TODAY

‘A major failure’

A round-faced man with dark-rimmed glasses, a moustache and short-trimmed hair, Ismael came to the US when he was only five years old.

Southern California became his home, and as an adult, he qualified for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme, which offered temporary protection against deportation.

He lost his DACA status, however, in 2015 after a conviction for driving under the influence.

His family remembers him as a caring son and uncle, always willing to buy his niece and nephew new clothes or school supplies.

“Ismael was always looking after his siblings. He just had a big heart,” said his brother, Jose Miguel Ayala. “He was very protective of not just us, but my mum and dad too.”

He was 39 years old when he was brought to the Adelanto ICE Processing Center.

Two weeks after his arrival, Ismael told his family that he developed a high fever and a painful sore on his backside.

On September 18, 2025, workers at Adelanto initiated a Code Blue alert for Ismael, signalling a life-threatening medical emergency. Medical staff rushed him from his dorm to the infirmary in a wheelchair.

ICE documents show that Ismael was given pain medication, an ointment and a fibre supplement.

But according to Physicians for Human Rights’ Cuneo, who reviewed the case, Ismael should have received a physical examination and antibiotics.

“That is a major failure,” Cuneo said.

That weekend, hours after Lucia’s visit, Ismael’s condition worsened. Just after midnight on Sunday, ICE records say he was vomiting, shaking and sweating.

According to ICE documents, he was later sent to an intensive care unit, where he went into cardiac arrest within minutes of his arrival and subsequently died.

“I believe Ismael’s death could have fully been prevented by timely care,” Cuneo said. “It was a simple abscess that was not treated in a timely manner.”

Fault Lines obtained a coroner’s investigation that reveals Ismael was critically ill when he first arrived at the hospital, a fact that was left out of ICE’s public report on his death.

The coroner’s report also contradicts ICE’s timeline for Ismael’s death. It indicates Ismael went into cardiac arrest early on September 21, nearly a full day before he passed away. Medical staff, however, managed to restore his heartbeat after intubating him.

That conflicts with ICE’s report, which only notes his pulse stopping once: shortly before his death was announced on the morning of September 22. ICE described his condition on September 21 as “calm and cooperative”, but it signalled no heart problems.

“If they had given him the medical care and what he needed, maybe he would be here with us,” Lucia said.

In a statement about Ismael’s death, ICE said detainees receive “comprehensive medical care” throughout their time in custody.

But California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta told Fault Lines that his office found “the exact opposite” during its inspections of the state’s detention centres.

“We’ve gone to these facilities. We’ve gone into Adelanto. We have done our own physical inspections,” Bonta explained.

“If what the ICE spokesperson said was true, Mr Ayala-Uribe would be with us today.”

An internal mortality review committee also found that the care provided to Ismael at Adelanto “deviated beyond safe limits of practice”, according to a document obtained by US media earlier this year.

It also suggests that medical staff delayed responding to calls about Ismael’s declining health in the days leading up to his death.

Khan Younis, Gaza Strip – For 11 days after giving birth last month, Rania Fadel could not hold her newborn son.

The 24-year-old gave birth to twin boys, Ilyas and Yahya, on September 25.

While Yahya was born healthy, Ilyas was admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit at Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis, in southern Gaza, where he remained for nearly two weeks.

Born prematurely, Ilyas weighed just 1.4 kilogrammes (3 pounds) at birth, according to his mother. He had medical issues affecting his blood and lungs, she said, and needed specialised care in an incubator.

Rania herself was recovering from a Caesarean section when her son was taken into intensive care. For days, she could not hold him.

“When they called me to hold him, I rushed over,” she recalled. “I was in a hurry to get to him. It was such a feeling.”

As Ilyas’s condition improved and he moved from intensive care to the hospital’s neonatal care unit, Rania was able to hold him against her bare chest, introducing her to a form of care for low-birthweight newborns known as kangaroo mother care, part of a newly-launched programme at the hospital.

It involves prolonged skin-to-skin contact between a caregiver – ideally the mother – and baby, with exclusive breast milk feeding, and has been shown to have important health benefits for premature and low-birthweight babies.

“I was so happy. It was such a beautiful feeling,” Rania said.

During the session, a nurse helped Rania position Ilyas against her chest, with his skin touching hers. Rania said he remained there for about 90 minutes.

“He started breastfeeding from me, and he stayed a little longer,” she said. “I felt he was improving.”

For Rania, the contact also brought a sense of closeness after days of separation.

“The baby feels that his mother is there,” she said. “He feels safe. Honestly, it makes me very happy.”

Skin-to-skin

Kangaroo mother care involves placing a baby against a parent’s bare chest for skin-to-skin contact, alongside breastfeeding and appropriate medical care.

For premature and low-birthweight babies, it can help regulate body temperature, support breastfeeding and improve health outcomes.

World Health Organization (WHO) guidance says that kangaroo mother care has been shown to reduce neonatal mortality by 32 percent, and mortality by six months of age by 25 percent, compared with conventional care.

At Nasser Medical Complex, Khawla al-Madhoun, director of nursing at the hospital’s maternity and neonatal departments, described it as an integrated approach to newborn care that supports growth and strengthens the bond between mother and baby.

“When we place a baby on the mother’s chest, it helps the baby grow,” she said.

“We have seen babies who were unwell or underweight begin to grow faster with kangaroo care. This can help them leave the hospital sooner.”

The hospital has begun introducing kangaroo care through a pilot programme supported by WHO, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). The agencies announced the initiative at Nasser Hospital in September, but the practice is being introduced gradually in its external neonatal care unit, where babies stay with their mothers, and in maternity wards after delivery.

Al-Madhoun said the team was also preparing a dedicated room and seeking equipment to make the sessions more comfortable.

The team aims for longer periods of skin-to-skin contact – WHO recommends at least eight hours per day – although its immediate target is at least two hours, depending on each family’s circumstances.

At Nasser, the team is currently prioritising babies who are medically stable and do not require oxygen support. Nurses monitor their vital signs and assess them throughout the process.

Al-Madhoun stressed that the technique cannot replace an incubator or other treatment when a baby needs intensive care.

“It can help babies grow, gain weight and leave the hospital earlier, but some babies need other interventions, such as respiratory support,” she said. “Those babies still need the incubator and the care it provides.”

Shortage of neonatal equipment

The need for specialised newborn care comes as Gaza’s health system continues to struggle with damaged facilities, shortages of equipment and overcrowded neonatal units.

Before Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza began in October 2023, Gaza had eight neonatal intensive care units with a total of 178 incubators, according to UNICEF.

By November 2024, three of those units had been destroyed by Israel, and the number of available incubators had fallen to about 54, a reduction of 70 percent. The shortage of equipment, compounded by limited supplies of fuel and electricity as a result of Israeli restrictions, put premature newborns at serious risk.

Israeli strikes have continued since an October 2025 “ceasefire”. Despite this supposed truce, and despite the delivery of some new equipment, the shortage of incubators and other equipment has persisted.

In May, UNICEF said it and its partners had supplied incubators and ventilators to hospitals in Gaza, while warning that neonatal units were still managing large numbers of fragile infants with limited equipment, space and power.

The war in Gaza has worsened living conditions for pregnant women with economic hardship, food shortages, poor nutrition and the harsh realities of displacement, including cooking over open fires and carrying water.

“These conditions have contributed to the rise in premature births and babies born with low birth weight who need specialised neonatal care,” al-Madhoun said.

Meanwhile, repeated displacement and overcrowding have placed further pressure on hospitals, including Nasser Medical Complex, which is already struggling with limited space and shortages of incubators and other essential neonatal equipment.

Newborn in a tent

Linda Abu Nasira’s baby girl is only three days old.

The infant initially developed a fever, which has since subsided, according to 23-year-old Linda.

As her daughter was being treated and breastfed, Linda was learning how to hold her against her chest under the guidance of the medical team.

The sessions were brief. Linda said she held her daughter against her chest for about 30 minutes at a time, repeating the process roughly every two hours, according to the instructions she had received.

“She is a little better than yesterday,” Linda said. “Little by little.”

Away from the hospital, Linda lives in a tent in al-Mawasi, in Khan Younis, where she is raising her two older children – aged three and two – while caring for her newborn.

She described the conditions as difficult, particularly when it comes to securing food and drinking water.

“We try to manage,” she said. “But it is not like before, or like the conditions you would expect when giving birth.”

She does not know how long the baby will need to remain under observation in the hospital’s external neonatal care unit.

“As a mother, it means a lot to me to feel that I am helping my daughter recover,” Linda said. “I hope she will recover and be discharged as soon as possible.”

Senior banking executives have told the BBC they expect the sector to be “on the menu” when the chancellor announces his Budget in two weeks’ time.

John Healey has described the banks as part of “the crown jewels” of the UK economy, yet has refused to rule out a raid on the sector.

The biggest four banks collectively made around £15bn profit in the first six months of this year, leading to calls from trade unions and others for additional taxes.

However, the banking sector trade body, UK Finance, warned that “further increases in bank taxes would weaken competitiveness, discourage investment and job creation, and work against the government’s ambition to deliver growth in every postcode”.

The UK’s biggest banks and building societies currently pay a surcharge of 3% on top of the baseline 25% rate of corporation tax, plus a levy on the assets held on their balance sheets.

The sector contributed nearly £40bn to the Treasury last year, if income tax on employees is factored in.

The bank levy generated £1.4bn last year and the surcharge a further £1.2bn.

There are a number of ways the chancellor could extract more money from the sector.

The 3% surcharge was reduced from 8% under Rishi Sunak when he was chancellor, at the same time as he raised corporation tax from 19% to 25%. Returning the surcharge to its previous level could raise around £2bn a year.

The bank levy currently charges 0.1% on outstanding short-term loans and 0.05% on longer-dated loans, although mortgages are excluded from the calculation.

