TODAY

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has announced its latest immigration enforcement operation, this time in the northeastern state of Maine.

On Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that immigration raids had begun a day earlier, under the name “Operation Catch of the Day”.

In a statement, a Trump administration spokesperson appeared to signal that targeting Maine was a political response to the ongoing feud between the president and the state’s governor, Democrat Janet Mills.

“Governor Mills and her fellow sanctuary politicians in Maine have made it abundantly clear that they would rather stand with criminal illegal aliens than protect law-abiding American citizens,” said spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin.

But rumours have swirled that Maine was singled out for its significant Somali American population in the cities of Portland and Lewiston. Estimates put the total number of Somali Americans in the state at about 3,000.

Trump has repeatedly denounced the Somali community over the past several months, comparing its members to “garbage” at a December cabinet meeting. As recently as Tuesday, he used his White House podium to call Somalis and Somali Americans “ a lot of very low IQ people”.

Racist and anti-immigrant rhetoric has been a trademark of Trump’s campaigns for public office, and he has repeatedly singled out specific groups – including Haitians and Mexicans – to falsely tie their immigrant identity to pervasive criminal activity.

Parallels with Minnesota

Trump’s focus on the Somali community comes after a handful of members were implicated in a fraud scandal in Minnesota, a midwestern state where immigration enforcement operations were launched in December.

Those efforts have been marked by violent clashes between federal agents and protesters, and one woman, 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, was shot dead in her car after an interaction with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Fears that those tensions could spill into Maine dominated a Wednesday news conference with city officials in Portland.

Mayor Mark Dion told reporters that immigrant communities in the region felt “anxious and fearful” as ICE agents began their crackdown.

“They see this action as unpredictable and a threat to their families,” he explained.

He also questioned whether a heavy-handed operation was necessary to address immigration infractions in the area, and he called on ICE to adopt different tactics than it had in Minnesota.

“I want to underscore one important point: While we respect the law, we challenge the need for a paramilitary approach to the enforcement of federal statutes,” Dion said.

“Federal immigration law is lawful. Its administration and enforcement is lawful,” he added. “What we’ve been concerned with, as a council, is the enforcement tactics that ICE has undertaken in other communities, which to our mind appear to threaten and intimidate populations.”

Nevertheless, Dion expressed optimism that ICE would adopt a more tailored approach to apprehending local suspects.

While the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, has seen nearly 2,000 immigration officers flood its streets, the mayor predicted that Maine would not see the same “massing of federal agents”.

“We’re seeing very individualised activity by ICE. A person here, a neighbourhood there,” he said. “Their conduct, at least as it is current in Maine, seems to be focused, which would indicate to me – and this is the speculation – that they’re functioning on the basis of an actual court warrant.”

That, he said, marked a departure from the “random, show-me-your-papers kind of experience” that residents had experienced in Minnesota.

Outrage at ICE operations

Still, while Dion advocated for a wait-and-see approach to the ICE operation, other city officials took a harder stance.

One Portland city councillor,  Wesley Pelletier, described the unfolding raids as part of “an agenda of white nationalism and might makes right”.

“This is a war of terror that’s being waged on our city by the federal government,” Pelletier said. “We’ve seen people of all ages getting thrown on the ground and getting thrown into trucks.”

So far, Fox News quoted ICE Deputy Assistant Director Patricia Hyde as saying the agency had made 50 arrests so far as part of operation “Catch of the Day”. Hyde added that ICE had identified nearly 1,400 individuals to detain in Maine.

Wednesday’s statement from the Department of Homeland Security highlighted four arrests as examples, showing people from Sudan, Guatemala, Ethiopia and Angola.

It described the four individuals as “the worst of the worst” and accused them of crimes ranging from aggravated assault to endangering the welfare of a child, though it was unclear in one case if the accusation had resulted in a conviction.

“We are no longer allowing criminal illegal aliens to terrorize American citizens,” McLaughlin said in the statement.

But Democratic officials in the state suggested that the Trump administration had refused to coordinate in the lead-up to “Catch of the Day”, heightening anxiety on the local level.

On January 14, nearly a week before the operation was launched, Governor Mills posted on social media that she had “attempted, unsuccessfully thus far, to confirm” the upcoming surge in federal immigration enforcement.

In a video statement, she said the state had reached out to local governments in Portland and Lewiston to prepare. She added that she too felt “angry” about the expected surge.

“Our goal, as always, will be to protect the safety and the rights of the people of Maine,” Mills said.

“To the federal government, I say this: If your plan is to come here to be provocative and to undermine the civil rights of Maine residents, do not be confused. Those tactics are not welcome here to the people of Maine.”

She also took a jab at the trend of federal agents using masks and other facial coverings to conceal their identities.

“Look, Maine knows what good law enforcement looks like because our law enforcement are held to high professional standards,” Mills said. “They are accountable to the law. And I’ll tell you this: They don’t wear a mask to shield their identities, and they don’t arrest people in order to fill a quota.”

A political rivalry

Mills and Trump have long been political adversaries, with their feud erupting in a public forum. In February last year, shortly after Trump returned to office for a second term, he hosted a White House gathering for governors, where he called out Mills personally.

“Is Maine here? The governor of Maine?” Trump said while outlining policies barring transgender athletes from sporting events. “Are you not going to comply with it?”

“I’m complying with state and federal law,” Mills responded. The tension escalated from there.

“You’d better comply because otherwise you’re not getting any, any federal funding,” Trump shot back.

“See you in court,” Mills replied.

“Good. I’ll see you in court. I look forward to that. That should be a really easy one. And enjoy your life after, governor, because I don’t think you’ll be in elected politics,” he said.

The interaction made national news and cemented the frosty relationship between the two leaders, with Trump demanding an apology and slamming the Democratic governor for months afterwards.

His administration also took a series of escalating actions designed to target Mills, including launching an education probe in her state, suspending a marine research grant and freezing other federal funds to Maine.

In response to this week’s ICE deployment, Mills issued a short statement acknowledging the Trump administration’s latest efforts.

“Together, we will continue to place the safety and civil rights of Maine people above all else, and remain vigilant in our defense of due process and the rule of law,” she wrote.

Maine is set to hold its next gubernatorial race in 2026, as part of the year’s midterm election cycle.

Having served two terms as governor, Mills is not eligible for re-election and will instead be making a run for the US Senate, challenging Republican incumbent Susan Collins.

The Awami League is barred from upcoming elections in Bangladesh. Former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is in exile. Sreenivasan Jain asks Hasina’s son Sajeeb Wazed Joy what future the party has.

Bangladesh is heading into a historic election, with the Awami League barred from contesting and its leader, Sheikh Hasina, living in exile after her overthrow in August 2024.

In this interview, Sreenivasan Jain speaks with Sajeeb Wazed Joy — Hasina’s son and a senior Awami League figure — about whether the party has confronted public anger over years of repressive rule, and whether it sees any political future for itself in Bangladesh.

Guest:

Sajeeb Wazed Joy – Bangladeshi politician and businessman

U.S. President Donald Trump has doubled down on his long-standing ambition to bring Greenland under U.S. control, declaring there was “no going back” on the issue and refusing to rule out the use of force. His remarks, accompanied by leaked private messages and AI-generated images shared on social media, have triggered alarm across Europe and raised fears of a renewed transatlantic crisis.

Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark and a strategic Arctic location rich in minerals and critical for missile defence and shipping routes. Trump has repeatedly argued that U.S. control of the island is essential for global security, a claim Denmark and European allies strongly reject.

Trump’s Message: Security First, Allies Second

Trump said Greenland was “imperative for National and World Security” after speaking with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. To underline his stance, he shared AI-generated images portraying Greenland and Canada as part of the United States, signalling that the issue is not symbolic but strategic.

