulent.

“I haven’t spoken to him [Netanyahu] since,” Trump told the Axios news site in 2021. “F*** him.”

The strong ties between the two leaders were rekindled after Trump won the presidency again in 2024 and unleashed a crackdown on Palestinian rights activists in the US.

In November, Trump formally asked Israeli President Isaac Herzog to pardon Netanyahu, who is facing corruption charges at home.

The two leaders, however, are not in complete alignment, and cracks in their positions are showing up over issues that include Gaza, Syria and the US partnerships with Turkiye and the Gulf states.

During his US visit, Netanyahu may seek to flatter Trump and project a warm relationship with the US president to advance his agenda and signal to his political rivals in Israel that he still enjoys support from Washington.

How has Netanyahu dealt with the US since October 7, 2023?

Since the outbreak of the war in Gaza, Netanyahu has asked for unchecked US diplomatic and military support.

Then-President Biden travelled to Israel 11 days after Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks on southern Israel, and he declared that support for the US ally is “vital for America’s national security”.

His “bear hug” of Netanyahu on arrival at the airport in Tel Aviv would set the stage for the US backing of Israel as it unleashed horror and destruction on Gaza, which has translated into more than $21bn in military aid and multiple vetoes at the UN Security Council over the past two years.

Netanyahu has seized on the notion that Israel is an extension of US interests and security structure. In a speech to the US Congress last year, the prime minister argued that Israel is fighting Iran indirectly in Gaza and Lebanon.

“We’re not only protecting ourselves. We’re protecting you,” he told US lawmakers.

Throughout the war, there have been countless reports that Biden and Trump have been displeased or angry with Netanyahu. But US weapons and political backing for Israel have continued to flow uninterrupted. And Netanyahu makes a point of always expressing gratitude to US presidents, even when there may be apparent tensions.

Where does the US stand on the Gaza truce?

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week that the top priority for the Trump administration is to complete the first stage of the Gaza ceasefire and move from mere cessation of hostilities to long-term governance, stabilisation and reconstruction of the Palestinian enclave.

Israel has been violating the ceasefire in Gaza regularly, recently killing at least six Palestinians in an attack that targeted a wedding.

But Trump, who claims to have brought peace to the Middle East for the first time in 3,000 years, has focused on broadly moving the truce forward rather than on Israel’s daily conduct.

“No one is arguing that the status quo is sustainable in the long term, nor desirable, and that’s why we have a sense of urgency about bringing phase one to its full completion,” Rubio said last week.

The top US diplomat has also suggested that there could be some flexibility when it comes to disarming Hamas under the agreement, saying the “baseline” should be ensuring that the group does not pose a threat to Israel rather than removing the guns of every fighter.

But Israel appears to be operating with a different set of priorities. Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Tuesday that the country is looking to re-establish settlements in Gaza, which are illegal under international law.

He later walked back those comments but stressed that Israel would maintain a permanent military presence in the territory, which would violate the Trump plan.

Expect Gaza to be a key topic of discussion between Netanyahu and Trump.

Can a Syria agreement be reached?

Trump has literally and figuratively embraced Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa over the past year, lifting sanctions against the country and beginning security cooperation with his government’s security forces.

But Israel is pursuing its own agenda in Syria. Hours after the collapse of the government of former President Bashar al-Assad a year ago, Israel began expanding its occupation of Syria beyond the Golan Heights.

Although the new Syrian authorities stressed early on that they did not seek confrontation with Israel, the Israeli military launched a bombardment campaign against Syria’s state and military institutions.

Israeli forces have also been conducting raids in southern Syria and abducting and disappearing residents.

After the Israeli military killed 13 Syrians in an air raid last month, Trump issued a veiled criticism of Israel.

“It is very important that Israel maintain a strong and true dialogue with Syria and that nothing takes place that will interfere with Syria’s evolution into a prosperous state,” he said.

Syria and Israel were in talks earlier this year to establish a security agreement short of full diplomatic normalisation. But the negotiations appeared to collapse after Israeli leaders insisted on holding onto the land captured after al-Assad’s fall.

With Netanyahu in town, Trump will likely renew the push for a Syria-Israel agreement.

Why is Iran back in the headlines?

Netanyahu’s visit comes amid louder alarm bells in Israel about Iran rebuilding its missile capacity after their 12-day war in June.

NBC News reported last week that the Israeli prime minister will brief the US president about more potential strikes against Iran.

The pro-Israel camp in Trump’s orbit seems to be already mobilising rhetorically against Iran’s missile programme.