In the past banks have successfully argued that higher taxes would risk making the UK uncompetitive with other jurisdictions and would reduce their ability to lend, and therefore be anti-growth.

In truth, banks were pleasantly surprised they were not hit at the last Budget, given the large profits they have been making in recent years. Rising interest rates have expanded the margin between the rate at which they lend to customers and the rate they pay savers.

There is another option that has been discussed with Treasury officials. Currently banks can use losses from the past to offset against profits – thereby reducing their tax bill in any given year. Lloyds in particular has been a beneficiary of this policy, as large losses from the financial crisis have been used to lower tax bills ever since.

Some analysts and bank executives have pushed the idea of a moratorium on this practice for a few years, which would yield an estimated extra £1bn per year for the Treasury. That would provide a windfall while being “a lot more bearable”, in the words of one bank executive.

It would also spare foreign banks from an additional hit, including JP Morgan, whose chief executive Jamie Dimon has warned that the UK already has one of the highest tax burdens on banks in the world. He warned that adding further sector-specific taxes could discourage investment and damage competitiveness.

However, industry leaders say any form of tax rise that hits UK banks and exempts foreign banks’ operations in the UK would be hard to square with the government’s push to back British business.

Whatever form it takes, banks believe the chancellor now has much more of an appetite to take a larger slice of their pie.

The United States has developed plans to strike Iran with the largest non-nuclear bomb in its military arsenal on Iran’s energy infrastructure and nuclear sites if President Donald Trump orders renewed combat operations, according to US officials cited by CNN.

Deploying the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), nicknamed the “mother of all bombs”, could significantly escalate the ongoing conflict at a time when fighting has lulled, experts say.

Concerns are also being raised, including within the Trump administration itself, over what such a move would even achieve. Officials familiar with military planning discussions told US news outlet CNN and Al Jazeera that deploying the MOAB would be unlikely to help the US achieve its stated strategic goals, including to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Brussels-based military expert Elijah Magnier told Al Jazeera that using the MOAB would not even guarantee the destruction of Iran’s deeply buried underground nuclear installations and that such a strike would likely amount to little more than “political theatre”.

Here’s what we know:

What is the MOAB?

The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) is a massive munition containing about 8,500kg (18,000 pounds or 8.5 tonnes) of high explosives. It weighs 9,800kg (21,605 pounds or nearly 10 tonnes) – about the same as four saloon cars – and is as long as a small yacht at just over 9 metres (about 30 feet).

The MOAB is typically deployed from the Lockheed C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft because it cannot fit in a stealth bomber.

The bomb, which was first manufactured between 2002 and 2003, has undergone 12 detonation tests.

Its name is a reference to former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s comments during the 1991 Gulf War when he invoked the “mother of all battles”.

The US has only deployed the MOAB once before – during its 2017 attacks on an Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) cave and tunnel complex in Afghanistan. Afghan authorities claimed that while 94 Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISKP) fighters were killed in the blast, no civilians were hurt. However, there were unconfirmed, local reports of civilian casualties and many homes were destroyed.

What is the ‘mother of all bombs’?

The GBU-43/B, the US’s most powerful non-nuclear bomb, was used once, against Islamic State-Khorasan…

GBU-43/B

Pallet is deployed from rear cargo door of MC-130H or C-17aircraft.

1. Released from the aircraft.

2. Cradle separates; GPS and fins guide it.

3. H6 explosives detonate.

4. A powerful shockwave spreads.

5. Hot gases, smoke and debris rise in a mushroom cloud.

1 of 4

What kind of damage can it cause?

Designed to explode a few feet above the ground, the MOAB sends out lethal waves of fire when it detonates, blasting away buildings, cave openings and other hard-surface structures.

“Its purpose is to generate an exceptionally powerful blast across a surface area,” Magnier said.

Military expert Colonel Nidal Abu Zeid told Al Jazeera the bomb does not require impact in order to detonate and that its massive blast will destroy everything above ground within a 1km (0.6-mile) radius.

It is likely that the US would aim to use the high-explosive MOAB to completely destroy Iran’s ground-force positions above ground, and to reach its underground facilities, including Pickaxe Mountain, which Trump has previously threatened to attack, Abu Zeid said.

However, Magnier said the bomb’s radius and level of destruction would depend greatly on the terrain it is used within and how populated the area is. He added that it may not be particularly effective against targets buried deep underground.

Some of Iran’s nuclear sites which the US may wish to target, such as the Fordow complex and an under-construction site at the Pickaxe Mountain, are heavily fortified and deeply buried.

“Its large explosive charge can produce devastating blast effects against exposed personnel, equipment and vulnerable structures,” Magnier said. “The Afghanistan operation demonstrates its intended application against a cave-and-tunnel position; it does not demonstrate an ability to destroy every kind of underground installation.”

While its blast can reach underground, the MOAB is not especially designed to punch through deep concrete or mountain rock in the way that a “bunker buster” bomb is. The US military’s most powerful bunker buster is the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator. Weighing about 30,000 pounds (13,600kg), including a 2,700kg (6,000 pound) warhead, this precision-guided bomb is made of high-strength steel and built to penetrate up to 200 feet (61 metres) underground before exploding.

Would the US really use an MOAB?

It already has done – in Afghanistan in 2017.

However, besides not being guaranteed to hit underground targets effectively, Magnier told Al Jazeera it could be difficult to deploy the necessary aircraft in the regions of Iran where nuclear sites are located. Stealth bombers which are better suited to this terrain are not able to carry this size of bomb.

Using the bomb could also destroy infrastructure without inducing Iran to make any concessions, he added, noting that its deployment would risk turning “a spectacular event” into one that ultimately delivers few political results for Washington.

“The question I would put to any commander advocating its use is straightforward: What will this weapon accomplish that another available weapon cannot, and how will that result advance an achievable political settlement?,” Magnier said.

“If the answer centres on the spectacle of the explosion, the proposal is stronger as political theatre than as military strategy,” he added.

CNN reported that Trump, in private discussions, has been seeking a “definitive” end to the war that will prove Washington has been undefeated.

How might Iran respond?

A MOAB strike would likely prompt a major reaction from Iran, experts say, warning that Tehran could even invade its neighbours who host US military assets in response.

Iranian security officials have for months made comments regarding a possible invasion of countries like Kuwait to capture US troops and force Washington to surrender.

In May, during a pause in hostilities, Kuwait alleged that sailors from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) infiltrated its Bubiyan Island, leading to an exchange of fire between Iranian and Kuwaiti forces. One Kuwaiti was injured and four Iranian soldiers were captured.

Iran denied that it had invaded the island and said the troops’ navigation system had malfunctioned.

On Tuesday, IRGC security adviser Mohammad Reza Naghdi warned that Iran could capture troops if Washington were to launch ground attacks, although military experts have long dismissed Trump’s earlier threats of an invasion due to Iran’s mountainous terrain.

“If the United States launches a ground attack, so many of its troops will be captured that it will be forced to raise the white flag,” he said.

Experts say Iran has been preparing for another round of war by stockpiling weapons, fortifying key nuclear and defence locations, and rallying its supporters.

In a television broadcast on Sunday, National Security Council chief Mohsen Rezaei threatened that Iran would attack regional digital infrastructure, including communication cables, data centres and artificial intelligence facilities in the United Arab Emirates and others, if American strikes resume.

The Pentagon announced last week it would execute Hasan on 3 December 2026 by firing squad.

Hegseth then said the execution would be livestreamed for the public to watch, adding that “people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things”.

Trump last Friday called Hasan “totally nuts”, adding: “I really don’t care how he goes, as long as he goes, and I think that the death penalty is a very worthy way of going for him.”

He also said he “absolutely” approved the livestream plans but said the Pentagon was still “making a determination” on it.

Hasan opened fire in a crowded medical building where deploying soldiers were awaiting check-ups and vaccines.

He later admitted in court that he was the gunman and apologised for “any mistakes”. He said during his court-martial in 2013 that he believed he was protecting Muslims and the Taliban in Afghanistan from the US military.

The killings on 5 November 2009 were the deadliest ever non-combat attack on an American military base.

US military law requires that a military execution be approved by the US president. It also requires appellate review, when a higher court inspects the decision and gives a final judgement on its legality to move forward.

While there were more than 2,700 executions across 17 countries last year, only two nations carried them out publicly. According to Amnesty International, 11 public executions were known to have been carried out in Iran in 2025 and another six in Afghanistan.

Feedback from the U.S. Army has led to an improved A1 version of the service’s still very new 6.8x51mm M250 light machine gun. Manufacturer Sig Sauer has shortened and lightened the barrel, reduced the overall weight, changed the buttstock, and made various other improvements to improve reliability and ease of use. The evolution of the M250 mirrors the transformation of Sig’s M7 rifle for the U.S. Army into the M8 carbine, where weight and bulk were major points of criticism of the original design.

Jason St. John, senior director of strategic products for the Defense Strategies Group at Sig Sauer, talked about the new M250A1 with our Howard Altman at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual convention today. The U.S. Army has already been acquiring and fielding baseline M250s as part of its Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) program. The NGSW family also includes the M7 rifle and now the M8 carbine from Sig, both also chambered to fire the 6.8x51mm round. The Army chose Sig as the winner of the NGSW competition in 2022. The service is still in the early stages of fielding the NGSW family as replacements for a substantial portion of its existing 5.56x45mm M4A1 carbines and M249 Squad Automatic Weapons (SAW).

“We continuously and constantly evaluate and evolve our designs, and we discover things,” St. John told us. “Parts that might be able to be manufactured a little bit easier with a little bit of a design change. They might be more reliable, more durable than you currently have. You might look at the system and say, hey, we have an ability to make these recommendations because we see this from other customers across the board. We hear it from our inputs of soldiers that are in our ranks, and you know maybe old relationships out in the field.”