He also leaked private texts from European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, who questioned Trump’s intentions. Trump responded by renewing threats of massive tariffs on French wines and champagne, intensifying fears of economic retaliation.

NATO and Europe Under Pressure

Trump’s comments have placed NATO under severe strain, with Denmark warning that the crisis threatens core principles of sovereignty and democracy. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told parliament that “the worst may still lie ahead,” rejecting any negotiations over national borders.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen used the World Economic Forum in Davos to call for a “new independent Europe,” signalling that European leaders increasingly see Trump’s America as an unreliable security partner.

Trade War Fears Resurface

Trump’s Greenland rhetoric has revived memories of last year’s trade tensions. The European Union has warned it could reactivate tariffs on €93 billion worth of U.S. imports as early as February 6. Brussels is also considering deploying its powerful Anti-Coercion Instrument, which could target U.S. services, technology firms, and investment access.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent attempted to calm markets, dismissing fears as “hysteria” and urging patience. However, financial markets reacted sharply, with global stocks sliding, gold hitting record highs, and U.S. stock futures falling to one-month lows.

Russia Enters the Narrative

Russia has seized the moment to question Danish sovereignty over Greenland. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described Greenland as a “colonial conquest,” a comment that further complicates Arctic geopolitics. While Moscow denied seeking control of the island, its remarks underline how Trump’s stance is opening space for rival powers to challenge Western unity.

Public Backlash and Global Anxiety

Protests erupted in Switzerland ahead of the Davos forum, with demonstrators denouncing Trump’s policies as imperialistic. Investors, meanwhile, are reviving the so-called “Sell America” trade, signalling declining confidence in U.S. political stability and predictability.

Implications

Trump’s Greenland push risks reshaping transatlantic relations in three major ways:

• Security: It weakens NATO cohesion at a time of rising global instability.
• Economics: It threatens another U.S.–EU trade war, with serious consequences for global markets.
• Geopolitics: It accelerates European efforts to reduce dependence on U.S. security guarantees while giving rivals like Russia diplomatic leverage.

Analysis

Trump’s insistence on Greenland reflects a transactional and power-centric worldview where sovereignty is negotiable and alliances are conditional. By framing territorial acquisition as a security necessity, he is blurring the line between strategic competition and outright coercion.

While the administration portrays the dispute as manageable, the reaction from Europe suggests a deeper rupture. The crisis is less about Greenland itself and more about whether the U.S. under Trump still respects the norms that underpin the Western alliance. If this approach continues, Europe’s push for strategic autonomy may shift from rhetoric to reality permanently altering the balance of power within the transatlantic relationship.

With information from Reuters.

Israel has faced international condemnation after it bulldozed the headquarters of the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) in occupied East Jerusalem.

The UN said razing the compound violates international law.

What are the implications of the demolition?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Shireen Salti – Political analyst who specialises in Palestine-Israel public affairs

Francesca Albanese – UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory and a former lawyer at UNRWA

Gideon Levy – Columnist at Israeli news outlet Haaretz

When Tunisian TV host Hassen becomes a full-time caregiver for his mother Saliha, dying of lung cancer, their home and hospital visits become the backdrop for an intimate family love story. This observational documentary follows them through birthday celebrations, 4am medication, difficult medical consultations and quiet, emotional moments together. Their bond gradually goes beyond conventional parent–child roles, as Hassen works tirelessly to preserve joy, dignity and a sense of normal life for Saliha. As the cancer spreads and her chances fade, they face impossible choices: treatment versus comfort, hope versus honesty, a son’s devotion versus his mother’s exhaustion. After Saliha’s death, we see Hassen back in the studio, hosting live television while still guided by her memory, redefining his mother as “a notion of love” that continues to shape him. Raw but unsentimental, the film captures caregiving as both an act of endurance and a profound declaration of love itself.

In 1948, as the foundations of the Israeli state were being laid upon the ruins of hundreds of Palestinian villages, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to the American Friends of the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel (AFFFI), condemning the growing Zionist militancy within the settler Jewish community. “When a real and final catastrophe should befall us in Palestine the first responsible for it would be the British and the second responsible for it the terrorist organisations built up from our own ranks. I am not willing to see anybody associated with those misled and criminal people.”

Einstein — perhaps the most celebrated Jewish intellectual of the 20th century — refused to conflate his Jewish identity with the violence of Zionism. He turned down the offer to become Israel’s president, rejecting the notion that Jewish survival and self-determination should come at the cost of another people’s displacement and suffering. And yet, if Einstein were alive today, his words would likely be condemned under the current definitions of anti-Semitism adopted by many Western governments and institutions, including the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, now endorsed by most Australian universities.

Under the IHRA definition, Einstein’s outspoken criticism of Israel — he called its founding actors “terrorists” and denounced their betrayal of Jewish ethics — would render him suspect. He would be accused not only of delegitimising Israel, but also of anti-Semitism. His moral clarity, once visionary, would today be vilified.

That is why we must untangle the threads of Zionism, colonialism and human rights.

Einstein’s resistance to Zionism was not about denying Jewish belonging or rights; it was about refusing to build those rights on ethno-nationalist violence. He understood what too many people fail to grasp today: that Zionism and Judaism are not synonymous.

Zionism is a political ideology rooted in European colonial logics, one that enforces Jewish supremacy in a land shared historically by Palestinian and other Levantine peoples. To criticise this ideology is not anti-Semitic; it is, rather, a necessary act of justice and a moral act of bearing witness. The religious symbolism that Israel uses is irrelevant in this respect. And yet, in today’s political climate, any critique of Israel — no matter how grounded it might be in international law, historical fact or humanitarian concern — is increasingly branded as anti-Semitism. This conflation shields from accountability a settler-colonial state, and it silences Palestinians and their allies from speaking out on the reality of their oppression. Billions in arms sales, stolen resources and apartheid infrastructure don’t just happen; they’re the reason that legitimate “criticism” gets rebranded as “hate”.

READ: Ex-Israel PM accuses Netanyahu of waging war on Israel

To understand Einstein’s critique, we must confront the truth about Zionism itself. While often framed as a movement for Jewish liberation, Zionism in practice has operated as a colonial project of erasure and domination. The Nakba was not a tragic consequence of war, it was a deliberate blueprint for dispossession and disappearance. Israeli historian Ilan Pappé has detailed how David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, approved “Plan Dalet” on 10 March, 1948. This included the mass expulsion and execution of Palestinians to create a Jewish-majority state. As Ben-Gurion himself declared chillingly: “Every attack has to end with occupation, destruction and expulsion.”

This is the basis of the Zionist state that we are told not to critique.

Einstein saw this unfolding and recoiled. In another 1948 open letter to the New York Times, he and other Jewish intellectuals described Israel’s newly formed political parties — like Herut (the precursor to Likud) — as “closely akin in… organisation, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”

Einstein’s words were not hyperbole, they were a warning. Having fled Nazi Germany, he had direct experience with the defining traits of Nazi fascism. “From Israel’s past actions,” he wrote, “we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.”

Today, we are living in the very future that Einstein feared, a reality marked by massacres in Gaza, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the denial of basic essentials such as water, electricity and medical aid. This is not about “self-defence”; it is the logic of colonial domination whereby the land theft continues and the violence escalates.

Einstein warned about what many still refuse to see: a state established on principles of ethnic supremacy and expulsion could never transcend its foundation ethos. Israel’s creation in occupied Palestine is Zionism in practice; it cannot endure without employing repression until resistance is erased entirely. Hence, the Nakba wasn’t a one-off event in 1948; it evolved, funded by Washington, armed by Berlin and enabled by every government that trades Palestinian blood for political favours.