US Senator Lindsey Graham visited Israel this month and called Iran’s missiles a “real threat” to Israel.

“This trip is about elevating the risk ballistic missiles pose to Israel,” Graham told The Jerusalem Post.

Trump authorised strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites during the June war, which he said “obliterated” the Iranian nuclear programme.

Although there is no evidence that Iran has been weaponising its nuclear programme, fears about a possible Iranian atomic bomb were the driving public justification for the US involvement in the conflict.

So it will be hard for Netanyahu to persuade Trump to back a war against Iran, said Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy.

The president is portraying himself as a peacemaker and prioritising a possible confrontation with Venezuela.

“It could just as well backfire on Netanyahu,” Toossi said of the push for more strikes against Iran. But he underscored that Trump is “unpredictable”, and he has surrounded himself with pro-Israel hawks, including Rubio.

What is the state of US-Israel relations?

Despite growing dissent on the left and right of the US political spectrum, Trump’s support for Israel remains unwavering.

This month, the US Congress passed a military spending bill that includes $600m in military aid to Israel.

The Trump administration has continued to avoid even verbal criticism of Israel’s aggressive behaviour in the region, including Gaza ceasefire violations and the expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank.

At a White House Hanukkah celebration on December 16, Trump bemoaned the growing scepticism of unconditional support for Israel in Congress, falsely likening it to anti-Semitism.

“If you go back 10, 12, 15 years ago, at the most, the strongest lobby in Washington was the Jewish lobby. It was Israel. That’s no longer true,” Trump said.

“You have to be very careful. You have a Congress in particular which is becoming anti-Semitic.”

Despite Trump’s position, analysts said the gap between the strategic priorities of the US and Israel is growing.

While Washington is pushing for economic cooperation in the Middle East, Israel is seeking “total dominance” over the region, including US partners in the Gulf, Toossi said.

“Israel is pushing this uncompromising posture and strategic objective that I think is going to come to a head more with core US interests,” Toossi told Al Jazeera.

What’s next for the US-Israel alliance?

If you drive down Independence Avenue in Washington, DC, you will likely see more Israeli than American flags displayed on the windows of congressional offices.

Despite the shifting public opinion, Israel still has overwhelming support in Congress and the White House. And although criticism of Israel is growing within the Republican base, Israel’s detractors have been pushed to the margins of the movement.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is leaving Congress; commentator Tucker Carlson is facing constant attacks and accusations of anti-Semitism; and Congressman Tom Massie is facing a Trump-backed primary challenger.

Meanwhile, Trump’s inner circle is filled with staunch Israel supporters, including Rubio, megadonor Miriam Adelson and radio show host Mark Levin.

But amid the erosion of public support, especially among young people, Israel may face a reckoning in American politics in the long term.

On the Democratic side, some of Israel’s strongest supporters in Congress are facing primary challenges from progressive candidates who are centring Palestinian rights.

The most powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is increasingly becoming a toxic brand for Democrats.

On the right, the faultlines in the consensus in support of Israel are growing wider. That trend was put on display at the right-wing AmericaFest conference this month when debates raged around support for Israel, a topic that was a foregone conclusion for conservatives a few years ago.

Although the Trump administration has been pushing to codify opposition to Zionism as anti-Semitism to punish Palestinian rights supporters, Vice President JD Vance has presented a more nuanced view on the issue.

“What is actually happening is that there is a real backlash to a consensus view in American foreign policy,” Vance recently told the UnHerd website.

“I think we ought to have that conversation and not try to shut it down. Most Americans are not anti-Semitic – they’re never going to be anti-Semitic – and I think we should focus on the real debate.”

Bottom line, the currents are changing, but the US commitment to Israel remains solid – for now.

Ben Aris, Editor-in-chief at BNE Intellinews talks about the meeting on December 28 between Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and US President Trump.

The recent strikes by the United States on alleged ISIL (ISIS) targets in northwest Nigeria have been presented in Washington as a decisive counter-terror response. For the supporters of the administration of US President Donald Trump, the unprecedented operation signalled his country’s renewed resolve in confronting terrorism. It is also making good on Trump’s pledge to take action on what he claims is a “Christian genocide” in Nigeria.

But beneath the spectacle of military action lies a sobering reality: Bombing campaigns of this nature are unlikely to improve Nigeria’s security or help stabilise the conflict-racked country. On the contrary, the strikes risk misrepresenting the conflict and distracting from the deeper structural crisis that is driving violence.