“The [NGSW] program office represents the entire formation, so they get feedback in the totality of every single unit that has them [M250s and other guns in the NGSW family] in their hands,” he continued. If “a systemic issue or something that needs to be addressed, then they run the soldier touchpoint events, which we’re fortunate enough to be a part of. And then we get unfiltered feedback from soldiers that day in the field while they’re encountering something that they have a concern about.”

As noted at the start, the most immediate standout feature on the M250A1 being shown at AUSA this week is the new 13-inch barrel. M250s entering Army service now have roughly 16-inch-long barrels. The Army’s official fact sheet says the machine gun was originally expected to come with a 17.5-inch barrel.

“We shortened the barrel to 13 inches, but the Army’s also buying the 16-inch barrel,” St. John explained. “So in some ways, you could consider it mission-configurable, whether they want to utilize a 13-inch barrel or a 16-inch barrel, to what they’re doing.”

“You’re going to maintain the same basic ballistics that you had with the M7 [rifle’s] 13-inch barrel, and then you’re going to have more maneuverability because you’re going to have a shorter weapon system,” he added. “You add the 16-inch barrel, and you get that lethality requirement with the length of barrel that they originally required. So you have some flexibility there.”

“You shorten the barrel, you’re going to lose velocity,” St. John did acknowledge. “We did not change the ammo. The Army had determined with the barrel change that they were meeting their ballistic and lethality goals with that length of barrel.”

With the current 6.8x51mm ammunition, “we’re operating in the mid-70s [sic; 70,000 pounds per square inch] as far as pressure, and the case has 125K psi potential,” he also noted. “If you wanted to shorten the barrel and you did have some lethality concerns or wanted more performance, all you need to simply do is just increase the little bit more pressure in the cartridge case, and you overcome that shortness.”

“We didn’t do that. The Army said it wasn’t necessary, but you know, as the battlefield evolves and defensive postures change, if that becomes necessary, one of the great things about the NGSW program is the ability for the weapon systems and the ammunition to grow in their performance capacity,” he continued.

In the case of the 13-inch barrel, “we tapered the barrel down a little bit to add a little bit of weight savings,” he noted.

TWZ has reached out to Sig about getting more complete specifications for the M250A1, including overall length and total weight with different barrel options. The baseline version weighs some 13 pounds, empty, and without optics and other accessories, according to the Army’s fact sheet. As already mentioned, the M7 rifle also got progressively shorter and lighter before giving way fully to the M8 carbine, in part through reprofiling of the barrel. The empty weight of the M8 with its 10-inch barrel is close to one pound less than that of the 13-inch barreled M7.

Different barrels can be readily swapped out on the M250A1, as well as the baseline M250. However, the new variant features significant changes to the quick-change barrel arrangement on the gun and associated elements of the design.

“It was interchangeable before, but it didn’t have a quick-change barrel handle. It wasn’t meant to be changed, and therefore it didn’t need the insulation of [sic; for] a hot barrel like you get with a barrel with a quick-change barrel handle,” according to St. John. “I think initially with the [M]250 program, it wasn’t necessary, and potentially might not have been desired initially. And why put that weight burden on there if we weren’t going to utilize it, right?”

St. John did not elaborate further on why these features were initially deemed unnecessary.

“When you look at the top cover of the forearm, that used to be loose, and now it’s captured, meaning that when you change the barrel, it actually came off completely in your hand,” he also noted. “We utilized a similar design to our .338 MMG [Medium Machine Gun], and then we make it captured now, so you’re not going to lose it.”

“We added a funnel to guide your gas piston in, so that when you’re doing barrel change operations, you don’t have to be precisely lined up,” he added. Now, “you have something that’s going to guide it in a stressful environment, to get that into position to do your barrel change.”

The M250A1 features a host of other changes that are unrelated to the barrel.

Sig also “improved our gas system a little bit, just to make it more reliable and durable,” to include modifications to keep it better “insulated from carbon and things like that.”

“We opened up the trigger guard to incorporate the Arctic fight, the Arctic glove, more so than just the operational normal tactical gloves,” according to St. John. “We opened it up a little bit more to accomplish that.”

The Arctic is an ever-more strategic region where the U.S. faces growing geopolitical competition, especially from Russia and now China. Army officials also regularly point out that the harsh environment presents challenges when using standard equipment designed around use in more temperate locales.

“We improved the buttstock, and we improved the interface … to the receiver,” St. John explained. “We’ve made the interface between that more robust because through IMTing, and over time, and the buttstock getting slammed on the ground, and just normal military training and operations, we noticed that we had a tendency for some of them to loosen up and have some play in them.”

“The entire buttstock is a different buttstock than they had,” he added. “They [Army soldiers] preferred that buttstock over the buttstock that we had on it. So we just put soldiers’ preference on there. … It’s just a commercially available [design from] Magpul that they thought was better than the other Magpul that day one we were using.”

Changes were made to points where the M250 is designed to be attached to tripods on the ground or pintle mounts on vehicles.

“We put cross-bolts through the receiver to provide more durability,” he explained. “Initially, it was like an M-LOK type of lockup, and you can just think of a steel nut on an aluminum receiver being vibrated over a life cycle of the weapon system, it has some unfortunate wear characteristics. So, putting these cross pins redirects that force, and the way we lock it down with a saddle screw prevents that from happening and provides long-term durability to the receiver in the pintle and T&E [traverse and elevation] tripod-mounted configuration.”

M-Lok

The continued evolution of the M250 is not new. Sig talked to TWZ at AUSA last year about changes, including to the bipod and top cover, that were already making their way into the design.

The Army has yet to formally adopt the M250A1 configuration, and further changes could be made before service moves to officially acquire an improved version of the gun.

“This is likely to be the accepted configuration. We anticipate that acceptance,” Sig’s St. John told us. “We just finalized the acceptance on the M8, and they’re moving into the acceptance of the [M]250s. We anticipate right now, with the feedback that we’re getting from the program office, that the majority, if not all, of these changes are likely to be accepted.”

It’s important to reiterate that changes to the M7 rifle, and then the Army’s decision to transition fully to the further evolved M8 carbine, followed significant criticism of the core design of those guns and their ammunition, as well as the underlying doctrine. Sig has repeatedly pushed back on those critiques, and the Army continues to push ahead with the entire NGSW program.

Despite the steadily shortening barrels on guns in the NGSW family, the Army’s position remains that the weapons chambered for the new 6.8x51mm round offer essential additional accuracy, range, and terminal effectiveness over existing 5.56x45mm types. The genesis of the NGSW program had been heavily informed by the war in Afghanistan, where there were regular reports of U.S. ground units being outranged by their opponents. Adversary body developments were also a factor.

What Is the New Army XM-7 Rifle Like? | GOARMY

It is also important to point out that teething troubles are not at all uncommon in major weapon system programs, including when it comes to small arms. Sig has drawn attention to the less than positive reception that the AR-15/M16 family initially received in the mid-1960s, which led to a host of changes to that design. Rifles and carbines in that pattern are now in widespread service across the U.S. military and with dozens of armed forces and security services globally.

Regardless, even with the Army still very early on in the process of fielding the entire NGSW family of guns, the M250 light machine gun’s design is now evolving significantly.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The government said customer water supplies would be uninterrupted.

Declaring a severe drought “ensures proactive steps are taken to safeguard water before any disruption occurs”.

The government’s plans include:

The government said the change to severe drought status had been prompted by specific concerns for two major reservoirs, Ardingly in West Sussex and Wimbleball in Somerset.

The latest figures, external for Wimbleball Reservoir on Exmoor show it is at 14.9% capacity, while Ardingly is 19.4% full, external. Other major reservoirs are also low, including Roadford in Devon at 36.8%, Burrator at 33.6%, Colliford in Cornwall at 35% and Stithians at 21.9%.

The Environment Agency has classed Colliford and Wimbleball as having exceptionally low levels, external

Wimbleball serves about 300,000 properties across east Devon, north Devon, Somerset, west Dorset and West Somerset. Ardingly Reservoir serves 280,000 customers across East and West Sussex.

Forces aligned with Yemen’s government on Thursday said that they had intercepted a drone headed towards Medina in Saudi Arabia, and a missile fired towards Riyadh, amid escalating fighting between them and Yemen’s Houthi group.

Fighting between the Saudi-backed Yemeni government forces and Iran-aligned Houthi rebels has intensified along the country’s western Red Sea coast, along with expanding Houthi attacks on oil facilities and airports in neighbouring Saudi Arabia.

On Wednesday, Yahya Saree, the military spokesman for the Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah or Supporters of God, said the group’s forces had conducted “a high-quality military operation targeting Aramco in Dhahran”, as well as strikes on Riyadh airport and a refinery in the capital.

He added that operations “will continue in the coming days, targeting Saudi enemy airports and oil facilities”.

A Saudi Ministry of Energy official confirmed that a building belonging to Aramco in Dhahran was hit, resulting in a “limited fire” but “no casualties or fatalities”. Dhahran is home to Aramco’s headquarters, a vast complex comprising numerous buildings and residential compounds.

Meanwhile, the Saudi-led coalition launched strikes against the Houthi stronghold in the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, which the armed group seized in 2014 and has held ever since. The coalition fought the Houthis, who also seized large quantities of Yemen’s military assets, until a ceasefire was agreed in 2022. That ceasefire has broken down in recent months.

Reporting from Sanaa, Al Jazeera’s Yousef Mawry said the war has become a tit-for-tat exchange of blows. The Iran-backed group “will continue to launch these air strikes and … its goal is to meet fire with fire – air strike for air strike, capital for capital, airport for airport, and energy facility for energy facility”.

Which sites have the Houthis targeted in Saudi Arabia?