Zionism cannot be separated from the broader history of European settler-colonialism. As Patrick Wolfe explains, the ideology hijacked the rhetoric of Jewish liberation to mask its colonial reality of re-nativism, with the settlers recasting themselves as “indigenous” while painting resistance as terrorism.

READ: Illegal Israeli settlers attack Palestinian school in occupied West Bank

The father of political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, stated in his manifesto-novel Altneuland, “To build anew, I must demolish before I construct.” To him, Palestine was not seen as a shared homeland, but as a house to be razed to the ground and rebuilt by and for Jews alone. His ideology was made possible by British imperial interests to divide and dominate post-Ottoman territories. Through ethnic partition and military alliances embellished under the 1917 Balfour Declaration to the ironic Zionist-Nazi 1933 Haavara Agreement, the Zionist project aligned perfectly with the West’s goal, as per the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Israel is thus criticised because of its political ideology rooted in ethnonationalism and settler colonialism. Equating anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism is a disservice not only to Palestinians, but also to Jews, especially those who, like Einstein, refuse to have their identity weaponised in the service of war crimes. Zionism today includes Christian Zionists, military allies and Western politicians who benefit from Israel’s imperial reach through arms deals, surveillance technology and geostrategic partnerships.

Zionism is a global power structure, not a monolithic ethnic identity.

Many Jews around the world — rabbis, scholars, students and Holocaust survivors and their descendants — continue Einstein’s legacy by saying “Not in our name”. They reject the co-option of Holocaust memory to justify genocide in Gaza. They refuse to be complicit in what the Torah forbids: the theft of land and the murder of innocents. They are not “self-hating Jews”. They are the inheritors of a prophetic tradition of justice. And they are being silenced.

Perhaps the most dangerous development today is, therefore, Israel’s insistence on linking its crimes to Jewish identity. It frames civilian massacres, apartheid policies and violations of international law as acts done in the name of all Jews and Judaism. By tying the Jewish people to the crimes of a state, Israel risks exposing Jews around the world to collective blame and retaliation.

Einstein warned against this. And if Einstein’s vision teaches us anything, it is this: Justice cannot be compromised for comfort and profit. Truth must outlast repression. And freedom must belong to all. In the end, no amount of Israel’s militarisation of terminology, propaganda or geopolitical alliances can suppress a people’s resistance forever or outlast global condemnation. The only question left is: how much more blood will be spilled before justice prevails?

The struggle for clarity today is not just academic, it is existential. Without the ability to distinguish anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism, we cannot build a future where Jews and Palestinians all live in dignity, safety and peace. Reclaiming the term “Semite” in its full meaning, encompassing both Jews and Arabs, is critical. Further isolation of Arabs from their Semitic identity has enabled the dehumanisation of Palestinians and the erasure of shared Jewish-Arab histories, especially the centuries of coexistence, the Jewish-Muslim golden ages in places like Baghdad, Granada/Andalusia, Istanbul, Damascus and Cairo.

Einstein stood up for the future for us to reclaim it.

The way forward must be rooted in truth, justice and accountability. That means unequivocally opposing anti-Semitism in all its forms, but refusing to allow the term to be manipulated as a shield for apartheid, ethnic cleansing and colonial domination. It means affirming that Jewish safety must never come at the price of Palestinian freedom, and that Palestinian resistance is not hatred; it is survival.

And if Einstein would be silenced today, who will speak tomorrow?

OPINION: Palestinian voices are throttled by the promotion of foreign agendas

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

It’s been more than six years since Ali Hassan Ali Bakhtiyan was released from a secret prison in eastern Yemen’s Hadramout Governorate, but he cannot forget the horrors he underwent during his more than two years in detention.

“It was a very bitter and extremely painful experience,” the 30-year-old man said, adding he was lodged inside the secret prison run by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and local Yemeni troops called the Hadrami Elite Forces (HEF) inside Hadramout’s Presidential Palace.

“They stripped me naked and used cold water. I was interrogated first by members of the Hadrami Elite Forces, then they handed me to the Emiratis officers,” Ali told Al Jazeera over the phone, saying he was detained twice – first in 2016 and then again in 2017.

The prison, Ali says, was not even suitable for animals. “Closed, dark rooms, hands tied and blindfolded. Twenty days went by without a chance to clean your body. They used physical and body torture, solitary confinement several times, beating many times,” Ali recalls.

The 30-year-old says he was first detained following a bomb blast in Hadramout. “I was falsely accused of being a member of the Islah Party,” he said, denying he was a member of the party, which is the main opposition party in Yemen. The country’s Muslim Brotherhood also falls under its umbrella.

“I do not have any affiliation with any political party. Even the interrogator later told me, ‘I have nothing against you, but the Emiratis wanted you,’” Ali said.

In 2019, he was transferred to the central prison in Hadramout and appeared before a judge, following which, he was released without charge.

UAE secret prisons

Ali’s case and many other prisoners have come under the spotlight again after Hadramout Governor Salem al-Khanbashi on Monday announced the discovery of “secret prisons at sites where UAE forces were stationed”.

The governor “expressed his regret at what was found inside the UAE bases and camps – especially in the vicinity of Rayyan International Airport – of equipment and contents unrelated to regular armies, including explosives, detonators and dangerous components usually used by terrorist groups, in addition to the discovery of secret prisons at those forces’ deployment sites,” according to the state-run Yemeni News Agency (SABA).

The UAE forces withdrew from Yemen on January 3 after Yemen’s Presidential Leadership Council (PLC) chairman Rashad al-Alimi annulled a joint defence agreement with Abu Dhabi and asked UAE forces to leave within 24 hours.

This came after the UAE-backed Southern Transitional Council (STC) forces took control of Hadramout and al-Mahrah provinces in early December. The STC control of Hadramout, which borders Saudi Arabia, was seen as a national security threat by Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia-led coalition forces bombed Mukalla, the capital of Hadramout, targeting what Riyadh said was a UAE-linked weapons shipment destined for the STC. Soon, government forces, backed by the Saudi-led coalition, regained the two provinces in early January, triggering the collapse of the STC. The UAE denied supplying weapons to the southern separatists.

Deputy Governor of Hadramout al-Jilani told Al Jazeera that “four illegal detention sites” affiliated with UAE forces in the governorate had been “identified”.

“Such practices are a blatant violation of the Yemeni constitution, applicable laws, and all international and humanitarian charters and agreements that criminalise detention outside the judicial framework,” he said, adding that local authorities in the governorate will carry out comprehensive and transparent investigations and hear the testimonies of victims and witnesses to gather evidence to hold those responsible accountable.

In the meantime, the UAE’s Ministry of Defence issued a statement categorically denying the accusations, describing them as “false and misleading allegations and claims that are not based on any evidence or fact”.

“These allegations are attempts to mislead the public opinion and to defame the armed forces of the United Arab Emirates, the statement read.

Shocking scenes

The government’s National Commission to Investigate Alleged Violations of Human Rights (NCIAVHR) has been tasked with investigating the cases of torture in prisons. Officials from the body have visited prisons and are speaking with victims.

”The secret detention centres were in state institutions and service facilities, such as al-Rayyan Airport [in Mukalla], the Republican Palace, al-Dhabba Port, and the central prison known as ‘Al-Manoura Prison’,” committee member Ishraq Al-Maqtari told Al Jazeera, adding that Emirati forces had converted them into private, secret detention centres after adding some inhumane modifications.

“Most of the modifications included building very small, extremely narrow rooms unfit for human detention, some far from public life in the desert, and some of them were constructed underground,” she said.

Al-Maqtari further described that detention centres were built with “punitive specifications, such that a detainee could not stand in them even for short periods, let alone attempt to sit or sleep”.

“Some rooms were also used as presses for torture, where a person is held for very long periods, even though they are unfit to remain in for a few hours,” she told Al Jazeera.

