TODAY

An airport employee spotted the drone carrying what authorities described as ‘an unknown explosive device’.

German authorities have launched an investigation after police removed the detonator from an explosive device attached to a drone found at Leipzig/Halle airport.

The airport’s north runway reopened on Wednesday after being closed for about two hours, while the south runway remained out of use due to scheduled maintenance.

Several flights, including a passenger aircraft, were diverted to other airports after a flying object was reported near the airport shortly before midnight. Police deployed an explosives-disposal robot to examine the object.

Authorities later said an airport employee discovered the drone near the runway carrying what they described as “an unknown explosive device”. Police examined it and removed its detonator, but did not provide further details about the nature of the device.

The probe is being led by prosecutors in the eastern state of Saxony who are responsible for politically motivated and “extremist” crimes, although authorities have not identified any suspects or attributed responsibility.

Meanwhile, an apparent second flying object collided with a freight aircraft after it aborted its landing because the runway was closed.

The aircraft diverted to Hannover airport, where officials found slight damage during an inspection. Authorities have not said whether the second object was connected to the drone found near the runway.

Authorities said there was no danger to travellers or airport employees, and flights were operating normally on Wednesday.

Photos from the scene showed police technicians working with an explosives-disposal robot near a Ukrainian Antonov cargo aircraft parked at the airport, although authorities have not indicated the aircraft was the intended target.

A 47-year-old woman has been arrested after four men were stabbed in Covent Garden in central London, the Metropolitan Police said.

The men, aged 34, 39, 42 and 52, were taken to hospital after emergency services were called to reports of a stabbing in Endell Street at about 12:30 BST.

In a statement, London Ambulance Service said: “We treated four patients at the scene and took them all to a major trauma centre as a priority by road.”

The woman has been arrested on suspicion of possession of an offensive weapon and assault.

Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, external, X, external and Instagram, external. Send your story ideas to hello.bbclondon@bbc.co.uk, external

A piece of a SpaceX rocket which has been floating in space since last year was believed to have crashed into the moon at high speed on Wednesday.

The event, not visible to the naked eye, is expected to be confirmed by experts monitoring it with a telescope.

This event posed no danger to Earth but was also expected to create a new lunar crater, experts said.

Here’s what we know so far.

Has the rocket hit the moon yet?

It is believed to have hit the moon already, but this has not yet been confirmed as it takes time for signals to return from the moon to the Earth. The rocket segment was expected to hit the moon around 2:35am ET (06:35 GMT) on Wednesday, crashing into the surface at 5,400mph (8,690km/h).

The ⁠rocket piece is believed to have hit Einstein Crater on the moon’s western limb, which is often difficult to see from Earth.

Weighing 4 metric tonnes (4,000kg), it was expected to kick up a plume of lunar dust that would likely be illuminated by sunlight but would be difficult to spot with the naked eye from Earth.

The crash landing is unintentional, SpaceX has said.

Which rocket did this piece of space debris come from?

It comes from a SpaceX Falcon 9, which is a reusable model and has been used for several space missions.

It is made of two parts: upper and lower. The lower part can detach from the upper part and return to Earth. It is the upper part of the rocket which likely crashed into the moon.

Is this dangerous for the Earth?

“There is no danger to Earth,” NASA spokesperson Jimi Russell said in a statement on Tuesday.

“NASA will continue to track the booster for training purposes, as well as later observe the impact site for scientific purposes.”

What was the Falcon 9 doing near the moon?

The Falcon 9 rocket took off last January from Florida, United States, carrying two lunar landers. The booster returned to Earth, but the upper segment remained in space to push the landers onwards.

After pushing the lunar landers onwards, the upper segment of the rocket typically falls back into Earth’s atmosphere and burns up or plunges into the ocean.

But, because the January lunar lander mission required more thrust than missions closer to Earth, the rocket’s second stage remained in space, floating aimlessly among thousands of other pieces of space junk that active satellites have to steer clear of as a matter of course.

According to the United Kingdom’s Natural History Museum, humans have launched thousands of objects into space since the 1950s. “When these spacecraft, rockets, and satellites stop working or break apart, they stay in orbit instead of falling back down right away,” it says.

Why was this rocket section heading to the moon?