Recent Houthi strikes on Saudi Arabia have mainly targeted key infrastructure on the outskirts of Riyadh, but they appear to be edging closer to the city centre.

Houthi attacks on Riyadh’s King Khalid international airport over the weekend killed 14 people and wounded more than 300 others. Houthi attacks have also been reported on other airports, including Abha international airport in southern Saudi Arabia, where two people were killed, and on Saudi Aramco energy facilities.

Authorities say Riyadh airport will remain shut at least until Saturday as several airlines cancelled flights, emptying the skies over the kingdom’s capital.

Al Jazeera’s Mawry said Saudi Arabia “has much more to lose” from tit-for-tat attacks disrupting air traffic, as Sanaa international airport has been closed for many years due to the damage it has sustained over the years of civil war. There are currently no Yemeni airliners at the airport.

Additionally, by disrupting security, the Houthis are signalling that Saudi Arabia will suffer mounting economic costs for its involvement in Yemen. Earlier this year, the Houthis similarly began launching strikes on Saudi-linked shipping in and around the Bab al-Mandeb strait at the entrance to the Red Sea. Saudi Arabia has increasingly relied on this shipping route for oil exports since Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in March, under fire from the United States and Israel.

The kingdom is set to host a major investment conference in Riyadh later this month, dubbed “Davos in the desert”, but it is now unclear whether the event will go ahead amid the attacks.

Organisers of the Six Kings Slam tennis tournament, originally slated to begin next week in Riyadh, have announced the event will be pushed to December.

Saudi Arabia is also preparing to host the FIFA World Cup in 2034.

Al Jazeera’s Zein Basravi, reporting from the Qatari capital, Doha, said, “These military hits by the Houthi forces are meant to create a pressure campaign that is also having knock-on economic effects.”

“The Gulf Cooperation Council has become a place where these enormous events have been playing out over the past year, and if they carry on, the international implications for the global economy will continue to be negative,” he added.

What’s the situation on the ground in Yemen?

Yemeni government forces are currently engaged in a major counteroffensive operation, called “Dawn of Yemen“, to retake coastal territory seized in recent weeks by the Houthis near the Bab al-Mandeb strait, a vital maritime trade chokepoint.

The Saudi cabinet pledged in a meeting led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman this week that it “will not allow its security or freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb strait to be threatened”.

On Wednesday, Yemeni government forces said they had carried out 2,309 “targeting operations” against the Houthis as part of their “Dawn of Yemen” military campaign.

The forces’ spokesperson, Majeed al-Nuzaili, said the operations were conducted using combat aircraft, drones, artillery and rocket launchers, and destroyed 460 Houthi military vehicles.

Government forces say they have retaken areas in Sabr al-Mawadim and al-Sarari in Taiz governorate and have repelled a large Houthi attack west of Taiz city in southwest Yemen, a government-held city that was besieged by Houthi fighters earlier this month. Taiz governorate includes the flat, western coastal region on the Red Sea, which contains the port city of Mocha and the Bab al-Mandeb. Much of the governorate also lies within Yemen’s highlands while its capital, Taiz, is nestled between mountains.

Al Jazeera’s Mawry said fighting has been so intense in the area because of its strategic value. “Whoever controls the altitude and gains control of the mountains controls the landscape. They control the Red Sea coastlines and even the city of Taiz,” he said.

The internationally recognised Yemeni government has been calling for more reinforcements as well as Saudi air attacks on the positions recently taken over by the Houthis, mainly in the district of al-Misrakh, south of Taiz, and the district of at-Turbah, which are the gateways to the city of Taiz.

Mawry reported that while the Saudi-led coalition’s aerial strikes are forcing the Houthis to withdraw and retreat, allowing government forces to advance, they have not been able to gain a full hold over some of those positions.

“It is then followed by another counter-military offensive by the Ansar Allah group to retake the area. And this is sort of the routine that we have been seeing since early September,” he said.

The Houthi siege of Taiz has resulted in civilian casualties and severe shortages of fuel, gas and other supplies. On Wednesday, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) reported that wheat flour stocks have been nearly exhausted.

The Red Cross said front-line hospitals in areas including Marib, Taiz and Yemen’s Red Sea coast ⁠are registering unprecedented numbers of weapon-wounded patients, with some facilities admitting more than ⁠700 casualties in a single week.

Ukraine president earlier said Kyiv was ‘done’ with energy ceasefire and strikes on Russian oil refineries would resume.

Russia says Ukraine has targeted an oil refinery in Ryazan, about 180 kilometres (110 miles) south of Moscow, as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Kyiv was “done” with an energy ceasefire unilaterally announced by United States President Donald Trump over the weekend.

“The Kyiv regime attempted a large-scale attack on an oil refinery in Ryazan,” Moscow’s defence ministry said in a statement on Thursday, adding that a “fire broke out after drone debris fell onto the refinery site.”

Ukraine’s president earlier told the British newspaper the Financial Times that strikes on Russian oil refineries would resume, and accused the US of weakening Ukraine’s position on the battlefield by allegedly withdrawing crucial intelligence sharing.

Trump on Sunday unilaterally announced an “energy ceasefire” that was not publicly confirmed, and Moscow continued striking Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Ukraine said it suspended attacks on Russian energy sites for several days after Trump’s announcement.

The US has pressured Ukraine to halt strikes on Russian refineries, claiming that a suspension of attacks and a deal to purchase 1.8 million tonnes of diesel from Russia would help reduce soaring fuel prices.

“This politically is not simple [in America], because everybody will want to ask how it can be when some people are surviving, fighting, dying – and you make . . . business with the guys with such aggression,” Zelenskyy told the FT.

Zelenskyy also alleged that Ukraine’s access to SpaceX’s satellite internet service was restricted, potentially leaving it more vulnerable to Russian attacks. The Ukrainian armed forces use SpaceX’s military-grade Starshield system for offensive and defensive operations.

In a post on X on Wednesday evening, SpaceX owner Elon Musk said that only the US military and Trump had the authority to limit Starshield’s usage and speed for clients.

In a separate post, he called for Zelenskyy to “go” as Ukraine’s leader.

“And so the slaughter continues,” Musk wrote in a separate post on X. “Time for Zelensky to go.”

Ukraine is heavily dependent on Western military aid in its fight against Russia, particularly from the US and Germany. However, Kyiv’s relations with Washington have been strained in recent weeks, with Trump calling on Saturday for Zelenskyy to be replaced.

Against this backdrop of tensions, Zelenskyy said he would be willing to pause strikes on Russian energy sites again, but only if the US supplied Ukraine with crucial Patriot interceptors.

Zelenskyy is due to meet European leaders in Brussels on Thursday as he pushes for tougher sanctions on Moscow and faster delivery of support from the European Union.

Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten has called on EU leaders to “step up” their game to ensure Ukraine wins the war against Russia.

The EU has already pledged $50 billion in support for Ukraine next year. However, the sum falls far short of the $175 billion Kyiv plans to spend on its defences next year.

Trump has denied that the US has stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine.

Americans can rest easy – for the moment, at least. The fine folks at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have thwarted a major national security threat.

On October 9, the FBI arrested 35-year-old engineer Abdulrahman Alfozan, a Saudi citizen employed at the California-based artificial intelligence company OpenAI, the maker of the chatbot ChatGPT, and a firm that describes its mission as ensuring that “artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity”.

A press release from the United States Department of Justice said that Alfozan was accused of installing a “surreptitious audio recording device” in an executive conference room at the OpenAI offices in San Francisco.

The statement quoted Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton’s assessment that “this serious situation underscores why winning the global super intelligence race is a national security prerogative”. (For those who have not yet got the memo, US President Donald Trump recently decreed that the term “artificial intelligence” be changed to “super intelligence” or “SI.”)

FBI director Kash Patel concurred that “protecting American SI innovation is essential to safeguarding our nation’s economic strength and national security”, and assured everyone that the FBI would continue doing its part “to ensure our country maintains its competitive edge”.

So much for the separation of corporation and state in the world’s self-appointed greatest democracy.

The covert device was reported to have been concealed in toilet paper and attached to the back of a television monitor. The Gizmodo website has noted with amusement that, despite being cast as a “sophisticated” spying apparatus, the device in question can in fact be easily ordered online “for the low low price of $13.99”.

If convicted, Alfozan faces up to five years in jail and a fine of $250,000.

Now, some of you may still be asking what the big deal is – and why the US government is acting like it’s 1950 and the Soviets are stealing our nuclear secrets.

The spectacle becomes all the more curious when we consider that the company up in arms over the alleged attempted theft of its technology owes much of its existence – and massive valuation – to stealing stuff from people.

The day before Alfozan’s arrest, USA Today and several other newspapers sued OpenAI in a Manhattan federal court for copyright infringement and the unauthorised use of hundreds of thousands of news articles and other materials to develop ChatGPT.

And back in July, various US media outlets including the New York Times and the New York Daily News requested that a federal judge impose sanctions on OpenAI for “hiding and destroying evidence showing how ChatGPT was trained on stolen journalism”, as attorney Steven Lieberman put it.

The moral of the story, perhaps, is that when OpenAI steals things it’s to “benefit all of humanity” – but when a 35-year-old Saudi engineer does it, it’s a national security crisis.

In case we were not already bored to tears hearing about national security, US Attorney General Todd Blanche took to X on Tuesday to preach that the “theft of intellectual property involving cutting-edge super intelligence technology poses a serious threat to our national security”, necessitating continued “swift action … to protect American innovation and safeguard our nation”.

Of course, many Americans might wonder why “innovation” gets such special treatment when they themselves are so often on the receiving end of government abuse. The frequency with which US police officers murder unarmed Black people, for instance, would seem to indicate that there are far more literal threats to the nation’s security than a $14 device hidden in toilet paper.