Justice and accountability

Since the UAE forces withdrew, protests have been regularly held demanding disclosure of the fate of hundreds of abducted and forcibly disappeared people in UAE prisons, particularly in the interim capital, Aden.

The NCIAVHR has said it will head to other governorates where secret detention facilities have been reported, including in the Socotra Archipelago governorate, Aden, Lahj, Taiz and Al Hodeidah.

NCIAVHR member al-Maqtari, who has been meeting victims and their families, says “they demanded the need to hold accountable the bodies and individuals who detained and tortured them, along with restoring their dignity and compensating them for the horrific, inhumane torture and humiliations they were subjected to.”

On the one-year anniversary of the start of his second term, US President Donald Trump spent 104 minutes in the White House press room listing his accomplishments.

Trump started the briefing by showing a stack of photos of people who had been arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minneapolis, the site of large-scale raids and counterprotests as well as the fatal shooting of an American citizen by an ICE agent.

Addressing a roomful of reporters, Trump proceeded to highlight policies he has put in place since taking office in January 2025. He sometimes stuck to the prepared text, but often digressed into related and unrelated issues, occasionally repeating remarks more than once.

Trump also took questions, many of which addressed foreign policy, including his efforts to acquire Greenland, his establishment of a “Board of Peace” to oversee reconstruction in Gaza, and the state of the government in Venezuela after the US abduction of its then-leader, Nicolas Maduro.

The press conference came a day before Trump’s scheduled departure to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Economy

On the economy, Trump said, “Everyone said, ‘Oh tariffs will cause inflation.’ We have no inflation. We have very little inflation.”

For Trump’s one-year anniversary, we looked at a wide range of price data for the past year and found that overall prices are still increasing, although some specific items, such as eggs and gasoline, have seen price declines.

Immigration

On immigration, Trump said his administration was prioritising deporting criminals. “We’re focused on the murderers, the drug dealers,” he said.

In his first year, Trump has deported somewhere between 300,000 to 600,000 people. The administration hasn’t published detailed deportation data so it’s unclear how many of those people had a criminal history.

But about 74 percent of the nearly 70,000 immigrants in immigration detention have no criminal convictions, according to reports carried in the US media.

Investments

During the briefing, Trump repeated some inaccurate claims he’s made in the past. He said the US has “secured a record-breaking $18 trillion in commitments for new investments”.

The White House website since mid-November has shown a figure of $9.6 trillion. In addition, experts have cautioned PolitiFact that some of the $9.6 trillion in pledges may not come to fruition and others are unrealistically large compared to the gross domestic product of the countries involved.

Gasoline prices

Trump also said gasoline is “at $1.99 in many states”. In the second week of January 2026, the average price per gallon nationally was $2.78, compared with $3.11 in January 2025.

No state has seen its average price fall below $2. The lowest average price in any state in mid-January was $2.34 per gallon, in Oklahoma.

Four states – Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming – had at least seven stations selling gasoline for less than $2 on January 20, according to the gas price app Gas Buddy, and a handful of other states had between one and four stations selling gasoline for under $2.

Jobs

Trump said that under his predecessor, Joe Biden, “one out of four jobs added was a government job.”

This is exaggerated. Over four years, the economy added more than 16 million jobs, of which about 1.8 million were federal, state or local government positions; that’s about 11 percent of the total.

During Biden’s final year in office, the economy added more than 2 million jobs overall, compared with 473,000 in 2025 under Trump.

Fentanyl overdoses

Trump said 300,000 people died last year because of fentanyl overdoses, but that’s far above the most recent federal data.

In the 12 months before August 2025, about 69,000 people in the US died from all types of drug overdoses, not just fentanyl, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

Ending wars

Trump repeated his assertion that he’d “ended eight unendable wars in 10 months”, an exaggerated claim similar to one we rated Mostly False. He also said “no president’s probably ever settled one war,” which we rated False.

Why Choose Our Mythic+ Boosting Team

If you want reliable, efficient progression, our Mythic+ team delivers. Top-tier players, verified metrics, clear communication—every run is engineered for predictable results. You’re not getting generic lifts; each boost is tailored to your goals, schedule, and preferred playstyle. Whether you’re chasing higher keys or refining execution, our mythic plus boost service ensures focused, performance-driven improvement from start to finish.

Expect concise pre-run briefings, role-specific assignments, and transparent pricing. Downtime drops. Predictability rises. When issues appear, we escalate and fix them fast—no vague promises. Composition optimization, cooldown management, and route discipline aren’t optional. They’re measured against KPIs. Completion times stabilize, objectives hit more consistently. You want progression treated like a performance metric? This is it.

How Our Runs Maximize Loot and Score

Safety, Account Integrity, and Scheduling

Pricing, Packages, and Custom Options

What to Expect During a Boost

Frequently Asked Questions

Do You Stream or Record Runs?

Can I Bring a Friend Who Isn’t Purchasing?

Are Refunds Available if a Key Fails?

Do You Offer Older Season Keys or Mount Runs?

What Languages Does Your Team Speak?

A U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol jet executed a rare presidential Combat Air Patrol (CAP) flight on Monday. It took place while President Donald Trump was attending the College Football Playoff National Championship (CFP) at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens. The aircraft provided “incident awareness assessment (IAA) support” for the United States Secret Service (USSS) during the presidential CAP, U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) told The War Zone.

“IAA involves the use of Department of War (DoW) assets to provide situational awareness in support of domestic operations,” NORTHCOM stated. “IAA has been successfully utilized in the past for similar high-profile events, such as disaster response operations and large-scale public gatherings, where DoW assets provided critical situational awareness to support civilian authorities. A P-8 aircraft was identified as available to assist with this mission.”

Using a P-8 for presidential CAPSs “doesn’t happen very often,” a NORTHCOM spokesman added, however, he could not immediately provide greater details about the frequency.

@aircraftspots first posted about the peculiar flight, which was later highlighted by another open source plane tracker, @TheIntelFrog. The militarized 737 derivative, callsign JULIET ECHO 191, was launched from its home at Naval Air Station Jacksonville at 4:51 PM Eastern and began doing orbits at nearly 18,000 feet starting roughly 30 miles north of the stadium and extending over the Atlantic Ocean.

Around 7:14 PM, the jet then flew tighter orbits at about 3,700 feet around 1.5 miles west of the stadium before flying a wider pattern at the same altitude, a few miles south, that lasted until about 8 PM, according to ADS-B data. It then flew additional loops at altitudes ranging from 15,000 feet to 18,000 feet east, southeast and northeast of the stadium before returning to base just after 10 PM.

The lower-altitude passes coincided with Trump’s arrival in the area, but did not appear to follow the motorcade route. According to the White House, Marine 1 landed at North Perry Airport at 7:03 PM Eastern. Trump’s motorcade traveled south and arrived at the stadium at 7:08 PM.

The president and his family attended the game, which the Indiana Hoosiers won over the Miami Hurricanes by a 27-21 score. Trump left at 10:47 PM.

The P-8 can provide overwatch capabilities fitting into the requirements of an IAA. According to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD): “IAA is similar to DOD’s definition of Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR). However, ISR is conducted outside the United States over foreign territory or within the United States during Homeland Defense events, while IAA is conducted within the United States in support of DSCA [Defense Support of Civil Authorities] operations. The change in title is necessary to make it clear that DOD does not collect Intelligence on US persons. IAA operations focus on providing timely and usable information to all levels of command and to local, State, Civil, and Federal leaders in order to save lives, reduce human suffering and protect property.”

There are three IAA mission sets, including Broad Area Coverage (BAC), Damage Assessment (DA), and Situational Awareness (SA). 

“Similar to ISR in the HD mission, IAA capabilities include Electro-Optical (EO), Infra-red (IR), Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), Multi-spectral/Hyper-spectral (MSI/HSI), and Full Motion Video (FMV),” NORAD notes. 