It was not until earlier this year that astronomers determined that the rocket section, which had dumped its remaining fuel and could no longer be controlled, was on an orbital trajectory which would end at the moon.

Generally, for such “high-energy missions”, SpaceX performs a manoeuvre to make sure the second stage “is safe per the appropriate rules and regulations”, said Julianna Scheiman, director of NASA science missions at SpaceX, at a Monday news conference.

“We did that,” she continued, but “what has happened is essentially a mixture of solar activity and gravity forces have put it on a path towards the moon”.

Does it matter if part of a rocket crashes into the moon?

This collision raises concerns about human-made debris in space generally. The rocket section was just one of many pieces of “space junk” already orbiting Earth.

There are more than 46,000 pieces of space debris weighing a total of 17,000 tonnes currently in orbit, the European Space Agency reported in late July.

“The environmental impacts that we’re most concerned about include climate and the ozone hole,” Eloise Marais, atmospheric chemist in the geography department at University College London, told Al Jazeera last year.

“Depletion of the protective ozone layer results from chemicals released by rockets during launch that can undergo reactions that deplete ozone,” Marais added, explaining that air pollutants such as particles of soot, which can absorb sunlight and warm the atmosphere, are released during rocket launches.

NASA and SpaceX are discussing ways to prevent future lunar impacts, NASA’s Scheiman said. The US space agency plans to build a lunar base and send routine astronaut missions to the lunar surface beginning later this decade under its multibillion-dollar Artemis programme. It would not want errant pieces of space junk impacting those assets.

How common is it for space objects to crash into the moon?

Not very. The moon routinely weathers impacts from space debris, including meteoroids. Collisions with artificial objects are less common.

A Chinese rocket segment crashed into the moon in March 2022 after completing a lunar test mission.

In 2009, NASA intentionally crashed a rocket segment into the moon to study the plume of lunar material kicked up by the impact.

In the 1970s, NASA also intentionally crashed stages ⁠from its Saturn V moon rocket into the moon to study the impact’s seismic effects.

Several spacecraft intending to land softly on the moon in recent years have crashed instead.

• Russia’s nuclear-powered Luna-25 mission spun out of control and crashed ⁠in 2023. Its small power source of plutonium-238 likely remains harmlessly on the lunar surface.
• India’s Chandrayaan-2 lander mission crashed in 2019.
• Israel’s Beresheet lander crashed that same year. Among the Israeli lander’s payloads were tiny tardigrades, microscopic animals known for surviving radiation and other harsh environments and which may still be on the surface.

What are observers expecting to see?

Like many scientists, Scheiman said, “I also am very excited to see the observation.”

“This may be of some – probably minor – scientific interest, and we may learn some things from it,” said Bill Gray, creator of widely used astronomy software who published a report on the stage’s impact in April.

“It doesn’t present any danger to anyone, though it does highlight a certain carelessness about how leftover space hardware [junk] is disposed of.”

NASA hopes to soon establish a sustained human presence on the Moon, making it critical to better understand space debris in lunar orbit.

Mérida, August 4, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez announced a series of immediate measures during a conference call on Sunday with governors and cabinet members to safeguard Venezuela’s National Electrical System (SEN) amid climate risks and disruptions from the recent earthquake.

Rodríguez outlined an action plan to prepare for the severe drought and high temperatures associated with the “Super El Niño” phenomenon. Venezuelan authorities will launch a national energy and water conservation plan and steps to secure electricity generation.

“We must be prepared for the ‘Super El Niño’ climate phenomenon, and I have requested the activation of an Electricity and Water Savings Plan to promote awareness and the commitment of every Venezuelan in the responsible use of these resources,” she stated during the broadcast.

The acting president also addressed the impact of the recent double earthquake that struck central-northern Venezuela, which severely affected high-voltage transmission lines and damaged electricity generation facilities. 

The most significant damage occurred at the Termocarabobo plant, which temporarily lost 600 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity. Rodríguez stated that technical crews have already restored 300 MW and expect a full recovery in the coming weeks.

“The fluctuations we have experienced in recent days are directly linked to the significant loss of those 600 MW, and today I am pleased to say that we have already recovered 50 percent,” Rodríguez noted. She added that the government aims to incorporate an additional 480 MW of thermal generation before the end of the year to cushion the grid against climate-induced strain.