The first problem with the strikes is their lack of strategic logic. The initial strikes were launched in Sokoto in northwest Nigeria, a region that has experienced intense turmoil over the past decade. But this violence is not primarily driven by an ideological insurgency linked to ISIL, and no known ISIL-linked groups are operating in the region. Instead, security concerns in this region are rooted in banditry, the collapse of rural economies, and competition for land. Armed groups here are fragmented and motivated largely by profit.

The Christmas Day strikes appear to have focused on a relatively new ideological armed group called Lakurawa, though its profile and any connection to ISIL are yet to be fully established.

The ideological armed groups with the strongest presence in northern Nigeria are Boko Haram and the ISIL-affiliate in West Africa Province (ISWAP). The centre of these groups’ activity remains hundreds of kilometres from Sokoto, in the northeast of Nigeria – the states of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa – where insurgency has a long history. This begs the question: Why strike the northwest first? The logic is unclear.

Equally concerning is the uncertainty surrounding casualties. So far, we have no authoritative figures. Some social media accounts claim there were no human casualties, suggesting the bombs fell on empty targets. Security analyst Brant Philip posted on his social media platform X: “According to a private source familiar with the US operation against the Islamic State in Nigeria, several strikes were launched, but most of the individuals and groups targeted were missed, and the actual damage inflicted remains mostly unknown.”

Nigerian news platform Arise TV reported on X that locals confirmed the incident caused widespread panic; according to its correspondent, at least one of the attacks happened in a district that had not suffered from violence before. They also noted that the full impact of the attack, including whether there were civilian casualties, is yet to be determined.

Other social media accounts have circulated images alleging civilian casualties, though these claims remain unverified. In a context where information warfare operates alongside armed conflict, speculation often travels faster than facts. The lack of transparent data on casualties from the US government risks deepening mistrust among communities already wary of foreign military involvement.

Symbolism also matters. The attack took place on Christmas Day, a detail that carries emotive and political significance. For many Muslims in northern Nigeria, the timing risks being interpreted as an act of supporting a broader narrative of a Western “crusade” against the Muslim community.

Even more sensitive is the location of the strikes: Sokoto. Historically, it is the spiritual seat of the 19th-century Sokoto Caliphate, a centre of Islamic authority and expansion revered by Nigerian Muslims. Bombing such a symbolic centre risks inflaming anti-US sentiment, deepening religious suspicion, and giving hardline propagandists fertile ground to exploit. Rather than weakening alleged ISIL influence, the strikes could inadvertently energise recruitment and amplify grievance narratives.

If air strikes cannot solve Nigeria’s security crisis, what can?

The answer lies not in foreign military intervention. Nigeria’s conflicts are symptoms of deeper governance failures: Weakened security, corruption, and the absence of the state in rural communities. In the northwest, where banditry thrives, residents often negotiate with armed groups not because they sympathise with them, but because the state is largely absent to provide them with security and basic services. In the northeast, where Boko Haram emerged, years of government neglect, heavy-handed security tactics, and economic exclusion created fertile ground for insurgency.

The most sustainable security response must therefore be multi-layered. It requires investment in community-based policing, dialogue, and pathways for deradicalisation. It demands a state presence that protects rather than punishes. It means prioritising intelligence gathering, strengthening local authorities, and restoring trust between citizens and government institutions.

The US strikes may generate headlines and satisfy a domestic audience, but on the ground in Nigeria, they risk doing little more than empowering hardline messaging and deepening resentment.

Nigerians do not need the US to bomb their country into security and stability. They need autochthonous reform: Localised long-term support to rebuild trust, restore livelihoods, and strengthen state institutions. Anything less is a distraction.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

“More to come”: Those are the words of United States Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after his country carried out a wave of air strikes against ISIL (ISIS) in northwestern Nigeria.

Hegseth said the aim is to stop the group’s killing of what he called “innocent Christians”.

Back in November, President Donald Trump warned the US would take action against the group if the Nigerian government continued to allow what he claimed was the targeting of Christians.

Many say Trump was pressured by his right-wing Christian base in the US to carry out the recent attacks in Nigeria. But what could be the fallout on the African country with a highly complex religious makeup?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Malik Samuel – Senior researcher at Good Governance Africa

Ebenezer Obadare – Senior fellow for Africa studies at the Council on Foreign Relations

David Otto – Deputy director of counterterrorism training at the International Academy for the Fight Against Terrorism

More than 40 million Americans under winter storm warnings or weather advisories as heavy snow expected.