While the P-8 is largely known for its anti-submarine, anti-surface warfare, and sea control roles, its suite of sensors makes it very well suited for an IAA operation over land as well.

The P-8 is equipped with a very powerful Wescam MX-20HD electro-optical turret capable of capturing high definition moving video of targets on the earth’s surface. This combined with the P-8’s extensive communications system, as well as its fast response times due to its jet speed while still being able to loiter relatively low and slow, would be reason enough to use it for a mission like this. In addition, its onboard radar and electronic surveillance measures (ESM) suite could also come into play, to a lesser degree. A handful of P-8s can also carry the slab-like Advanced Airborne Sensor (AAS) that is attached to the lower forward fuselage of the aircraft. This is an incredibly capable and secretive radar capable of taking very high definition synthetic aperture radar maps and detecting moving objects down below in complex littoral areas. It likely has other functions that are not disclosed, possibly including spotting low-flying aircraft. You can read all about this system here. Other modular surveillance payloads remain undisclosed, but an advanced communications intelligence system has been spotted bolted below the aircraft’s chin. Because of its size, the P-8 can also serve as an impromptu command and control platform, taking on specialist crewmen, if need be.

For a good sense of what it is like to fly the P-8 on real-world missions, we covered that in this past feature of ours.

Suffice it to say, P-8s are extremely capable, multi-role aircraft. And that is why they are so heavily tasked around the globe.

While P-8s likely help monitor maritime movements near where the president may be staying in some circumstances, flying a presidential CAP over land is unusual for a Poseidon. DHS has many aircraft that are equipped with similar imaging capabilities and are far more efficient than the P-8. It isn’t clear if these aircraft were simply unavailable or if some of the P-8’s unique capabilities were needed for this specific mission.

There is a wide range of threats, from drones to bad actors on the ground, that exist at such a high-profile affair as the College Football National Championship. This is all magnified when the president is in attendance, with many more contingencies being needed to be set in place, including route clearing for the motorcade and general overwatch of the facility and the area surrounding it. Security concerns may have been further heightened in the wake of threats Iranian officials made against Trump for his calling for anti-government protests there to continue while still mulling military action against the regime. The regime in Tehran has a long history of making direct threats against Trump, including implying they could use drones to assassinate him.

We may see Poseidons called upon for more presidential CAPs in the future. In the past, P-3C Orion patrol planes were sometimes used for these missions, the NORTHCOM spokesman told us, but the Navy stopped flying them last year.

The CAP flight can be added to the already relatively huge and still expanding number of mission sets the P-8 can be called upon to execute at any given time.

Update 7:35 AM Eastern Jan. 21-

Aircraft spotter Nick Strader, who uses the X handle @indyspotter, shared a photo he took of the Poseidon at about 5:22 PM Monday as the aircraft was heading south toward the Miami area. The jet was flying over Withem Field in Stuart, Florida, at the time.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

The period between 2025 and 2026 witnessed a significant increase in the level and scope of intelligence, military, and security cooperation between the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate and the Chinese Ministry of State Security “MSS” (which acts as China’s intelligence agency). This development raised considerable concern within Israeli security and intelligence circles (Mossad). This concern stemmed particularly from the shift in the level and scope of Egyptian-Chinese cooperation from an economic framework to an intelligence and technological partnership aimed at bolstering Egyptian sovereignty and diminishing Israel’s qualitative edge in the fields of espionage and aerial surveillance. This cooperation encompassed areas such as electronic warfare and surveillance systems, including the provision of advanced Chinese radars to Egypt, granting it a high capacity for detecting aerial threats independently of systems technically linked to the United States or Israel.

  On the other hand, the Chinese Ministry of State Security (Chinese intelligence) closely monitored Egyptian moves and the pressure exerted by the head of Egyptian intelligence, Major General/ Hassan Rashad, on the Israeli Mossad during the Gaza peace negotiations in October 2015. Chinese intelligence devised a strategy of “pressure against the Mossad” aimed at curbing the Mossad’s ambitions in the region and ensuring the stability of Egypt’s borders amidst regional tensions. This strategy also aimed to safeguard China’s interests and its Belt and Road Initiative. The Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate collaborated with its Chinese counterpart, the Ministry of State Security, to protect vital waterways and straits, including the (Suez Canal, the Gulf of Aden, the Bab El-Mandeb Strait, and the Strait of Hormuz), thereby limiting Israeli and American actions that could harm China’s interests in Egypt and the region.

  In September 2025, Chinese intelligence, military, and security reports indicated that the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate had successfully uncovered and thwarted a Mossad “secret plan” to carry out an airstrike to assassinate Hamas leaders in the Qatari capital, Doha. Egypt (with the knowledge of the Chinese Ministry of State Security) informed the Qatari side of the operation just 25 minutes before its execution, thus disrupting it and triggering extensive internal investigations within the Israeli Mossad to understand how the Israeli intelligence plan was leaked to Cairo and the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate with the assistance of Chinese intelligence agencies. This success demonstrated Cairo and its General Intelligence Directorate’s superiority over the Israeli Mossad, thanks to China’s provision of a massive fleet of advanced Chinese satellites to monitor all Israeli movements around the clock and limit Israel’s influence.

  Here, cooperation between Egyptian General Intelligence and the Chinese side in confronting Israel takes on a largely undeclared strategic character, but it has recently emerged through several security and technical channels that have raised concerns in Israeli circles. This cooperation takes the form of technical and intelligence cooperation (aerial surveillance). The Egyptian Ministry of Defense has signed several memoranda of understanding with Chinese state-owned companies, such as (Norinco), to enhance Egyptian-Chinese cooperation in sensitive defense industries. Egypt has also acquired Chinese air defense systems, raising Israeli questions about how advanced Chinese technology is being transferred to Cairo to undermine Israel’s qualitative military edge, which is currently dominated by advanced American technology. This highlights the growing Egyptian-Chinese military rapprochement, aimed at “diversifying Egypt’s arms sources”  and maintaining the independence of Egyptian security decision-making. Israel and Washington are monitoring this development cautiously, as it could diminish Western influence in the region. In May 2025, several Israeli media reports accused Egypt of coordinating with China to use advanced Chinese early warning aircraft, known as the (KJ-500) aircraft, to penetrate Israeli air defenses.

  Which has proven effective in testing or penetrating Israeli air defenses. Israeli reports also claimed that Egypt exploited the “Civilization Eagle” joint air exercises with China in April-May 2025 to secretly monitor the deployment of Israeli forces using advanced Chinese surveillance technology. Israeli researchers and military personnel from the (Israeli Institute for National Security Studies) alleged that Egypt used the joint air exercises with China to secretly monitor the deployment of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). They considered this an unprecedented “intelligence provocation” by Cairo with the support of Beijing.

 Here, Chinese intelligence agencies, specifically the Ministry of State Security (MSS), play a significant role in intelligence cooperation with Egypt regarding the Palestinian issue. This is achieved through Chinese assessments of all Israeli and American actions in this regard. Intelligence reports indicate that the MSS is evaluating the “high-risk maneuvers” conducted by Egyptian intelligence with Mossad, reflecting a deep Chinese interest in Egypt’s approach to managing the conflict with Israel.

 Furthermore, Chinese state agencies and their intelligence apparatus are working to support the Egyptian position in the face of Mossad’s stalling tactics. This support is manifested through Chinese intelligence and diplomatic coordination with Egypt to promote a two-state solution and reject the forced displacement of Palestinians, which Israel views as an attempt to undermine its influence and politically isolate it. The Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS) has also shown increasing interest in the outcomes of the ceasefire negotiations in Gaza, which involved the heads of intelligence agencies from Egypt, Qatar, and the United States.