But human security is of no interest to a corporatocracy increasingly dominated by AI, an industry that thrives on putting people out of jobs and that is deeply entwined in a number of sordid developments at home and abroad. Among them is mass surveillance, which combines AI-assisted violations of civil liberties and constitutional protections with good old police state “innovation”.

To that end, a bunch of US cops have taken advantage of new AI-powered technology, such as automated licence plate readers, to stalk their exes. Then there is the matter of the FBI and other government agencies buying up data en masse from tech companies in a bid to keep tabs, Big Brother-style, on everyone’s personal information at all times.

It makes you think twice about the sudden concern for “spying” in the Alfozan case.

As for threats to other people’s national security, OpenAI and like-minded tech companies that do business with the Pentagon have been complicit in recent US aggression – from Venezuela to Iran – as the US pursues its strategy for “Accelerating America’s Military AI Dominance” (concocted before Trump mandated the renaming of AI as SI).

Israel, too, has exploited OpenAI technology, among other US-made goodies, to conduct its contemporary apocalyptic exercises in the Middle East. Last year, the Associated Press news agency (AP) revealed that US tech giants had “quietly empowered Israel to track and kill many more alleged militants more quickly in Gaza and Lebanon through a sharp spike in artificial intelligence and computing services”.

The AP report went on to note that “the number of civilians killed has also soared, fueling fears that these tools are contributing to the deaths of innocent people”.

But while it might be news to the AP, that is unfortunately how a genocide works.

And as the US goes to war for AI dominance while the tech giants bank on a post-human world, one can’t help but feel that the toilet paper was a nice touch, indeed.

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

The U.S. Army turned the Merops interceptor drone into a formal program in just 142 days, an acquisition milestone that highlights efforts to speed the service’s response to emerging threats and get combat-proven capabilities into the hands of troops and allies. The Merops won accolades for its role in defending against Iranian barrages of Shahed-136 one-way attack munitions in the Middle East.

Speaking at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual convention in Washington, D.C., where TWZ is in attendance, Col. Christopher Hill, director of the Army’s Global Tactical Edge Acquisition Directorate (G-TEAD), described the Merops effort as “an example of how we can move fast when we need to.”

The Merops is a small, relatively low-cost counter-UAS system designed to rapidly intercept long-range, one-way attack drones in flight. It was originally developed under the U.S.-backed Project Eagle initiative, with contributions from Swift Beat, a company associated with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. The system uses Surveyor drones as airborne interceptors, with onboard sensors to track targets and the ability to operate autonomously or under remote control. The interceptors can destroy enemy unmanned aircraft through direct impact or a proximity-detonated explosive warhead.

The interceptor was initially brought to the Army’s attention after drone incursions involving two NATO partners prompted a senior commander to demand an urgent response. The system was not part of the commander’s original acquisition plan, Hill explained, but its demonstrated performance in Ukraine made it a compelling candidate.

“He said, ‘I want this capability in the hands of our partners within 14 days,’” Hill recalled. “Everyone looked around the room, and he looked over at me, and I nodded my head like, ‘We’ll figure it out.’”

The Army did not quite meet that deadline. Hill said acquisition personnel and soldiers went into the theater to evaluate the capability, ultimately getting it into the hands of NATO partners within approximately 21 or 22 days.

A new system to identify and take down Russian drones is deployed to NATO’s eastern flank

That initial effort has since expanded. Hill said the Army procured additional Merops systems in partnership with the Joint Interagency Task Force, which procured 13,000 of the interceptors. The effort also progressed from providing the capability to NATO partners to supplying mobile Merops firing teams to a second theater — presumably U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).

In CENTCOM, the U.S. military has been confronting the threat posed by Iran’s Shahed-136 and other one-way attack drones, which have been used in barrages against American and allied forces and installations in the Middle East. Former Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll had previously highlighted Merops as a particularly attractive option for countering such threats because of its relatively low cost and the speed with which it can be acquired.

You can watch Driscoll’s testimony on Merops at the 36-minute mark of the video below:

Budget Hearing – The United States Army

During congressional testimony, Driscoll said the Army was able to purchase 13,000 Merops interceptors within approximately eight days after the conflict with Iran began. He put the cost at about $15,000 per interceptor, with the potential for that figure to fall below $10,000 as production scales. In a separate interview with Bloomberg, he suggested larger orders could eventually push the price down to between $3,000 and $5,000.

Shahed drones have been estimated to cost tens of thousands of dollars apiece, while traditional air defense interceptors are far more expensive. Using comparatively inexpensive drones to defeat them can improve the economics of air defense while preserving more sophisticated interceptors for threats that require them.

Ukraine has employed Merops alongside domestically produced interceptor drones to counter Russian Shahed/Geran one-way attack drones. The system’s battlefield use has helped demonstrate the potential of a new class of air defense weapons designed to defeat these kinds of drones without relying exclusively on costly surface-to-air missiles.

However, Hill cautioned that success in Ukraine does not automatically mean a system will perform equally well in every operational environment.

“On the Merops, it absolutely was influenced by [Ukraine]. I mean, that’s where it came from. That’s where we saw the capability,” he said. “But that’s one of the things where the employment of the system really matters.”

Hill noted that the system’s effectiveness will vary depending on where it is used, including differences between desert environments and the urban areas where it has operated in Ukraine. The objective, he said, is to get the capability into the Army’s inventory so commanders can make informed decisions about how and where to use it.

“Once we get it into our hands, now we can make a decision in Europe. Where does it go? Do I even need it?” Hill said. “It’s getting it in our hands. So that was the key for the Merops. The speed of getting it, then we can make the decision of how we employ it.”

That approach reflects a broader change in how the Army wants to manage emerging technology. Rapid fielding is important, but the service also wants to avoid acquiring a capability for an urgent operational need only to leave it without a clear path toward long-term funding, production, and support.

Hill said G-TEAD’s process is designed to involve the organizations that will eventually take responsibility for a capability from the outset. Program acquisition executives, or PAEs, are involved early, while the Army’s test and evaluation community and soldiers provide feedback as the system is assessed. The goal is to identify a transition partner upfront rather than wait until after an initial fielding effort to determine who will take ownership.

“We want to make sure that we’re giving commanders capability that we know works,” Hill said.

He described the directorate’s standard process as a 180-day effort, with the objective of reaching a decision on whether a capability should become an Army program within that period. The Merops effort, at 142 days, moved faster than that target.

The process is also intended to address what acquisition officials often call the ‘valley of death’: the gap between getting an emerging capability into the hands of operational units and the point at which a program office takes over and provides the funding and contracting structure needed to scale it.

“We will work to fill that valley of death gap between the time that we put capability into the hands of units and the time that the PM picks it up and actually [provides funding],” Hill said. “There’s a gap there. So we can do that intermediate scaling portion before it fully transitions.”

The effort builds on the Army’s wider push to streamline acquisition, an issue Driscoll has also emphasized. The Army secretary previously described an old process involving 16 decision-making steps, each with the ability to veto a proposal and send it back through the system. That structure could leave the service waiting two to seven years to purchase a capability.

The Merops experience suggests that some of those delays can be reduced when acquisition professionals work directly with operational units and the organizations responsible for evaluating and sustaining new equipment.

But rapidly acquiring an interceptor is only part of the challenge. The Army must still determine where it offers the greatest value, how it fits into existing air defense architectures, and how to produce and sustain enough systems to meet operational demand.

Low-cost interceptors are also not a replacement for every layer of air defense. They are, however, an increasingly important option against large numbers of relatively inexpensive attack drones, particularly when the alternative is expending missiles worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to defeat each target.

For the Army, Merops is therefore serving two purposes: providing an additional tool against the growing one-way attack drone threat and demonstrating a faster route from an emerging battlefield capability to a formally supported military program.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Lagos, Nigeria – As Israelis prepare to vote on October 27, African governments from Pretoria to Rabat are weighing what the result could mean for their own foreign and domestic policies.

The war on Gaza has exposed sharp differences across the continent, with some governments pursuing diplomatic measures against Israel while others maintain commercial and security ties.

Recent polling has shown a closely contested race between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party and the far-right coalition it leads and a bloc of Jewish-led opposition parties.

Neither is projected to win the 61 seats needed for a majority in the 120-seat Knesset, with a protracted period of coalition talks expected to follow the vote.

The next government’s approach to Gaza and the Palestinian question could influence Israel’s efforts to preserve and expand its partnerships across the continent.

Israel’s relationships across Africa are shaped by competing priorities. While the Gaza war has intensified diplomatic pressure and public opposition in many countries, security needs, commercial interests and longstanding bilateral partnerships continue to influence government decisions.

Diplomatic strain vs closer ties

Since the war began in October 2023, South Africa has emerged as one of Israel’s most vocal critics in Africa. Its government brought a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Israel rejects the allegations. The court’s so-called provisional measures in 2024, including an order for Israel to take action to prevent acts of genocide, are not a final ruling on whether genocide has occurred.

In November 2023, South Africa’s National Assembly adopted a motion calling on the government to close the Israeli embassy and suspend diplomatic relations. The motion did not itself implement those measures, but it underscored the strength of political opposition to Israel’s military campaign.

Other African governments have taken different approaches that reflect national political priorities and foreign policy calculations rather than a single continental position.

Chad recalled its ambassador to Israel in November 2023, while some countries have maintained relations despite criticism of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

Morocco offers a contrasting example. It restored relations with Israel in 2020 under a US-backed arrangement linked to Washington’s recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. Despite public demonstrations opposing normalisation, Rabat has continued to pursue closer ties.

On September 16, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita met in New York at a trilateral summit hosted by US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz. The three countries reaffirmed plans to upgrade diplomatic relations, elevate their respective missions to embassies and appoint ambassadors.