Thousands of flights have been cancelled and delayed in the United States due to winter storm Devin, airline monitoring website FlightAware reports, dealing a blow to air travel during peak holiday time.

A total of 1,581 flights “within, into or out of the” US were cancelled and 6,883 delayed as of 4pm US Eastern Time (21:00 GMT) on Friday, according to FlightAware, which describes itself as the world’s largest flight tracking data company.

The delays and cancellations came as the US National Weather ⁠Service warned of winter storm Devin causing “hazardous travel conditions” and heavy snow forecast across parts of the Midwest and northeast.

More than 40 million Americans were under winter storm warnings or weather advisories on Friday, plus another 30 million under flood or storm advisories in California, where a so-called atmospheric river has brought a deluge of rain.

New York City, the largest US city, was bracing for up to 250mm (10 inches) of snow overnight on Friday, the most expected in four years. Temperatures were forecast to drop into the weekend when an Arctic blast is expected to swoop down from Canada.

New York’s John F Kennedy airport, ⁠Newark Liberty international airport and LaGuardia airport warned travellers of potential delays or cancellations. More than half of the flight cancellations and delays took place at these three airports, according to FlightAware.

JetBlue Airways cancelled 225 flights on Friday, the most among the US carriers, closely followed by Delta Air Lines, which cancelled 212 flights. Republic Airways cancelled 157 flights, while 146 were cancelled by American Airlines and 97 by United Airlines.

“Due to winter storm Devin, JetBlue has cancelled approximately 350 flights today and tomorrow, primarily in the Northeast where JetBlue has a large operation,” a JetBlue spokesperson told the Reuters news agency.

On the US West Coast, powerful winter storms brought the wettest Christmas season to Southern California in 54 years.

There was still a risk of more flash flooding and mudslides on Friday despite slackening rain around Los Angeles, the National Weather Service warned.

Firefighters rescued more than 100 people on Thursday in Los Angeles County, with one helicopter pulling 21 people from stranded cars, officials said.

Ukrainian president highlights ‘significant progress’ in talks, but Moscow says Kyiv is working to ‘torpedo’ deal.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is to meet with his United States counterpart, Donald Trump, in Florida on Sunday to discuss territorial disputes that continue to block progress towards ending Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Announcing the meeting on Friday, Zelenskyy said the talks could be decisive as Washington intensifies its efforts to broker an end to Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War II. “A lot can be decided before the New Year,” Zelenskyy said.

Territory remains the most contentious issue in the negotiations. Zelenskyy confirmed he would raise the status of eastern Ukraine and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which has been under Russian control since the early months of Russia’s invasion.

“As for the sensitive issues, we will discuss both Donbas and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. We will certainly discuss other issues as well,” he told reporters in a WhatsApp chat.

Moscow has demanded that Kyiv withdraw from parts of the Donetsk region still under Ukrainian control as it pushes for full authority over the wider Donbas area, which includes Donetsk and Luhansk. Ukraine has rejected that demand, instead calling for an immediate halt to hostilities along the existing front lines.

Territorial concessions

In an attempt to bridge the divide, the US has floated the idea of establishing a free economic zone should Ukraine relinquish control of the contested area although details of how such a plan would operate remain unclear.

Zelenskyy reiterated that any territorial concessions would require public approval. He said decisions on land must be made by Ukrainians themselves, potentially through a referendum.

Beyond territory, Zelenskyy said his meeting with Trump would focus on refining draft agreements, including economic arrangements and security guarantees. He said a security pact with Washington was nearly finalised while a 20-point peace framework was close to completion.

Ukraine has sought binding guarantees after previous international commitments failed to prevent Russia’s invasion, which began in February 2022.

Trump has previously voiced impatience with the pace of negotiations, but he has indicated he would engage directly if talks reached a meaningful stage.

Last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said his country is the only mediator that can speak to both sides to secure a peace agreement. At the same time, he downplayed the importance of the conflict for Washington.

“It’s not our war. It’s a war on another continent,” he said.

Zelenskyy said European leaders could join Sunday’s discussions remotely and confirmed he had already briefed Finnish President Alexander Stubb on what he described as “significant progress”.

Despite Zelenskyy’s assertion, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov accused Ukraine of working to “torpedo” the peace talks, saying a revised version of the US peace plan promoted by Kyiv was “radically different” from an earlier version negotiated with Washington.

“Our ability to make the final push and reach an agreement will depend on our own work and the political will of the other party,” he said during a television interview on Friday.