 The Chinese Ministry of State Security is also supporting Egypt through numerous military deals and security communications, including arms sales to Cairo and the arrival of several Chinese fighter jets, known as the (J-10C) to Egypt in 2025. Several Israeli analysts and military officials considered this Chinese military deal with Egypt a “silent crossing” and a challenge to the US-backed Israeli air superiority in the region.

 The Israeli Mossad and its leadership in Tel Aviv described the Egyptian-Chinese air force exercises in Sinai from April to May 2025, known as “Eagles of Civilization,” given their proximity to the Israeli border, as clear strategic messages to Israel and deterrents regarding the diversification of Egypt’s power sources and its aerial and military surveillance capabilities against Israeli military deployments, with Chinese assistance. The joint Egyptian-Chinese “Eagles of Civilization” military exercises included realistic simulations of combat operations and the planning of air missions. Israeli analysts considered this a strategic shift that could affect the regional balance of deterrence in Egypt’s favor in its military confrontation with Israel.

 China adopts a strategic vision for the conflict and tensions between Egypt and the Mossad (or the Israeli side in general). This vision focuses on strengthening Egypt’s defense capabilities against Israeli pressure. A key feature of this vision is Chinese support for a strategic balance between Egypt and Israel in the face of Washington. Through deepening its military cooperation with Egypt, China aims to create a kind of “strategic deterrence” that reduces Israeli hegemony in the region. Israeli security circles have expressed growing concern over China’s provision of advanced military technologies to Egypt, such as air defense systems, electronic warfare equipment, and early warning aircraft, known as the (KJ-50).

  The Chinese Ministry of State Security (which acts as China’s intelligence agency) is also closely monitoring the outcomes of negotiations and the pressure exerted by US intelligence agencies, including Mossad, on Egypt regarding sensitive and complex issues for China, such as the management of the conflict in the Gaza Strip. China views Egypt as a pillar of stability and rejects the “law of the jungle” and the policies that Israel and the United States are attempting to impose on Cairo concerning the forced displacement of Palestinians. Furthermore, Chinese intelligence agencies, represented by the Ministry of State Security, have played a significant role in indirect cooperation to thwart Western and Israeli intelligence attempts aimed at destabilizing the Egyptian army or using terrorist political groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, to dismantle it.

  Here, China is working to thwart Israeli espionage attempts through Mossad and the “CIA” by countering all technological infiltrations of Cairo. This is being done through China’s promotion of replacing Israeli and American software and technologies with more secure Chinese alternatives in the region.

 To this end, the Chinese Ministry of State Security and all its relevant agencies are working in political alignment with Egypt against the escalation in the besieged Gaza Strip. China agrees with Egypt on the necessity of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and rejects the forced displacement of Palestinians. China supports the Egyptian mediation role, believing that regional stability begins with a just solution to the Palestinian issue, one that is independent of imposed Israeli security solutions.

   Consequently, Israeli concerns have grown regarding Chinese influence in Egypt and the wider region, which they believe is detrimental to Israeli interests. Israeli security research centers and military leaders believe that China is using its close ties with regional states, including Egypt, to gather intelligence on Israeli technology and military capabilities, and then using this information to spy on Israel and on American interests, which are China’s rivals in the region. The intelligence crisis between Beijing and Tel Aviv reached its peak in September 2025 when Israeli Prime Minister “Benjamin Netanyahu” accused China of leading propaganda campaigns aimed at politically isolating Israel and weakening its international support.

US allies reacted to President Donald Trump’s threats to take over Greenland on Tuesday, with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney telling delegates at Davos that it was time to imagine a future without US leadership.

Artillery fire, gunship attack, demolitions in war-battered Gaza as PM Netanyahu accepts US ‘peace board’ position.

The man who killed Japan’s former prime minister Shinzo Abe has been sentenced to life in prison, three and a half years after he shot him dead at a rally in the city of Nara in 2022.

Tetsuya Yamagami had pleaded guilty to murder at the trial’s opening last year, but how he should be punished has divided public opinion in Japan. While many see the 45-year-old as a cold-blooded murderer, some sympathise with his troubled upbringing.

Prosecutors said Yamagami deserved life imprisonment for his “grave act”. Abe’s assassination stunned the country, where there is virtually no gun crime.

Seeking leniency, Yamagami’s defence team said he was a victim of “religious abuse”.

His mother’s devotion to the Unification Church bankrupted the family, and Yamagami bore a grudge against Abe after realising the ex-leader’s ties to the controversial church, the court heard.

On Wednesday, Judge Shinichi Tanaka from the Nara district court said the fact that Yamagami “shot [Abe] from behind… when he was least expecting it” showed how “despicable and extremely malicious” his actions were, AFP news agency reported.

Yamagami sat quietly with his hands clasped and eyes downcast as the sentence was handed down. Nearly 700 people had lined up outside the courtroom to attend the hearing.

Abe’s shocking death in broad daylight prompted investigations into the Unification Church and its questionable practices, including soliciting financially ruinous donations from its followers.

The case also exposed links with politicians from Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party and resulted in the resignations of several cabinet ministers.

Journalist Eito Suzuki, who covered all but one of Yamagami’s court hearings, said Yamagami and his family seemed “overwhelmed with despair” throughout the trial.

Yamagami “exuded a sense of world-weariness and resignation”, recounts Suzuki, who began looking into the Unification Church long before Abe’s shocking murder.

“Everything is true. There is no doubt that I did this,” Yamagami said solemnly on the first day of his trial in October 2025.

Armed with a homemade gun assembled using two metal pipes and duct tape, he fired two shots at Abe during a political campaign event in the western city of Nara on 8 July 2022.

The murder of Japan’s most recognisable public figure at the time – Abe remains the longest-serving PM in Japanese history – sent shockwaves around the world.

Calling for a jail term of no more than 20 years, Yamagami’s lawyers argued that he was a victim of “religious abuse”. He resented the church because his mother donated to it his late father’s life insurance and other assets, amounting to 100 million yen ($633,000; £471,000), the court heard.

Yamagami spoke of his grievance against Abe, who was 67 when shot, after seeing his video message at a church-related event in 2021, but said he had initially planned to attack church executives, not Abe.

Suzuki recalls Abe’s widow Akie’s look of disbelief when Yamagami said the ex-leader was not his main target. Her expression “remains vividly etched in my mind”, Suzuki says.

“It conveyed a sense of shock, like she was asking: Was my husband merely a tool used to settle a grudge against the religious organisation? Is that all it was?”

In an emotional statement read to the court, Akie Abe said the sorrow of losing her husband “will never be relieved”.

“I just wanted him to stay alive,” she had said.

Founded in South Korea, the Unification Church entered Japan in the 1960s and cultivated ties with politicians to grow its following, researchers say.

While not a member, Abe, like several other Japanese politicians, would occasionally appear at church-related events. His grandfather Nobusuke Kishi, also a former PM, was said to have been close to the group because of its anti-communist stance.

In March last year, a Tokyo court revoked the church’s status as a religious corporation, ruling that it coerced followers into buying expensive items by exploiting fears about their spiritual well-being.

The church has also drawn controversy for holding mass wedding ceremonies involving thousands of couples.

Yamagami’s sister, who appeared as a defence witness during his trial, gave a tearful testimony on the “dire circumstances she and her siblings endured” because of their mother’s deep involvement with the church, Suzuki recalls.

“It was an intensely emotional moment. Nearly everyone in the public gallery appeared to be crying,” he says.

But prosecutors argue there is “a leap in logic” as to why Yamagami directed his resentment of the church at Abe. During the trial, the judges also raised questions suggesting they found it hard to understand this aspect of his defence.

Observers, too, are divided on whether Yamagami’s personal tragedies justify a reduced penalty for his actions.