The emergency measures respond to renewed instability in the power grid across several regions of the country. While localized rationing and temporary outages have been common in most of the country, they have worsened following the June 24 double earthquake. Residents have reported hours-long blackouts, sometimes twice a day. 

To address structural generation deficits, the Venezuelan government has sought to open the electricity sector to private corporations.

On June 15, Acting President Rodríguez signed a memorandum of understanding with US-based GE Vernova, formerly General Electric, aimed at adding 1,000 MW to the electrical grid within 24 months and up to 5,000 MW over four years.

Days before the GE agreement, Venezuelan authorities established a deal with Argentina-based IMPSA, presently owned by a US consortium, to rehabilitate the Manuel Piar (Tocoma) and Antonio José de Sucre (Macagua) hydroelectric dams in Bolívar state. The IMPSA agreement targets an initial restoration of 672 MW at Tocoma within 19 months, with potential expansion up to 2,640 MW over five years.

In parallel, the National Assembly preliminarily approved a reform to the Organic Law of the National Electrical System in early June. The reform departs from the 2007 framework that defined electricity as a strategic sector under state control, opening generation, transmission, distribution, and commercialization to private sector concessions lasting up to 25 years.

The opening of the electric grid to foreign interests saw US Chargé d’Affaires in Venezuela John Barrett visit the Simón Bolívar Hydroelectric Plant, known as the Guri Dam, in Bolívar State on Sunday, August 2.

Barrett reported that he accompanied a “specialized technical team” from the US Department of Energy, which inspected the facility in coordination with Venezuela’s state electricity company CORPOELEC. The US official claimed the assessment seeks to establish “a roadmap to modernize the electric system.”

The Guri Dam presently produces over 10,000 MW of the roughly 13,000 MW supplied to the grid. Venezuela’s National Electrical System currently operates significantly below its installed capacity of around 30,000 MW.

The electric sector has been severely strained over the past decade as a result of lack of maintenance, brain drain, and the impact of US economic sanctions. The coercive measures severely restricted CORPOELEC’s ability to import spare parts, secure credit, or maintain contracts with original equipment manufacturers. A recent rise in oil production has added to the electric generation gap and contributed to increased blackouts.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

Monsoon downpours cause floods and landslides as climate change and El Nino disrupt rainfall patterns.

Floods and landslides triggered by monsoon rains have killed more than 100 people across India since July, according to official data, with thousands forced to flee flooded homes.

The annual monsoon brings rain that farmers depend on, but scientists say climate change is making it increasingly deadly across South Asia.

This year’s toll spans several states. Assam has been hit hardest, with at least 87 dead, and Sivasagar district alone accounting for 47.

Kerala has recorded at least 15 deaths and seven missing after days of heavy rain, Chief Minister VD Satheesan said, with more than 10,000 people sheltering in more than 300 relief camps in the state.

A report by the public state broadcaster said that Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir has seen at least 31 killed by intense rain bursts.

Lightning strikes have killed at least 14 people in Jharkhand, most of them farm workers caught in open fields. Jharkhand saw more than 200 deaths in 2025, mainly attributed to “lightning associated with thunderstorms”, the India Meteorological Department said in January.

Monsoon-related deaths are an annual occurrence across India after the region’s long summers when many parts of the country face water scarcity and drought.

The pattern extends beyond India’s borders. In Sri Lanka, at least eight deaths and 12,000 displaced from monsoon flooding have been recorded. This happened while the country’s eastern regions were in the grip of a severe drought, with authorities having to transport drinking water for residents in tanker trucks.

Sri Lanka’s government said last month that the extreme weather stems from this year’s El Nino, a climate pattern that warms surface temperatures in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific. It occurs when normal east-to-west trade winds weaken or reverse, pushing warm water eastward and significantly disrupting global weather and rainfall.

Russia launched another large-scale overnight missile and drone attack on the Kyiv region, killing at least 14 people, injuring dozens, and damaging warehouses and civilian infrastructure. The assault highlights Moscow’s continued focus on overwhelming Ukraine’s air defenses while intensifying pressure on the capital.