Ryabkov said any agreement must remain within the parameters set out between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin during a summit in August, which Ukraine and European partners have criticised as overly conciliatory towards Russia’s war aims.

On the ground, Moscow has intensified strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and the southern port city of Odesa while an attack on Kharkiv on Friday killed two people.

Washington’s top diplomat says he thanked Asfura, who was backed by Trump, for ‘advocacy of US strategic objectives’.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has congratulated Honduran President-elect Nasry Asfura, whom President Donald Trump had endorsed, for his victory in the Central American country’s contentious election.

The Department of State said on Friday that Rubio and Asfura in a phone call discussed collaboration on issues such as trade and security.

“Secretary Rubio commended President-Elect Asfura for his advocacy of US strategic objectives, including advancing our bilateral and regional security cooperation, and strengthening economic ties between our two countries,” the State Department said in a statement.

Asfura claimed a narrow victory on Wednesday in the November 30 election marked by Trump’s intervention on his behalf. Election authorities declared Asfura the winner after weeks of counting amid high tensions and allegations of fraud and impropriety from other candidates.

The right-wing Asfura, representing the National Party, edged out Salvador Nasralla of the centre-right Liberal Party with 40.27 percent of the vote to Nasralla’s 39.53 percent.

“Today, with deep gratitude, I accept the honour of being able to work for you. I extend my hand so we can walk together with determination to work tirelessly for Honduras. I will not fail you,” Asfura said in a video statement released on Wednesday night.

Both Nasralla and Rixi Moncada, the candidate for current President Xiomara Castro’s left-leaning LIBRE Party, who came in a distant third, have disputed the results of the election.

Nasralla said on Wednesday that election authorities had “betrayed the Honduran people”. He also took aim at Trump, who said before the election that a victory for anyone but Asfura would put US economic ties with Honduras at risk.

“Mr President, your endorsed candidate in Honduras is complicit in silencing the votes of our citizens,” Nasralla said in a social media post. “If he is truly worthy of your backing, if his hands are clean, if he has nothing to fear, then why doesn’t he allow for every vote to be counted?”

Honduras has experienced several contested elections since a US-backed coup in 2009. Protests over the November election have thus far remained peaceful.

Before the election, Trump also issued a criticised pardon for right-wing former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was convicted of crimes linked to the trafficking of drugs to the US during his time in office.

The pardon came as the US says it is shifting its foreign policy focus to the Americas.

Asfura, the former mayor of Honduras’s capital, Tegucigalpa, is of Palestinian descent. But his National Party is staunchly pro-Israel.

Under Hernandez in 2021, Honduras became only the fourth country to move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem in breach of international law.

Asfura has also aligned himself with Trump and other right-wing leaders in the Americas, including Argentina’s Javier Milei.

Beijing urged the US to cease ‘dangerous’ efforts to arm the island, which it claims as its own.

China has sanctioned a group of United States defence companies and senior executives over weapons sales to Taiwan, the latest move against Washington’s support for the self-governed island that Beijing claims as its own.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced the measures on Friday, targeting 20 US defence firms and 10 individuals. It said the sanctions are retaliation for the US’s newly announced $11.1bn weapons package for Taiwan, one of its largest ever for the territory.

“Any provocative actions that cross the line on the Taiwan issue ‌will be met with a strong ⁠response from China,” said a statement from the ministry, urging the US to cease “dangerous” efforts to arm the island.

The sanctioned companies include Boeing’s St Louis branch, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, L3Harris Maritime Services and Lazarus AI.

The measures freeze these companies’ assets in China and bar domestic organisations and individuals from working with them, according to the ministry. They also seize the China-held assets of sanctioned individuals and ban them from entering China.

Targeted individuals include the founder of defence firm Anduril Industries and nine senior executives from the sanctioned firms. The measures take effect on December 26.

The US is bound by law to provide Taiwan, which rejects Beijing’s claim to the territory, with the means to defend itself. But US arms sales to the island have deepened tensions with China.

The latest US weapons deal with Taiwan, announced by President Donald Trump on December 17, includes the proposed sale of 82 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, and 420 Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS – worth more than $4bn.

The defence systems are similar to what the US had been providing Ukraine to defend against Russian aerial attacks.

The deal also includes 60 self-propelled howitzer artillery systems and related equipment worth more than $4bn and drones valued at more than $1bn.

Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defence praised the US for assisting Taiwan “in maintaining sufficient self-defence capabilities and in rapidly building strong deterrent power”.