They also agreed to conclude investment protection and double taxation agreements by the end of this year, expand flights to include Moroccan airlines and arrange reciprocal high-level visits in the coming months. These were announced commitments, rather than confirmation that the changes had already been implemented.

For Idowu Johnson, associate professor of international relations at the University of Ibadan, the diversity of African states makes it difficult to predict a uniform response to Israel’s election.

“Africa’s heterogeneity means individual states have handled relations with Israel separately. Since the October 7, 2023 attacks, African criticism has focused on Israel’s denial of Palestinian statehood.

“The October 27 election will therefore be pivotal, as a new government’s stance on the Palestinian cause will shape how far Africa cooperates on agriculture, trade, security and technology, guided by self-determination and international law as well as bilateral interests,” Johnson said.

Israel’s relationship with the African Union (AU) also reflects these divisions. In 2021, the AU Commission chairperson accredited Israel’s representative to the organisation, prompting objections from member states.

In February 2022, the AU Assembly established a committee of heads of state and government to consult on Israel’s observer status. The dispute continued into 2023, when the AU moved to suspend Israel’s accreditation pending further consideration.

The disagreement has reflected wider divisions over Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and the organisation’s approach to the conflict.

A new Israeli government could seek to ease those tensions, but any change would depend on its policies as well as the positions of AU member states.

Security ties may outlast diplomatic tensions

Security cooperation has been a significant part of Israel’s relationships with some African governments. Israeli companies have pursued defence and security contracts involving equipment, surveillance technology and training.

But the nature and scale of those relationships vary by country and claims about particular agreements or technologies should be tied to documented cases rather than treated as evidence of a uniform Israeli security presence across the continent.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo offers a recent example of efforts to deepen cooperation. Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi visited Israel on August 31 and September 1, meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog. Discussions covered security, defence, agriculture, infrastructure, energy and high technology. Both sides expressed a desire to strengthen their strategic partnership and expand cooperation across several sectors.

The visit followed memorandums of understanding signed on July 27. Congolese officials said the visit would review those agreements and explore further Israeli investment, including opportunities linked to the Lobito Corridor. The meetings demonstrate the potential scope of bilateral cooperation, but do not establish that a specific new security contract has been concluded.

For governments confronting armed groups, insecurity can create incentives to seek equipment, intelligence and training from foreign partners. Yet the importance of Israeli cooperation differs between countries and diplomatic tensions will not necessarily have the same effect on every security relationship.

The limits of Israel’s diplomatic outreach were also evident after it recognised Somaliland as an independent state on December 26, last year, the first country to do so. Somalia and other critics rejected the move, arguing that it undermined Somalia’s territorial integrity. The decision triggered demonstrations in Somalia and Somaliland.

Speaking to Al Jazeera this month, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud said Somalia will not accept Israeli presence in the country “under any circumstances”. He added that Israel was planning to establish a naval base in Berbera and use the city’s airport, adding that its real aim was to get closer to the Gulf states and Iran.

According to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data project (ACLED), 110 demonstrations directly linked to Israel’s Somaliland recognition had been recorded by the time of its February 2026 Africa overview. Only seven supported the move, all in Somaliland; the others opposed it. The figures cover demonstrations linked to that particular decision, not all African views of Israel, and should not be treated as a continent-wide measure of public opinion.

Hossamaldeen Ibrahim, an Africa analyst at the Bloomsbury Intelligence and Security Institute, argues that public opposition can constrain governments even when they see strategic value in maintaining ties.

“The strongest constraint, however, may come from African publics rather than governments: the Somaliland recognition drew widespread opposition, the African Union and many governments reaffirmed Somalia’s territorial integrity, and ACLED logged 110 related demonstrations, only seven in support.

“Depending on its approach, the next Israeli government could therefore either deepen strategic cooperation in Morocco, Sudan and the Red Sea, or face a legitimacy problem if it continues policies seen as tied to the Gaza war, widening the gap between state-level cooperation and public sentiment,” Ibrahim told Al Jazeera.

The Somaliland episode shows how a diplomatic move can provoke opposition when it is perceived to challenge a core principle of sovereignty.

It does not, by itself, establish that African governments will abandon security agreements with Israel. The consequences will depend on the countries involved, the terms of their cooperation and the domestic political costs of maintaining them.

Trade, agritech and the contest for influence

Trade and development cooperation offer Israel another route to maintaining relationships in Africa. Israeli firms and officials have pursued partnerships in areas including agriculture, irrigation, water management, health and technology.

Such cooperation can offer practical benefits to governments seeking investment and technical expertise, but commercial ties do not necessarily translate into public support for Israel’s policies.

Zambia illustrates Israel’s efforts to deepen bilateral engagement. Israel opened a resident embassy in Lusaka in August last year, after a 52-year absence. Agriculture, water management, health, education and technology have been identified as potential areas for closer cooperation. The move formed part of Israel’s broader effort to strengthen its engagement with African countries.

Some analysts have interpreted Israel’s renewed engagement with Zambia as an attempt to cultivate partners who could counterbalance South Africa’s influence in the region. That remains an interpretation, not an established explanation for the relationship.

Zambia has its own reasons for seeking investment and cooperation, particularly in agriculture, water management and technology; closer bilateral ties alone do not prove that countering South Africa is Israel’s objective.

Professor Iwebunor Okwechime, of Obafemi Awolowo University, points to the historical roots of South Africa’s position towards Israel.

“If we trace the stance South Africa took, it goes back to the apartheid era, when Israel backed the apartheid regime and refused to support the struggle against the minority government. This historical context is important for understanding South Africa-Israel relations today,” Okwechime told Al Jazeera.

For African governments, the challenge will be to balance security and commercial interests against public opposition, commitments to Palestinian rights and positions on international law. For Israel, the upcoming election will test whether a new government can ease diplomatic tensions across Africa without fundamentally changing the policies that have fuelled them.

As Okwechime told Al Jazeera, “There won’t be a radical change in sentiments regardless of the government in power”.

The U.S. Army now has at least five named programs seeking new anti-air interceptors of various tiers to collectively address everything from advanced hypersonic missiles to small weaponized drones. In the process, an important central theme is emerging: the service’s days of fielding air defense systems that can only use one type of interceptor look to be increasingly over. For the U.S. military, the impacts from the war with Iran have made clear that diversifying munitions stockpiles and supplier bases is no longer just valuable, it is critical.

Army Lt. Gen. Frank Lozano, the service’s Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Fires, highlighted this growing trend yesterday during a panel discussion at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual convention, at which TWZ has been in attendance.

To provide some immediate context, with the exception of Patriot, the main ground-based air defense systems in Army inventory today are fielded with just one type of interceptor. In the case of Patriot, the service’s procurement of new interceptors had also been increasingly limited to just one type, the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE). Production of the preceding PAC-3 Cost Reduction Initiative (CRI) missile ended in 2023. Just earlier this year, the Army placed its first order in decades for new PAC-2 Guidance Enhanced Missile-Tactical (GEM-T) missiles, an older interceptor design for Patriot that has remained in production primarily for U.S. allies and partners.

Separately, the Army is in the process of fielding Enduring Shield, a new middle-tier air defense system designed to handle multiple interceptor types. However, the service is currently only acquiring AIM-9X Sidewinders to load into them. We will come back to this later on.

“We have the capabilities we need to have to fight and win, but it’s our job to ensure that victory is achievable in the future inside of any dynamic environment scenario fight we might find ourselves in,” Lt. Gen. Lozano said yesterday. “So, it’s incumbent upon Mr. Ingraham [Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Brent Ingraham] and I to continue to be creative and looking at, well, should we buy GEM-Ts because they’re being produced?”

“GEM-Ts are a really good missile in the battlespace within they operate. I mean, they’re being employed today by air defense brigades around the world,” he continued. “So if we have the opportunity, it’s probably something we should take advantage of, and we’re looking at doing that.

“We’ve had a lot of discussions about even more interceptors. From a PAC-3 MSE perspective, our goal has always been to get to 2,000 [per year],” he added. “Why we’re running programs like LCI [Low Cost Interceptor], and NGSRI [Next-Generation Short-Range Interceptor], and NGCM [Next-Generation C-UAS Missile], and Second Interceptor, is because I think the easy button answer is just buy more of a great missile. We’re going to buy more [PAC-3 MSEs], but when we start talking about overall missile output, we start looking at numbers like is it 4,000, is it 6,000, is it 8,000, we’re looking at a diverse set of capabilities.”

The LCI program is seeking a lower-cost and lower-tier interceptor for Patriot with a unit price of no more than $1 million. PAC-3 MSE’s average unit cost has been around $4 million in recent years.

NGSRI is the Army’s program to find a replacement for the venerable Stinger. The new missiles have to be compatible with existing vehicle-based and man-portable launchers.

The Army is working to field a new counter-drone interceptor through NGCM. Those missiles will be integrated into launchers the service has now for the Coyote interceptor.

Raytheon Missiles & Defense proves counter-UAS effectiveness against enemy drones

The Second Interceptor effort is for Enduring Shield, which is also known as the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 (IFPC Inc 2). The main goal there is to provide increased capability against incoming cruise missiles compared to the AIM-9X.

There is also the Army’s Future Interceptor effort, which also came up separately at the panel yesterday, and is also for Patriot. Unlike LCI, the aim here is to acquire a new interceptor with improved capabilities against hypersonic missiles and other upper-tier threats.

Historically, Army programs like these would eventually result in the selection of a single winning missile design. Lozano’s remarks yesterday point to the service increasingly taking a very different approach.

On “second interceptor, obviously, we just moved into phase two of that program. We’ve got Lockheed Martin competing with Boeing, who was teamed with Anduril,” Lozano said. “But we wanted to turn up the heat on that program. I constantly get frustrated when a funding profile emerges over the FYDP [the Future Years Defense Program], and then magically we lay in a five-year program.”