“It’s hard to dismantle the prosecution’s case that Abe didn’t directly harm Yamagami or his family,” Suzuki says.

But he believes Yamagami’s case illustrates how “victims of social problems are led to commit serious crimes”.

“This chain must be broken, we must properly examine why he committed the crime,” Suzuki says.

Rin Ushiyama, a sociologist at Queen’s University Belfast, says sympathy for Yamagami is largely rooted in “widespread distrust and antipathy in Japan towards controversial religions like the Unification Church”.

“Yamagami was certainly a ‘victim’ of parental neglect and economic hardship caused by the [Unification Church], but this does not explain, let alone justify, his [actions],” Ushiyama says.

Singapore’s Ministry of Defence plans to replace its fleet of Fokker 50 Maritime Patrol Aircraft with Boeing-made P-8A reconnaissance planes.

The United States has approved a $2.3bn weapons sale to Singapore that includes P-8A Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft, lightweight torpedoes, and air defence systems.

The State Department notified the US Congress of the sale on Wednesday, according to a statement on the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) website.

The proposed sale will allow Singapore to “meet current and future threats by providing a credible maritime force capable of deterring adversaries and participating in US allied operations”, the DSCA said.

“This proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a strategic partner that is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Asia,” the statement continued.

Ian Chong, a political scientist, told Al Jazeera that the patrol aircraft are used to protect Singapore’s “extended sea lanes of communication and its very busy waterways” in Southeast Asia.

The acquisition of four Boeing P-8A aircraft is part of Singapore’s long-term plan to replace its ageing fleet of Fokker 50 Maritime Patrol Aircraft, according to its Ministry of Defence.

Singapore Defence Minister Chan Chun Sing announced plans to buy the US aircraft in September, following a meeting with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon.

The US has $8.38bn in active government-to-government sales with Singapore, which range from munitions to F-35 fighter jets, according to the State Department.

Singapore is due to receive the first aircraft from its outstanding order of 20 F-35s later this year, according to its Defence Ministry.

The US and Singapore cooperate on a range of security issues, and their militaries regularly host joint training exercises.

Gaza City – Khaled Abu Jarrar spends his days trying to find ways to get his wife treatment for her recently diagnosed liver cancer.

The 58-year-old, originally from the town of Beit Hanoon in northern Gaza, but displaced with his family for the last year and a half in Gaza City, knows that his wife needs to travel abroad urgently.

It is why he is so desperate for the Rafah crossing, previously the Gaza Strip’s main access point to the outside world, to open.

Israel has kept it firmly shut for most of the past two years, as it conducted its genocidal war on Gaza, killing more than 70,000 Palestinians.

Khaled is looking towards Gaza’s new administration – a group of Palestinian technocrats overseen by United States President Donald Trump’s so-called “board of peace” – to change things.

The National Committee for Gaza Management (NGAC) met for the first time last week, in the Egyptian capital, Cairo. It will manage Gaza’s day-to-day affairs in place of the Palestinian group Hamas as part of the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire plan.

The US announced that the second phase had begun last week.

Khaled now wants to see tangible results from the NGAC and the second phase, starting with the opening of the Rafah crossing. But he is sceptical.

“I hope it’s a committee with real powers, not just words on paper,” Khaled told Al Jazeera. “Otherwise, it will be a failed committee.”

His pessimism is understandable. Israel has continued to attack Gaza, killing more than 400 Palestinians since the beginning of the ceasefire.

It has also made clear its opposition to the NGAC, and makes little effort to allow for life in Gaza to improve. One of Israel’s most recent moves has been to order the shutdown of international humanitarian organisations providing vital medical care and food aid in Gaza.

“On the ground, the shelling never stops,” Khaled said, as he followed news on the NGAC from inside a shelter set up in the former Legislative Council building in western Gaza City.

“In the media, they talk about withdrawals and reconstruction, but on the ground, the bombing continues from the north and the south, and things seem even more complicated.”

Waiting for solutions

Khaled’s living arrangements in a government building are not unusual. Thousands of displaced people have found shelter in the structures from which Gaza was once administered, or buildings that have at least partially survived Israel’s targeting.

This reality underlines the difficulty the NGAC and any administration will face when attempting to govern Gaza.

And it makes any talk of new committees and administrations hinge on a series of simple questions for the displaced: Will the technocrats be able to overcome the restrictions imposed on Gaza by Israel? Will they be able to deliver tangible changes to the lives of Palestinians exhausted by displacement and loss?

The committee is presented as a politically “neutral” framework, made up of non-factional figures with administrative and technical expertise. It will be led by Ali Shaath, a former Palestinian Authority (PA) deputy minister.

But many Palestinians believe its success depends less on its composition and more on its ability to operate in an environment that Israel still dominates, and is unwilling to allow to rebuild.

Palestinian political analyst Ahed Farwana referred to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent comments, in which he described the second phase of the ceasefire as “symbolic”, as evidence that Israel has no intention of cooperating.

“So far, things are unclear for the committee, because it depends on serious implementation of the second phase’s obligations,” Farwana told Al Jazeera.

Many of the obligations on Israel in the first phase of the ceasefire, such as halting attacks, a full Israeli withdrawal from a specified area of Gaza, and the opening of the Rafah crossing, have not happened.

Farwana believes that Netanyahu does not want to pay the political cost in Israel of allowing the ceasefire to progress and fully declaring an end to the war, particularly as he will face an election sometime this year.

If anything, Farwana expects Israel to continue violating the ceasefire and expanding its buffer zone, while it cites excuses such as that one remaining Israeli body has not been handed over from Gaza. Hamas has said that it is unable to reach the body because of the amount of rubble left behind by Israeli attacks.

“If there is real American pressure, there will be real change and implementation of the second phase,” Farwana said, arguing that the ceasefire’s partial success was largely tied to pushes made by the US administration. “[But] leaving the field to Netanyahu will not produce results.”

Israeli restrictions

Israeli officials deny the existence of limits on the quantity of aid coming into Gaza. However, international organisations and local Palestinians point to delays in permit approvals, as well as prolonged inspection procedures that slow access and restrict the entry of goods Gaza desperately needs, including non-food items and heavy materials for infrastructure.

The United Nations and aid agencies have repeatedly called for crossings to be opened and the facilitation of aid entry, stressing that the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains catastrophic and that a large share of agreed-upon aid has yet to enter since the implementation of the ceasefire.

The continued closure of the Rafah crossing, in particular, has left Gaza almost entirely dependent on other entry points, such as Karem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom), which is subject to complex inspection procedures and full Israeli security control.

Against these obstacles, discussions about Gaza’s new administration become more complex, as any committee’s authority to manage services and reconstruction is directly linked to its ability to operate within restrictions on the movement of materials.

Asmaa Manoun is waiting desperately for things to improve.

The 45-year-old, originally from northern Gaza’s Jabalia refugee camp, is a mother of five, but one of her children was killed during the war.

She now lives with her husband Mohammad – injured during the war – in the stairwell of a partially-destroyed building in Gaza City. A simple tarpaulin barely shelters them.

Those conditions explain why Asmaa did not initially hear the news of the establishment of the NGAC, and talk of the beginning of the second phase of the ceasefire.

“Most of the time, my phone isn’t charged, and the internet isn’t available,” she said. “Usually, we hear things from people around us in the camp, and discussions circulate among them.”

Asmaa had initially left southern Gaza, where she had been living displaced, to Jabalia in an attempt to return home. But constant Israeli shelling and gunfire, including a bullet that she said killed a woman in the tent next to her, ended the experiment and made it clear that safety was still a far-off prospect.

Mohammad, 49, stood beside Asmaa as she talked. His hope for the new committee was clear: organise aid entry and distribution, and manage Gaza after the chaos that it had been through.