The US Department of War published footage of a missile being fired from a military vessel after Washington said it carried out a strike in northwest Nigeria. President Donald Trump said the attack targeted ISIL and was carried out at Nigeria’s request.

This was not the Christmas that Mariela Gomez would have imagined a year ago.

Or the one that thousands of other Venezuelan immigrants in the United States would have thought. But Donald Trump returned to the White House in January and quickly ended their US dream.

Gomez found herself spending the holiday in northern Venezuela for the first time in eight years. She dressed up, cooked, got her son a scooter and smiled for her in-laws. Hard as she tried, though, she could not ignore the main challenges facing returning migrants: unemployment and poverty.

“We had a modest dinner, not quite what we’d hoped for, but at least we had food on the table,” Gomez said of the lasagne-like dish she shared with her partner and in-laws instead of the traditional Christmas dish of stuffed corn dough hallacas. “Making hallacas here is a bit expensive, and since we’re unemployed, we couldn’t afford to make them.”

Gomez, her two sons and her partner returned to the city of Maracay on October 27 after crossing the US-Mexico border to Texas, where they were quickly swept up by US Border Patrol amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration. They were deported to Mexico, from where they began the dangerous journey back to Venezuela.

They crossed Central America by bus, but once in Panama, the family could not afford to continue to Colombia via boat in the Caribbean. Instead, they took the cheaper route along the Pacific’s choppy waters, sitting on top of sloshing petrol tanks in a cargo boat for several hours and then transferring to a fast boat until reaching a jungled area of Colombia. They spent about two weeks there until they were wired money to make it to the border with Venezuela.

Gomez was among the more than 7.7 million Venezuelans who left their home country in the last decade, when its economy came undone as a result of a drop in oil prices, corruption and mismanagement. She lived in Colombia and Peru for years before setting her sights on the US with hopes of building a new life.

Steady deportations

Trump’s second term has dashed the hopes of many like Gomez.

As of September, more than 14,000 migrants, mostly from Venezuela, had returned to South America since Trump moved to limit migration to the US, according to figures from Colombia, Panama and Costa Rica. In addition, Venezuelans were steadily deported to their home country this year after President Nicolas Maduro, under pressure from the White House, did away with his longstanding policy of not accepting deportees from the US.

Immigrants arrived regularly at the airport outside the capital, Caracas, on flights operated by a US government contractor or Venezuela’s state-owned airline. More than 13,000 migrants returned this year on the chartered flights.

Gomez’s return to Venezuela also allowed her to see the now 20-year-old daughter she left behind when she fled the country’s complex crisis. They talked and drank beer during the holiday, knowing it might be the last time they shared a drink for a while – Gomez’s daughter will migrate to Brazil next month.

Gomez is hoping to make hallacas for New Year’s Eve and is also hoping for a job. But her prayers for next year are mostly for good health.

“I ask God for many things, first and foremost life and health, so we can continue enjoying our family,” she said.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

US president says ‘deadly strike’ in Nigeria targeted ISIL fighters who had killed ‘primarily, innocent Christians’.

The United ‍States ‍has carried out an air strike against ISIL (ISIS) fighters in northwest Nigeria, US ⁠President Donald Trump ​said.

“Tonight, ⁠at my direction as Commander in Chief, the United States launched a powerful and ​deadly strike ‌against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria,” ‌Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform on Thursday evening.

Trump said ISIL fighters had “‌targeted and viciously” killed “primarily, innocent Christians, at ⁠levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!”

“I have previously warned these Terrorists that if they did not stop the slaughtering of Christians, there would be hell to pay, and tonight, there was,” Trump said.

The US military’s Africa Command (AFRICOM), which is responsible for operations in Africa, said in a post on X that the air strike was carried out “at the request of Nigerian authorities” and had killed “multiple ISIS terrorists”.

“Grateful for Nigerian government support & cooperation,” US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote on social media, warning also of “more to come”, without providing details.

In a statement, AFRICOM said the strike occurred in “Soboto state,” an apparent reference to Nigeria’s Sokoto state.

The US military action comes weeks after Trump said he had ordered the Pentagon to begin planning for potential military action in Nigeria following claims of Christian persecution in the country.

Nigeria’s government has said armed groups target both Muslim and Christian communities in the country, and US claims that Christians face persecution ‌do not represent a complex security situation and ignore efforts by Nigerian authorities to safeguard religious freedom.