“I’m like, no, I actually need that capability now,” he continued. “So, have we thought maybe what if we ran a 24-month program or a 36-month program, right? And so, in that vein, what we have decided to do is, while those two companies continue to compete, we’re going to create a shoot-off opportunity in [the] fourth quarter [of Fiscal Year 20]27, and I want to run an in-parallel, what I call an in-stride competition.”

“We just held an industry day, and we basically just said, hey, if there’s any other company who didn’t make the first cut in the phase one, but, oh, by the way, who continued to invest in the IFPC Second Interceptor capability, we’d love for you to come out to the range,” he added. “We’ll give you range time, we’ll present targets, and we’ll allow you to recompete with an opportunity to get back into the program folder.”

The Army is doing the exact same thing with NGSRI, where Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have been competing face-to-face. That program is also now planning to hold a new shoot-off that will be open to other vendors in the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2027.

There are signs the Army is moving in a similar direction with NGCM, where it previously selected AeroVironment to supply its Freedom Eagle-1 (FE-1) interceptor. The service put out a request for information seeking new NGCM options in August, with a goal of holding an initial evaluation again in the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2027. A deeper operational assessment could then follow in Fiscal Year 2028.

Freedom Eagle-1, the Next-Gen CUAS Missile

To reiterate, on top of all this, the Army is also now pursuing at least two new interceptor options for Patriot.

“We have to address the threat, and we need to address the threat in a complementary way, meaning we need to fight on a cost curve that’s affordable for the U.S. Army to maintain and sustain that warfighting capability abroad,” Lozano stressed yesterday.

This gets to the crux of the matter. It is not at all a new observation that just having a stockpile of any particular munition on day one of a conflict is not enough, especially if the fight becomes drawn out. There needs to be sufficient depth to those stocks at the start and the ability to readily replenish them in line with expenditures. The war with Iran, compounded by other crises in the Middle East and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, has made clear that these core truths apply to all armed forces, even the U.S. military.

Lower-cost munitions are part of the solution, but they also need to be producible at scale on reasonable timelines. The lead time for higher-end munitions today is often measured in months, if not years. Furthermore, being locked into a single vendor has been shown to not just be undesirable, but a potential national security risk in an actual conflict. Lozano’s remarks yesterday, and how the Army is now pursuing new anti-air interceptors, reflect larger trends, not just in the acquisition of larger volumes of munitions overall, but also from a broader array of total suppliers.

There has also been a push across the U.S. military to bring in new and non-traditional firms, including in partnership with established prime contractors. An example of this is the Boeing/Anduril team-up for Second Interceptor. This was also underscored by new framework agreements the Pentagon announced back in May regarding the planned purchase of thousands of lower-cost cruise missiles.

With regard to the LCI program, specifically, Lozano highlighted an additional aspect of all of this yesterday.

LCI has “a unique twist to it because we’re looking for companies who have all-up rounds, but I’m also asking for companies to come in at the component level,” he explained. “We typically don’t do that, right? There’s a lot of risk in managing components and generating all-up round systems. But we’re also looking for weapon system integrators, because I want to be able to create two or three teams who can compete with the all-up round guys to see if we can generate some momentum behind the fact that we need to thicken our inventory with low-cost, affordable munitions.”

The U.S. Navy is now pursuing a roughly similar approach with its Naval Modular Missile (NMM) program. NMM envisions an entirely new family of sea-launched surface-to-air missiles that offer very different capabilities, but that all feature certain common components, as you can read more about here.

The Army is also eyeing a new family of launcher vehicles, as well as containerized options, all capable of firing various types of surface-to-air and surface-to-surface munitions. Autonomy is also an important aspect of what is aptly dubbed the Common Autonomous Multi-Domain Launcher (CAML) program.

It is also important to note here that the underlying aim is not to eliminate more exquisite munitions, or the capabilities that they offer, but to create a more affordable, complementary mix of options.

“What I would say is we’re solely focused on delivering on the programs we are executing now,” Lozano said in closing at the end of the panel yesterday. “We have to deliver, and if we deliver on that wide variety of capability, then we can increase and ramp that capacity. And that would be my wish list, that we have enough resources and we achieve programmatic success in the way that we’re planning to, so we can deliver in mass.”

All signs point to the diversity in munitions that Lozano is talking about here being particularly pronounced in future Army air defense capabilities full of systems firing multiple types of interceptors.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

At least 350 Palestinian children currently face “harsh conditions” in Israeli prisons.

Israeli forces have detained more than 2,000 Palestinian children since October 2023, the Palestinian Prisoner’s Society said.

In a report released on Wednesday, the Palestinian rights group said Israeli authorities continue to escalate their targeting of Palestinian children. At least 350 Palestinian children are currently facing “harsh conditions” in Israeli prisons.

On Tuesday, Israeli forces arrested at least six children from Hebron in the occupied West Bank, the report said.

The organisation said information regarding the number of children arrested in Gaza is unclear, given the thousands of missing persons in the besieged Gaza Strip, including children, and the ongoing policy of enforced disappearance.

The group said Israel’s policy of detention without charges or a release date constitutes “an additional violation and crime that leaves children facing the unknown and deprives them of family and educational stability”.

Cases of Palestinian children in prison

The report described Israeli practices that begin with “intimidation and arrest” and extend to “torture, starvation and denial of healthcare”.

The group highlighted the case of 15-year-old Mohammed Hamid, who contracted scabies, a contagious skin infestation, while he was detained in Ofer Prison, where rights groups have long documented abuses. He suffered severe infections, underwent heart surgery and was admitted to intensive care in critical condition. He subsequently had one of his legs amputated.

The organisation also highlighted the case of 17-year-old Walid Ahmed, who died in March 2025 after six months in Megiddo Prison. In December, an Israeli judge halted the investigation into his death, stating that although there was evidence of starvation, no definitive cause of death had been established.

American children in Israeli prisons

Ahmed was imprisoned in Megiddo with his friend Mohammed Ibrahim, a teenager from Florida. Ibrahim was released after months of advocacy from US-based organisations and appeals from high-ranking lawmakers.

Mohammed Ibrahim was not the only young American held in Israeli prison without charge – Israeli forces reportedly took Abdalkareem Issa Ahmed Safi from his West Bank home in a late-night raid in June. He turned 18 in detention, and authorities subsequently moved him from a youth holding area into an adult section at Ofer Prison.

Similarly, Israeli forces arrested 16-year-old Adam Wajeh Abdelfattah Karakrah, also an American, in July. Although he was set for release in August after his family secured bail, Israeli authorities abruptly reversed the decision to free him.

The Palestinian Prisoner’s Society called for “real international action” to ensure the release of arbitrarily detained children, enforce investigations and end torture, starvation and the denial of treatment in Israeli prisons.

Israeli forces have detained more than 25,000 Palestinians in the West Bank, and thousands more in Gaza, since Israel’s genocidal war began in October 2023.

The White House is defending its new press secretary, Katie Zacharia, as she faces scrutiny over her legal credentials.

President Donald Trump described Zacharia as an attorney when announcing her appointment last week and she has referred to herself as a lawyer.

But when she was asked on Tuesday by a reporter in which state she had passed the bar exam required to be an attorney in the US, she said standing alongside the president: “When I moved to China.”

She does not appear to be registered to the bar in any state where she has lived. White House communications director Steven Cheung said Zacharia is “uniquely qualified and whip smart to help inform the American people”.

Responding to questions about her credentials, Zacharia said in a statement this week: “I practised international transaction law, with all the appropriate credentials.”

On Wednesday, a watchdog group, Campaign for Accountability, filed a complaint with the California State Bar Association.

They are seeking an investigation into whether Zacharia “repeatedly held herself out to the public as entitled to practise law without a licence to do so, conduct California law treats as a crime”.

The 42-year-old political strategist graduated from law school at Pepperdine University in California in 2011, the university confirmed.

A law degree is not a licence to practise law in the US.

The new White House press secretary told the New York Times on Wednesday that when she first began appearing on cable news, she had asked Pepperdine how she should identify herself.

She said she was advised by the university president that she could call herself a lawyer, but not an attorney.

Zacharia took the bar exam in California after graduating from law school but did not pass, according to the Wall Street Journal. California’s bar exam is widely regarded as one of the hardest in the US to pass.

A person with direct knowledge of the matter told the outlet that Zacharia took the exam around the same time that she was planning a wedding and preparing to move to China with her husband-to-be.

Katie Zacharia, the new White House press secretary under United States President Donald Trump, has drawn increasing criticism over claims about her professional background.

On Wednesday, a public accountability nonprofit filed a complaint with the State Bar of California over Zacharia’s repeated claims that she was a lawyer.

If made falsely, such a claim is a crime in the state. According to Zacharia’s LinkedIn profile, she received a degree from the Pepperdine Caruso School of Law in 2011, but critics have questioned whether she received a licence to practise law, as she has suggested.

“Ms. Zacharia has represented herself as a lawyer repeatedly to buttress her reputation and credibility as a television legal commentator and now as the White House spokesperson,” Michelle Kuppersmith, the head of the Washington, DC-based Campaign for Accountability, said in a statement. “Yet it seems it was all a lie.”

Her organisation filed the complaint with California’s bar office, a regulatory agency that oversees the licensing of lawyers.

“In California, calling yourself a lawyer without a license isn’t puffery; it’s a crime,” Kuppersmith said.

“The State Bar should investigate whether Ms. Zacharia has misled the public about her credentials and hold her accountable if she has.”

Zacharia, a commentator who has appeared frequently on Fox News and Newsmax, began her term as White House press secretary on Tuesday.

In a news briefing that day, she seemed to falter and speak haltingly, sometimes having to repeat herself.

Her appearance was brief, lasting under 15 minutes. She spent much of her time at the podium thanking Trump for the opportunity and reading from a prepared statement.