Heavy Strike Targets Kyiv Region

Emergency officials said Russian strikes killed 14 people and injured 27 across the Kyiv region, while authorities in the capital reported one death and 24 injuries. Warehouses, storage facilities, and industrial sites were among the locations hit, with rescue teams continuing to search through collapsed buildings for survivors.

The attack also triggered fires and an ammonia leak, adding to the challenges facing emergency responders.

Missile Barrage Tests Ukraine’s Air Defenses

According to Ukraine’s Air Force, Russia launched four Zircon hypersonic missiles, 24 Iskander-M ballistic missiles, and 115 drones overnight.

While Ukrainian air defenses intercepted or suppressed 98 drones, officials said no missiles were successfully destroyed, underscoring the growing challenge posed by Russia’s expanding use of advanced ballistic weapons.

Patriot Missile Debate Gains Urgency

The latest assault comes as Kyiv continues urging Washington to provide additional PAC-3 Patriot interceptor missiles, one of the few systems capable of intercepting advanced ballistic missiles.

At the same time, discussions continue between the United States and Ukraine over potential domestic production of Patriot missiles, despite uncertainty surrounding the Trump administration’s long-term support for the initiative.

Escalation Continues on Both Sides

Russia said it targeted logistics hubs and supply facilities it claims support Ukraine’s military operations.

Meanwhile, Ukraine continued its campaign against Russian logistics infrastructure, reportedly striking another logistics hub linked to Russian retailer Wildberries, reflecting Kyiv’s broader effort to disrupt Russian supply chains far from the front lines.

Russia Is Increasing Pressure on Ukraine’s Air Defense Network

The latest strike suggests Russia is shifting toward saturation attacks that combine ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons, and large drone swarms to exhaust Ukraine’s increasingly strained air defense systems. While drones can often be intercepted, advanced missiles such as the Iskander-M and Zircon remain significantly harder to stop, increasing pressure on Kyiv to secure additional Patriot interceptors. At the same time, Ukraine’s retaliatory strikes on Russian logistics networks indicate that both sides are increasingly targeting the infrastructure that sustains military operations rather than relying solely on battlefield gains. As missile stockpiles, interceptor availability, and industrial production become central to the conflict, the war is evolving into a contest of endurance in which logistics and defense manufacturing may prove as decisive as frontline combat.

With information from Reuters.

A massive fire tore through a chemical factory in Brazil’s São Paulo metropolitan area, forcing authorities to evacuate around 150 nearby residents.

The United States and Japan last week staged a coordinated intervention to halt the slide of the yen after the Japanese currency fell to a 40-year low against the US dollar.

While it is unusual for authorities to intervene to help prop up another country’s currency, the yen has an important role in international finance as the world’s third-most-traded currency, meaning its depreciation has repercussions far beyond Japan.

Here is everything you need to know about the currency intervention:

What is a currency intervention and how did the US and Japan coordinate?

A currency intervention occurs when a government or central bank buys or sells large quantities of foreign currency to help stabilise the value of its own currency.

In this case, the US and Japan coordinated an intervention to lift the value of the yen after it slid to 163 against the dollar for the first time since 1986.

The intervention began on July 31 when the US Treasury began selling euros for yen, while Japanese authorities also bought yen.

In the days after the intervention, the yen began to rise and reached 157 to the dollar on Wednesday.

The US last staged a currency intervention with Japan in 2011 when the yen began appreciating rapidly following the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami.

It also stepped in to support the Japanese currency during the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998.

How did the yen get so weak?

The yen’s collapse is the result of longstanding economic challenges combined with new pressures from the US-Israel war on Iran.

Japan has struggled with economic stagnation since the early 1990s.

The Bank of Japan has for decades attempted to stimulate growth with ultra-low and even negative interest rates, a policy that has exerted downward pressure on the yen.

While Japan’s weak currency has helped draw record numbers of tourists and kept exports cheap, it has also placed a strain on households by raising the cost of imported goods.

Tokyo has spent tens of billions of dollars since 2022 trying to defend the yen, but the economic policies of successive Japanese leaders, including current Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, have partly offset these efforts.

“Takaichi wants it all: Growth, loose fiscal policy, loose monetary policy and a stable yen – but their policy mix is leading to a weak yen, which is causing an inflation problem,” Chris Turner, global head of markets at ING, told Al Jazeera.