Al Jazeera’s Shihab Rattansi, reporting from Washington DC, said the threat of US military action in Nigeria had been “percolating for some time” and Donald Trump had accused Nigeria of not doing enough to protect its Christian community in his first term as president.

“But in the last two months or so, with congressional pressure and the State Department, they declared Nigeria a particular country of concern when it came to the rights of Christians and we had heard that the US had begun overflight surveillance of Nigeria from an airbase in Accra, in Ghana, over the last several weeks. And now we have this,” Rattansi said.

“On Christmas day, the Trump administration acts. This will go down very well with Trump’s Christian evangelical base, I am sure,” he said.

Trump issued his attack statement on Christmas Day while he was at ‌his Palm Beach, Florida, Mar-a-Lago Club, where he has been spending the holiday.

Families celebrate Christmas releases while calling for full freedom of detainees.

Authorities in Venezuela have released at least 60 people arrested during protests against President Nicolas Maduro’s re-election, according to a human rights advocacy group, though campaigners say hundreds remain behind bars.

The releases began early on Thursday, over Christmas, according to the Committee for the Freedom of Political Prisoners, a group of rights activists and relatives of detainees arrested during unrest that followed July’s presidential election.

“We celebrate the release of more than 60 Venezuelans, who should never have been arbitrarily detained,” committee head Andreina Baduel told the AFP news agency.

“Although they are not entirely free, we will continue working for their full freedom and that of all political prisoners.”

Maduro secured a third term in office in the July 2024 vote, a result rejected by parts of the opposition amid allegations of fraud. The disputed outcome triggered weeks of demonstrations, during which authorities arrested about 2,400 people. Nearly 2,000 have since been released, according to rights groups.

Despite the latest releases, Venezuela still holds at least 902 political prisoners, according to Foro Penal, an NGO that monitors detentions.

Relatives said many of those freed had been held at Tocoron prison, a maximum-security facility in Aragua state, roughly 134km (83 miles) from the capital Caracas. Officials have not publicly clarified the conditions under which detainees were released.

“We must remember that there are more than 1,000 families with political prisoners,” Baduel said. Her father, Raul Isaias Baduel, a former defence minister and once an ally of the late president, Hugo Chavez, died in custody in 2021.

From Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the Russia-Ukraine war to devastating global weather events – including floods, storms and earthquakes – this year was defined by turmoil and humanitarian crises.

Prolonged violence in Sudan, marked by attacks by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), added to the mounting civilian toll and displacement across the country.

The year also saw heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, a deadly blaze in Hong Kong, United States and Israeli attacks on Iran, revelations from the Epstein files, and waves of “Gen Z” protest movements across multiple regions.

Together, these developments dominated international headlines, reflecting deepening political instability, social unrest and growing humanitarian needs worldwide.

View the gallery below for powerful photographs that documented and encapsulated these pivotal 12 months.

An attempted ICE arrest outside Baltimore turned violent after a man allegedly drove into law enforcement vehicles.

Two people were injured in a suburb of Baltimore after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents fired shots at a moving vehicle whose driver was allegedly evading arrest, according to US authorities.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said ICE agents had attempted to arrest two men from Portugal and El Salvador – who were allegedly living in the US illegally – as they were driving through Glen Burnie, Maryland, on Wednesday.

DHS said in a post on X that officers approached the vehicle and told the driver to turn off his engine, but the driver did not cooperate and instead drove into several ICE vehicles.

“Fearing for their lives and public safety, the ICE officers defensively fired their service weapons, striking the driver,” DHS said in a statement on X. The driver “then wrecked his van between two buildings, injuring the passenger”.

The two men later received medical attention, and no ICE agents were hurt during the incident, DHS said.

“Our brave officers are risking their lives every day to keep American communities safe by arresting and removing illegal aliens from our streets,” the DHS post also said. “Continued efforts to encourage illegal aliens and violent agitators to actively resist ICE will only lead to more violent incidents, the extremist rhetoric must stop.”

Local police confirmed to ABC News that ICE agents had approached a “white van” during an arrest on Wednesday and reported that the driver “attempted to run the agents over”.

The ICE agents then fired at the vehicle, which accelerated before coming to a rest in a wooded area of residential Glen Burnie, Maryland, ABC said.

Maryland Governor Wes Moore wrote on X that he was “aware of the ICE-involved shooting”,  and his office would continue to share more information as the investigation unfolded.

The shooting follows a similar incident in Minnesota on Sunday, when ICE agents fired shots at a Cuban man who also resisted arrest and attempted to ram ICE vehicles, according to ABC News.