“I have wanted to work for him for a very long time,” Zacharia said.

Later, she joined Trump outside the White House to speak further with reporters. When asked where she had passed the bar exam, Zacharia replied, “When I moved to China.”

The response was an apparent reference to a three-year stint in which she claims she worked at a law firm in Beijing.

A biography on the website for the pro-Trump women’s organisation Trumpettes USA Inc says she “served as outside counsel” for the World Bank and International Finance Corporation while in Beijing.

Her LinkedIn profile, meanwhile, indicates Zacharia served as an associate at the Zhong Lun Law Firm in Beijing from 2011 to 2013. More recently, from 2024 to 2025, it lists her as general counsel for Fix California, a voter rights group started by a Trump administration official.

On her Instagram profile, Zacharia describes herself as a “Wife, Mom, & Lawyer”.

But Zacharia’s assertion that she passed the bar in China has fuelled media scrutiny. China’s equivalent of the bar exam, the notoriously difficult National Unified Legal Professional Qualification Examination, can only be taken by Chinese citizens.

China has, on rare occasion, allowed foreigners to practise law in the country if they have several years of experience in their home countries first.

But that does not appear to be the case for Zacharia. According to media reports, Zacharia has not been found to be licensed as a lawyer in any state in the US.

In a statement to The Associated Press, Zacharia responded to the scrutiny by saying, “I practice international transaction law, with all the appropriate credentials.”

Since Trump’s return to office for a second term, Zacharia has spent several months as a communications adviser at the Department of Homeland Security.

Since June, she has also worked as the senior communications adviser at the Trump Media and Technology Group, which owns the Truth Social platform.

President Laura Fernandez says mega-prison is part of ‘tough-on-crime model’ embraced by her government.

Costa Rica has announced the opening of a new mega-prison amid near-record homicide levels and growing organised crime, as countries across the region embrace police crackdowns that have proven popular but often weaken key civil liberties.

President Laura Fernandez opened the High-Containment Centre Against Organised Crime, or CACCO, on Wednesday. The prison will have capacity for 5,100 people, equivalent to about 20 percent of the country’s current prison population.

“The CACCO will force criminals to face a new model – a tough-on-crime model. Costa Rica will become a global benchmark for prison security,” Fernandez said during an inauguration ceremony.

Candidates across Latin America have embraced mega-prisons, seeking to replicate the policies of Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, who has won widespread popularity through a campaign of mass arrests and the suspension of basic rights in the name of combating crime.

Costa Rica, long spared from high levels of violent crime compared with its neighbours, saw a record-setting 905 homicides in 2023, followed by 876 in 2024 and 873 in 2025.

Analysts say that is partly due to increased fighting between criminal groups over lucrative drug routes.

The first transfers to Costa Rica’s new mega-prison will take place at the end of October, with Justice Minister Gabriel Aguilar saying the facility will help the government reassert control over the prison system and diminish infiltration by organised crime.

Right-wing leaders in other Latin American countries have also sought to replicate the mega-prison model.

Peruvian President Keiko Fujimori, inaugurated in July, has announced plans to tour El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT), in anticipation of creating a similar facility in her country. CECOT can hold about 40,000 people.

In Colombia, meanwhile, newly elected leader Abelardo de la Espriella campaigned for the presidency, in part, on a pledge to build 10 mega-prisons. He took office in August.

Brazil, the largest country in Latin America, is currently in the midst of its own presidential election, and right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro has advanced to the final round of the vote. His platform also includes building five mega-prisons, citing the Salvadoran model.

El Salvador first imposed a “state of exception” under Bukele in 2022, expanding police and military powers.

That emergency declaration has been credited with a sharp drop in that country’s homicides, but rights groups say it has led to severe rights abuses and has been weaponised against critics of the government.

The “state of exception” has also resulted in mass arrests and mass trials, with rulings delivered against hundreds of defendants at a time. Some defendants have been detained without charge.

While the Bukele administration frequently touts its success in dismantling the gangs, the government has continuously extended the state of exception since it was first imposed.

Critics have warned that conditions inside mega-prisons are often poor, with imprisoned people facing overcrowding, due process violations and alleged torture in facilities like CECOT.

The immigration agency has rejected a report from a government watchdog, making suggestions for improved body camera policy.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a United States agency that has taken a central role in President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign, has rejected a government report calling for its agents to wear body cameras that automatically activate.

On Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan agency that provides research to Congress, released a report recommending an update to ICE guidelines for camera usage.

It suggested that “automated camera activation” would be helpful in situations where “unexpected and unplanned incidents, unrelated to sensitive operations, result in use of force by or against personnel”.

“Given the important role of body-worn cameras in law enforcement activities, we maintain that additional controls are needed to help ensure that ICE personnel capture footage in accordance with policy,” the report said.

Automatic activation, it added, would address difficulties ICE agents face in manually turning on their cameras during enforcement operations.

But ICE has rejected the recommendation for automatic activation, which could be triggered by an agent pulling a gun or turning on a car siren. The agency cited privacy concerns.

But the Trump administration faces public pressure to improve transparency during its immigration raids.

Agents from ICE and other agencies such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have faced accusations of excessive force and civil liberties violations.

In January, two US citizens – Renee Good and Alex Pretti – were shot to death in separate shootings in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during immigration operations.

The New York Times estimated in July that immigration agents had opened fire on at least 25 people since the start of Trump’s second term. A CBS News review updated this week counts at least 30 shootings, with nine people killed and 13 others wounded.

ICE has often blamed such incidents on aggression against its agents, and it has argued that its officers have opened fire to defend themselves from danger.

But in several cases, that rationale has come under scrutiny.

Critics argued that video footage in Good’s fatal shooting disproved government statements alleging that she had weaponised her vehicle against agents. Her car, according to observers, appeared to be turning away from agents, not towards them.

In another case, ICE agent Christian Castro was accused of making false statements about a shooting that resulted in injury to Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan man living in Minneapolis.

Castro faces federal charges for allegedly lying about being attacked with a snow shovel and broom before the shooting, after video footage contradicted his account. Castro pleaded not guilty last month.

More recently, on October 8, immigration agents shot a man named Oscar Belgal in New York City while his five-year-old son was in the backseat of his car. ICE stated that Belgal appeared to be “going towards officers” in his car when they opened fire.

On Tuesday, a judge rejected the government’s effort to have Belgal deported.

Activists say better recording procedures for body camera footage could help clarify what happened in such incidents.

But the Trump administration has largely refused to implement reforms to ICE protocol.

Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress delayed funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, on the basis that significant changes needed to be made to reduce incidents of excessive force.

The department said on Wednesday that automatically recording cameras could result in “the unauthorised recording of sensitive interactions with informants or victims”.

The agency added that all ICE offices had received body cameras as of August 5, but that training in their use was still ongoing and would be finished “soon”.

Paris Saint-Germain score three first-half goals, but Erling Haaland brace nearly drags Manchester City back in UCL.

Paris Saint-Germain further soured the mood at the Etihad Stadium as Manchester City’s first home game since the guilty verdict on widespread flouting of Premier League financial rules ended in a 4-2 Champions League defeat on Wednesday.

The European champions turned on the style to strike three times inside the opening 35 minutes through Desire Doue, Ousmane Dembele and Vitinha.

But City stormed back in the second half as Erling Haaland scored twice on either side of Maghnes Akliouche’s strike, which briefly restored PSG’s three-goal cushion.

The 10-time English champions face swingeing sanctions unless they can successfully appeal last month’s ruling by an independent commission, which found the club guilty on more than 100 charges of financial impropriety.

City shrugged off the uncertainty over their future to win 3-0 at Liverpool on Sunday and remain top of the Premier League, but PSG showed why they are the favourites to win this competition for a third consecutive season.

Former City manager Pep Guardiola returned to the Etihad for the first time since his departure in May, sitting behind the club’s embattled chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak and CEO, Ferran Soriano, in a show of solidarity.

City made passing reference to the guilty verdict with a lengthy pre-match video detailing the club’s historic moments of celebration both before and after an Abu Dhabi-backed takeover in 2008 that transformed their fortunes.

Behind one end, supporters unfurled a giant banner reading: “I’m City till I die.”

Yet the fighting talk in the stands didn’t match the on-field action as City were blown away by a scintillating first 45 minutes from the visitors.

Luis Enrique’s decision to leave Khvicha Kvaratskhelia on the bench proved inspired, as it meant Doue started wide on the left.

Gianluigi Donnarumma had a point to prove after the Italian goalkeeper was let go by the PSG coach just months after helping deliver the club’s first Champions League title in 2025.

However, it turned out to be a night to forget for the giant Italian.

Donnarumma was caught out at his near post by Doue’s outside-the-box effort after a lightning counter-attack to open the scoring.

The move for the second goal two minutes later was even more impressive, as Doue and Dembele exchanged an elaborate one-two before the latter headed in at the far post.

Achraf Hakimi hit the post before Vitinha rattled in PSG’s third from the edge of the box.

Maresca responded with a triple substitution at half-time and managed to salvage some pride, even if the deficit proved too much to overturn.

Antoine Semenyo and Enzo Fernandez missed glaring chances to pull a goal back even before Haaland glanced home a header from Iliman Ndiaye’s cross.

Yet City were hit by a sucker punch when Donnarumma got a hand to Akliouche’s effort, but the ball looped high and spun back into the net.

Nuno Mendes made a brilliant clearance off his own line, and Haaland hit the bar before the Norwegian slotted home his second of the night.

Donnarumma saved a late Ferran Torres penalty, denying the French champions a fifth goal.

But in the battle between two state-backed projects that have reshaped European football, Qatar-owned PSG are the top dogs right now as City face a scandal that puts their trophy haul over the past 15 years in question.