Why does the US want a stronger yen?

While Japan is a close US ally, Washington stepped in for its own benefit as much as Tokyo’s, said Masahiko Loo, a senior fixed income strategist at State Street Investment Management in Tokyo.

“Washington isn’t trying to strengthen the yen for Japan’s sake. It’s trying to prevent a disorderly decline that could spill over into Treasury markets, global funding conditions, and broader financial stability,” Loo told Al Jazeera.

“A free-falling yen isn’t just Japan’s problem. At some point it becomes a global liquidity and financial stability issue, which is why Washington stepped in.”

The yen is the most traded currency after the US dollar and the euro, which means dramatic changes in its value can have ripple effects across the global financial system.

One of Washington’s biggest concerns is the prospect of Japan selling off its holdings of US Treasury securities, which were valued at $1.114 trillion in May.

If the yen continued to fall, Tokyo would be encouraged to sell large quantities of US Treasuries to raise cash it can use to defend the currency.

That would put upward pressure on interest rates in the US, raising the cost of servicing the country’s rapidly growing national debt, which already exceeds $39 trillion.

“The financial cost of intervention for the US is low and, given that President Donald Trump favours a weaker US dollar, the domestic political cost is minimal,” Shigeto Nagai, head of Japan economics at Oxford Economics, wrote in a research briefing on Monday.

“Coordinated intervention is a cost-effective method as it allows the US to do a significant favour for Japan, a precious loyal ally in Asia, and take some pressure off US interest rates.”

Will the intervention work?

While the joint intervention has provided short-term support for the yen, Japan will need to take more fundamental measures, such as raising interest rates, to raise the value of the currency in the long term, according to experts.

Japan’s benchmark interest rate currently stands at 1.0 percent, its highest since 1995 but far lower than other advanced economies, including the US.

The large gap between interest rates in the US and Japan is a primary driver of the yen’s persistent weakness.

Without a change in Japan’s low-interest-rate environment, the latest currency intervention is just “throwing good money after bad,” said Derek Tang, an economist and CEO of Monetary Policy Analytics, a US research advisory firm.

“Ultimately… the gravitational force of economic fundamentals will overwhelm intervention efforts,” Tang told Al Jazeera.

“Nevertheless, Japan seems very reluctant to tighten monetary policy to raise its own interest rates and allow the currency to appreciate in that manner,” Tang said.

“So this situation will persist for the time being.”

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Progressive advocate overcomes more than $60m in spending to defeat pro-Israel Congresswoman Haley Stevens.

Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive public health advocate, has won the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate, overcoming more than $60m in campaign spending, mostly from pro-Israel groups, NBC has projected.

The result on Tuesday represents an enormous blow to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which led the way in the effort to defeat the pro-Palestinian El-Sayed, backing his opponent, US Congresswoman Haley Stevens, with more than $30m.

El-Sayed will face former Republican Congressman Mike Rogers in November. The race is considered one of a handful of competitive Senate contests in the November midterms and could determine which party controls the chamber for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term.

If El-Sayed – who is of Egyptian descent – wins in November, he would become the first Muslim senator in US history.

Tuesday’s result in Michigan – a swing state that voted for Trump in 2024 – will have major implications for the Democrats’ policies on conflicts in the Middle East.

El-Sayed recognises Israel’s atrocities in Gaza as a genocide and argues that money spent on conflicts that benefit Israel should be invested in local communities in the US to address healthcare, housing and infrastructure problems.

More to come…

Egypt has moved from rhetorical backing of Sudan’s army to active enabler of its war effort, with a covert drone hub on Egyptian soil symbolising how Cairo has tied its regional strategy to the survival of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

Since fighting erupted between the SAF and RSF in April 2023, Egypt has framed its stance as defence of Sudan’s “unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity” and of its “national institutions, particularly the Sudanese Armed Forces.” Officially, President Abdel Fattah al‑Sisi repeats pledges of “non‑interference,” presenting Egypt’s role as limited to mediation, humanitarian aid and hosting Sudanese refugees.

In practice, that line has steadily eroded. Years of joint drills, intelligence sharing and arms ties since 2019 created deep interoperability between the two militaries, well before the civil war began. Egyptian troops captured by the RSF at Merowe airbase in April 2023 were explained away as being on pre‑scheduled exercises, a narrative few regional observers accepted.