The man, who had entered the US on a discontinued asylum programme, was approached by ICE agents in the city of St Paul while in an SUV.

The agents threatened to break his windows if he did not speak with them, prompting the man to drive away, ABC reported, citing Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. During the incident, the man hit an ICE agent with his vehicle.

The situation escalated when ICE agents pursued the man to his apartment building, where he later rammed an ICE vehicle with his SUV and hit a second agent, ABC said. ICE agents fired several shots before arresting the man, the report said.

US Justice Department says it requires weeks to process newly found Epstein-related files under transparency and court rules.

More than a million additional documents that are potentially related to late sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein have been uncovered, according to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ).

In a social media post on Wednesday, the DOJ said it is reviewing the documents and will need “a few more weeks” before proceeding with a congressionally mandated release of the information.

“The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the FBI have informed the Department of Justice that they have uncovered over a million more documents potentially related to the Jeffrey Epstein case,” the DOJ said in a statement, adding that more time is needed to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law enacted last month that requires the government to open its files on Epstein and his longtime confidante Ghislaine Maxwell.

The DOJ insisted in its statement that its lawyers are “working around the clock” to review those documents and make the redactions required under the law, passed nearly unanimously by Congress.

“Due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks. The Department will continue to fully comply with federal law and President [Donald] Trump’s direction to release the files,” the DOJ said.

Full disclosure

A dozen US senators are calling on the Justice Department’s watchdog to examine the department’s failure to release all records pertaining to Epstein by Friday’s congressionally mandated deadline, saying victims “deserve full disclosure” and the “peace of mind” of an independent audit.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, a member of Trump’s Republican Party, joined 11 Democrats in signing a letter on Wednesday urging Acting Inspector General Don Berthiaume to audit the Justice Department’s compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Given the [Trump] Administration’s historic hostility to releasing the files, politicisation of the Epstein case more broadly, and failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a neutral assessment of its compliance with the statutory disclosure requirements is essential,” the senators wrote.

Full transparency, they said, “is essential in identifying members of our society who enabled and participated in Epstein’s crimes”.

Republican Representative Thomas Massie, a co-sponsor of the transparency act, posted on Wednesday on X: “DOJ did break the law by making illegal redactions and by missing the deadline.”

Despite the deadline, the Justice Department has said it plans to release records on a rolling basis. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring survivors’ names and other identifying information.

More batches of records were released over the weekend and on Tuesday. The department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.

“The reason why we are still reviewing documents and still continuing our process is simply to protect victims,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told the NBC television network’s Meet the Press programme on Sunday.

“So the same individuals that are out there complaining about the lack of documents that were produced on Friday are the same individuals who apparently don’t want us to protect victims,” he argued.

UN experts criticise US blockade for endangering human rights and call for an investigation into alleged violations.

Four United Nations human rights experts have condemned the partial naval blockade of Venezuela by the United States, finding it an illegal armed aggression and calling on the US Congress to intervene.

“There is no right to enforce unilateral sanctions through an armed blockade,” the UN experts said in a joint statement on Wednesday.

The US has deployed a major military force in the Caribbean and intercepted oil tankers as part of a naval blockade against Venezuelan vessels it considers to be under sanctions.

A blockade is a prohibited use of military force against another country under the UN Charter, they added.

“It is such a serious use of force that it is also expressly recognised as illegal armed aggression under the General Assembly’s 1974 Definition of Aggression,” the experts said. “The illegal use of force, and threats to use further force at sea and on land, gravely endanger the human right to life and other rights in Venezuela and the region.”

US President Donald Trump accuses Venezuela of using oil, the South American country’s main resource, to finance “narcoterrorism, human trafficking, murders and kidnappings”.

Caracas denies any involvement in drug trafficking. It says Washington is seeking to overthrow its president, Nicolas Maduro, to seize Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world.

Since September, US forces have launched dozens of air strikes on boats that Washington alleges were transporting drugs. It has yet to provide evidence for those accusations. More than 100 people have been killed.

‘US Congress should intervene’

“These killings amount to violations of the right to life. They must be investigated and those responsible held accountable,” the experts said.

“Meanwhile, the US Congress should intervene to prevent further attacks and lift the blockade,” they added.

They called on countries to take measures to stop the blockade and illegal killings and bring the perpetrators to justice.

The four who signed the joint statement are: Ben Saul, special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering “terrorism”; George Katrougalos, an expert on promoting a democratic and equitable international order; development expert Surya Deva; and Gina Romero, special rapporteur on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.