“We hear a lot, but in reality, we are in the same place we’ve been for two years,” he said.

“The situation in Gaza is beyond difficult. We can barely manage. For many months, we haven’t received aid, food parcels, or tents. Things are chaotic, and Israel is interested in this chaos, and in using aid as punishment.”

Corporate media have deployed a lexicon of legitimation in their coverage of the deadly US invasion of Venezuela and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro, along with his wife and fellow politician Cilia Flores. Major news outlets have routinely described these events using words like “capture” (New York Times, 1/3/26) or “arrest” (BBC, 1/3/26), which presents them as a matter of enforcing the law against fugitives or criminals, and carries the built-in but false assumption that the US had the right or even duty to conduct its operation in the first place.

The ludicrous premise is that any time an arrest warrant is issued somewhere in the United States, the US has the right to do anything, anywhere in the world, in pursuit of the subject—including bombing another country, invading it, killing its citizens, and spiriting away its president and first lady. Cornell Law School professor Maggie Gardner (Transnational Litigation Blog, 1/5/26) rebuked the idea that the US merely enforced the law in Venezuela, pointing out (emphasis in original):

Under customary international law, a sovereign can only exercise enforcement jurisdiction in the territory of another sovereign if it has that sovereign’s consent. This hard line limiting enforcement powers to a sovereign’s own territory is clear and well-established.

Venezuela, of course, didn’t consent to being bombed, or to having Maduro and Flores taken from the country at gunpoint. Accordingly, what happened in Caracas is best understood not as the US enforcing the law, but as the US breaking international law. It’s misleading, therefore, to use language like “capture” and “arrest,” which evoke the US upholding the law, to describe blowtorch-wielding, heavily armed US forces taking Maduro and Flores prisoner in the middle of the night (BBC, 1/4/26).

‘Abducted, so to speak’

I used the news aggregator Factiva to examine New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post coverage from January 3 through January 5, the day of the US’s attack on Venezuela and the first two days after these developments. The papers published a combined 223 pieces that featured Maduro’s name, and 166 of these (74%) used the term “capture” or a form of it, such as “captured” or “capturing.” Sixty of these pieces, or 27%, included the word “arrest” or variations on the term, like “arrested” or “arresting.”

“Abduction” or “kidnapping”—synonyms that mean to take someone away unlawfully and by force—are far more suitable words for what the US did to Maduro and Flores. Only two pieces in the Post and one in the Journal used any form of “abduct” (such as “abduction”) in any of the articles that refer to Maduro—1% of the combined total articles. In each case, the term appears in quotation marks. The Times ran no pieces in which the word appeared.

The Post (1/3/26) shared a perplexing perspective from Geoffrey Corn—head of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University, and a former top legal adviser to the US Army—who said that the US Supreme Court has been clear since the late 19th century that “you can’t claim that you were abducted and therefore the court should not be allowed to assert authority over you.” The article went on:

“Maduro is not going to be able to avoid being brought to trial because he was abducted, so to speak, even if he can establish it violated international law,” Corn said, adding that in his view, the administration’s overnight military operation lacked any “plausible legal basis.”

So, despite Corn’s view that the US attack was illegal, he couldn’t bring himself to present Maduro’s abduction as literal rather than figurative.

That article, as well another in the Post (1/3/26) and one in the Wall Street Journal (1/5/26), quoted Democratic Senator Mark R. Warner:

If the United States asserts the right to use military force to invade and capture foreign leaders it accuses of criminal conduct, what prevents China from claiming the same authority over Taiwan’s leadership? What stops Vladimir Putin from asserting a similar justification to abduct Ukraine’s president?

Even as Warner is skeptical about the US’s actions in Venezuela, he still uses the language of “capture” for Maduro, while using “abduct” for a hypothetical scenario in which the official enemy Putin carries out a parallel crime. None of the articles that included Warner’s quote  commented on this linguistic inconsistency.

The word “abduct” was never used in the voice of a reporter from any of these papers to describe what the US had done.

‘It’s not a bad term’

Venezuelan officials, including Maduro himself (New York Times, 1/5/26), say that he was “kidnapped” by the US. They’re not the only ones. On Democracy Now! (1/3/26), Venezuelan journalist Andreína Chávez and US-based Venezuelan historian Miguel Tinker Salas both used that word to characterize what the US did to Maduro and Flores.

Canada’s national broadcaster, the CBC (1/5/26), regarded the idea that Maduro was “kidnapped” as at least meriting serious discussion. Co-anchor Andrew Chang asked:

Did the US military just kidnap Nicholas Maduro?… “Kidnap” is a loaded word because it implies illegality. Maybe a more neutral way of describing Maduro’s capture is as an “abduction,” but the US government calls it an “arrest.”…

This isn’t some nerdy question about semantics. It’s a question about law, and whether the US has the legal right to extract world leaders from their homes, and maybe even whether other countries might have that right, too.

Notably, when Trump was told that Venezuela’s acting President Delcy Rodríguez said it was a “kidnapping,” he didn’t push back, saying, “It’s not a bad term.”

However, the only times “kidnap” appeared in the Times, Journal or Post in relation to Maduro and Flores—in 10 pieces, or 4% of the coverage—came when that term was attributed to representatives of the Venezuelan state. Suggesting to readers that a government that has been demonized in US media for decades is the only source that regards Maduro and Flores as having been “kidnapped” is tantamount to suggesting that no credible sources take that position.

The three papers combined to run zero articles treating as an objective fact the view that America “abducted” or “kidnapped” a sitting head of state in defiance of international law, while they regularly used “captured” and “arrested” outside of quotation marks, as if those word choices are merely flat descriptions of reality.

ICE also ‘arrests’

These linguistic choices matter. “Capture” and “arrest” paint Trump, Delta Force and the CIA as righteous heroes protecting their country—as well as Venezuela and the rest of the world—from the villainous Maduros. “Abduct” and “kidnap” morally invert the good guy and bad guy roles, and would portray US actors as the wrongdoers.

This particular form of word play is part of a pattern for corporate media under this Trump administration. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) round-ups of migrants in the United States have featured what can most accurately be described as abductions or kidnappings of people—off the streets, at courts, in workplaces and elsewhere—by armed, masked and unaccountable agents, into unmarked vehicles. It’s little surprise, then, that immigration lawyers, members of Congress, and law professors (LA Times, 10/21/25), among others, routinely use the word “abduct” to describe these events.

And describing ICE’s practices as “kidnappings” isn’t some fringe view. Rep. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia (D-Ill.) uses the word (Independent, 12/5/25), as does Rolling Stone editor Tim Dickinson (7/2/25), and the academic and author Natasha Lennard of the New School for Social Research in New York (Intercept, 7/1/25). ICE’s victims (Mother Jones, 7/18/27; NPR, 7/27/25) and their families (Guardian, 4/15/25, 6/10/25, 6/26/25) frequently describe their ordeal in such terms.

Yet corporate media eschew such language for the same sanitized “arrest” or “capture” language they employed for Maduro and Flores. When I used Factiva to pair “ICE” with the words “abduct” or “kidnap,” just two articles turned up that included the perspective that ICE “abducts” people (New York Times, 7/13/25; Washington Post, 12/3/25), both attributed to critical sources. Five (2%) included a version of the word “kidnap,” all in quotation marks.

Three of these quotes were from the much-maligned Venezuelan government (New York Times, 3/18/25, 11/25/25; Washington Post, 5/4/25), one came from a man whose father and daughter-in-law had been detained by ICE (Washington Post, 3/21/25), and another from a member of the Chicago Board of Education (New York Times, 10/22/25).

The language is freighted in the same way, whether it is migrants under attack from US jackboots, or those same forces unleashed against socialist politicians in Global South countries seeking to escape imperial domination.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Source: FAIR