The New York Times investigation into East Oweinat in Egypt’s Western Desert crystallises this shift from backstage support to direct operational involvement. Satellite imagery, flight records and videos show a once‑civil agricultural airstrip expanded since 2018 with a second runway, new hangars and satellite links, and by 2025 hosting Turkish Akinci combat drones.

According to U.S. and European officials cited in that reporting, those drones have for at least six months flown strike missions into Sudan, hitting RSF targets up to hundreds of miles inside the country, including convoys on supply routes from Libya and Chad. The drones and their munitions match Turkish systems, but are based on Egyptian territory and shield Sudan’s military assets from RSF retaliation, blurring whether Cairo is merely hosting or also directing the campaign.

For Cairo, East Oweinat offers plausible deniability: operations are embedded in a desert reclamation project far from public scrutiny, yet close enough to Sudan’s border to project sustained air power. For Sudan’s army, it is a lifeline in a war where the RSF has excelled at capturing bases and shooting down drones; at least several Akinci units have reportedly been lost to RSF fire in recent months.

RSF statements and battlefield evidence further illuminate the depth of Egyptian support. In January 2026 the RSF published what it called “irrefutable” proof of Egypt’s direct role, citing captured Egyptian‑made ammunition, armoured vehicles and testimonies from detained SAF‑aligned commanders who described arms, training and medical support routed from Egypt.

Egypt’s wager on the SAF is rooted in hard security and regime‑survival logic. Egyptian strategists see Sudan’s collapse as an existential threat, evoking fears of refugee flows and arms smuggling on a porous southern frontier. Control of the Nile is still more fundamental: since the 2019 fall of Omar al‑Bashir, Cairo has tightened security and military coordination with Khartoum to present a united front against Ethiopia’s GERD and protect its historic water share.

There is also an ideological affinity. General Abdel Fattah al‑Burhan is a career officer with long‑standing ties to Egyptian commanders, and his military rule mirrors Sisi’s own path from barracks to presidency. Backing the SAF fits a long‑standing Egyptian instinct to side with Sudan’s regular army “whoever is in charge of it,” and more broadly to prefer strong central militaries over unruly civilian transitions in the Arab world. The SAF’s reliance upon Muslim Brotherhood–aligned militias and ideologues, including the glorification of early militant figures such as Bara Bin Malik, against the backdrop of Washington’s formal designation of key Muslim Brotherhood chapters as terrorist organisations, should be unsettling to Cairo.

Yet by 2026, Egypt’s bet looks increasingly brittle. The war has killed tens of thousands, displaced more than 14 million and pushed parts of Sudan close to famine, while neither side has secured decisive control. Burhan’s legitimacy is deeply disputed: he led the 2021 coup that derailed a fragile civilian‑military transition, and many of the forces that drove the 2018–19 uprising see him as the continuation of military dominance, not a route to elections.

Cairo’s categorical rejection of “parallel entities” and alternative governments in exile is presented as a defence of Sudanese unity, but in effect delegitimises broad civilian coalitions trying to organise outside the SAF–RSF binary. By equating Sudan’s “national institutions” with the current military leadership, Egypt narrows the field of acceptable interlocutors to a junta whose territorial control and popular backing are both eroding.

At the same time, Egypt seeks recognition as a mediator, through formats like the Quad and by hosting conferences of Sudanese civil and political actors in Cairo. That posture sits uneasily with explicit promises not to be “lax or late in supporting the legitimate Sudanese government” under Burhan, and with mounting evidence of Egyptian‑based air operations in the conflict. The covert base in the desert, and the drones that rise from its runways toward Sudanese skies, have become emblematic of a policy that claims non‑interference while in practice helping to lock Sudan into a devastating, externalised war.

The administration of President Donald Trump has cancelled the visa for Brazil’s ambassador in the United States, the latest sign of a deepening diplomatic rift between the two countries.

An anonymous US State Department official briefed reporters on Tuesday that Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti’s visa had been temporarily revoked.

But Ribeiro Viotti was not being expelled from the country, the official added.

“The action was that the visa of a senior diplomat here was revoked or cancelled. That is not the same thing as kicking the person out of the country,” the official said.

The decision to revoke the visa was framed as backlash to Brazil’s decision to withhold approval for Trump’s ambassador to the South American country.

Should that approval be granted, the US official explained, Ribeiro Viotti’s visa would be returned. Until then, the official suggested she could remain in the US.

“It means that they are here but without a visa, and would have their visa restored if the balance is restored by giving agreement to our chosen ambassadorial nominee,” the official said.

The move comes after Washington expressed anger over Brazil’s failure to approve Trump’s choice for ambassador to Brazil, Danny Perez.

Perez is a Florida state representative and a Republican ally of Trump’s hawkish Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. He was nominated to the ambassadorship in June, but has yet to be confirmed by the full US Senate.

Media reports indicate that Trump publicly nominated Perez before reaching out to Brazil.

Sources inside the Brazilian government said this was considered a breach of protocol, and they intend to probe Perez’s nomination before issuing formal approval.

Without such approval, though, Perez will be unable to take up his post in the capital, Brasilia.

The tit-for-tat over the ambassadors is likely to ratchet up long-simmering tensions between Washington and Brazil, the US’s largest South American trading partner.

Last month, Brazil denied visas to officials from the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, after voicing concerns that the delegation intended to undermine the country’s election system. Brazil is set to elect its president in October.

Trump is considered a close ally of the Bolsonaro family, a powerful political dynasty on Brazil’s far right.

The US president’s first term overlapped with the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro, who was nicknamed the “Trump of the Tropics”.

His son, Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, is on the ballot this election season.

Both Trump and the elder Bolsonaro have used false claims of election fraud to dispute unfavourable election results.

Trump has also sought to boost the prospects of right-wing candidates across Latin America since the start of his second term, even threatening to withhold US funds depending on election outcomes.

With Latin America experiencing a shift rightwards, Brazil remains the largest country to be governed by a left-wing leader: President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. He has emerged as a vocal critic of Trump’s attempts to increase US influence in Latin America.

Lula defeated the elder Bolsonaro in the 2022 presidential elections, and he is seeking a fourth, non-consecutive term this October. Flavio Bolsonaro is his top rival.

Since being voted out of office, Jair Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years in prison for his role in an alleged plot to overthrow the 2022 election results.

Trump vocally rejected Jair Bolsonaro’s prosecution, which was recommended by Brazil’s Federal Police. Last year, the US president placed steep tariffs on Brazil, demanding that prosecutors end their case.

Though the tariffs were lifted, the US announced in July that it would impose 25 percent tariffs, this time accusing Brazil of unfair trade practices.

Brazilian authorities remain wary that the US might seek to influence the outcome of October’s presidential election in favour of Flavio Bolsonaro.

Lula formally launched his campaign bid on Sunday, framing the race as a question of national sovereignty – and the “future of Latin America”.

Oil prices fall as US officials tout progress in talks to reopen critical waterway.

The US stock market has hit an all-time high amid growing hopes for a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and a flurry of bumper corporate earnings results.

The S&P 500, the most popular gauge of US stocks, surged 1.8 percent on Tuesday to top 7,700 for the first time, blasting past its previous record of 7,620.90 set on June 2.

Wall Street’s benchmark index has risen 12.80 percent so far this year, comfortably beating its historical average of about 10.5 percent.

Palantir Technologies, a data analytics company closely tied to the US and Israeli defence sectors, was among the biggest gainers, with its shares soaring 29.5 percent on the back of forecasting-busting second-quarter revenue of $1.94 bn.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which tracks 30 blue-chip companies, set a new record for a second straight day, climbing 1.7 percent to 54,085.88.

The rally continued in Asia on Wednesday morning, with key indexes in Japan and South Korea making major gains.

Tokyo’s benchmark Nikkei 225 was up 3 percent as of 01:00 GMT, while the Kospi in Seoul was up 4.6 percent.

Brent crude, the primary international benchmark for oil prices, edged lower after falling about 5 percent overnight on hopes for an end to the months-long disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a conduit for about one-fifth of global oil supplies before the start of the US-Israel war on Iran in late February.

Brent futures for October delivery stood at $79.11 per barrel as of 01:00 GMT, down about 13 percent from the previous week.

The growing market optimism came as both US and Iranian officials touted progress in talks between Iran and Oman aimed at restoring shipping in the strait.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Tuesday that while an agreement had yet to be reached, he hoped that a deal would “happen very ‌shortly”.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview with CNBC that an agreement on the strait could be reached as soon as Tuesday or Wednesday.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, said talks with Omani officials on designating safe routes for vessels have been “positive”.

Maritime traffic in the Gulf has been severely constrained since the start of the war amid the threat of Iranian attacks on vessels in and around the strait, as well as a US blockade of Iranian ports.

Just nine vessels transited the critical waterway on Sunday, according to ship-tracking platform MarineTraffic, compared with roughly 130 daily crossings before the start of the war.

The US military said on Tuesday that the strait was “free and open” to all commercial vessels despite Tehran’s repeated insistence that it has the right to control the movement of traffic in the waterway.

“Over the past three months, US forces have assisted more than 1,000 vessels in successfully transiting the strait despite unwarranted Iranian aggression, and these transits continue today,” US Central Command said in a post on social media.

Thousands of migrants entered the Spanish city of Ceuta from neighbouring Morocco on July 31, bringing renewed attention to one of Europe’s most unusual borders.

Although Ceuta lies on the northern coast of Africa and is surrounded by Moroccan territory, it is administered by Spain and forms part of the European Union. Together with nearby Melilla, it forms the EU’s only land border with Africa, making both cities recurring flashpoints for migration and diplomatic tensions between Madrid and Rabat.

The latest crossing has once again highlighted border security and irregular migration, but it has also drawn attention to a broader question: why do these small Spanish territories on the African continent continue to generate recurring political crises between Spain and Morocco?

Understanding the latest tensions requires looking at three connected issues: migration pressures, the cities’ legal status, and Morocco’s long-standing claim over their sovereignty.

Why has the crisis resurfaced now?

The latest crossing reflects continued pressure along one of Europe’s most sensitive migration routes. Because Ceuta and Melilla are Spanish territory, entering either city means entering the European Union.

For some migrants travelling through North Africa, the two cities are among the few places where EU territory can be reached by land, making them recurring focal points during periods of increased migration towards Europe.

The timing of the latest surge has also been linked to a recent ruling by Spain’s Supreme Court on the treatment of migrants attempting to reach Ceuta and Melilla by sea. The court ruled that Spain’s “hot return” procedure, which allows certain immediate returns at the border, could not be applied to migrants intercepted at sea while attempting to swim into the enclaves. The judges found that the procedure applies to people who cross physical border barriers, such as fences, rather than those intercepted at sea.

The ruling did not create an automatic right to remain in Spain or legalise irregular entry. However, it was interpreted by some migrants as making immediate return more difficult if they reached Spanish territory by sea. Spanish and Moroccan officials pointed to the ruling as one factor that may have influenced the latest surge, while migration experts also cited broader migration pressures and misinformation circulating among migrants and smuggling networks.

The episode showed how legal decisions affecting border procedures can quickly influence perceptions on one of Europe’s most heavily monitored frontiers.

Migration cooperation has long been closely linked to the wider relationship between Spain and Morocco. Madrid relies heavily on cooperation with Rabat to manage migration routes, while Morocco’s role in controlling movement towards Europe has made border management an important element of its relationship with both Spain and the EU.

That dynamic became particularly clear in 2021, when thousands of migrants entered Ceuta during a period of heightened tensions after Spain allowed Brahim Ghali, the leader of the Polisario Front, to receive medical treatment in Spain.

The Polisario Front seeks independence for Western Sahara, which Morocco considers part of its territory and which has its final status unresolved under a United Nations-led political process. Rabat viewed Spain’s decision to host Ghali as a diplomatic setback, while Madrid said the decision was based on humanitarian grounds.

Spain accused Morocco of easing border controls during the crisis, while Moroccan officials rejected the suggestion that Morocco should act as Europe’s border guard. The episode demonstrated how migration cooperation can become entangled with broader political disputes between the two countries.

What is the legal status of Ceuta and Melilla?

Under the current international legal framework, Ceuta and Melilla are Spanish territories under Spain’s sovereignty. Spain exercises full administrative and governmental authority over the two cities, and they are represented in Spain’s political system and form part of the EU.

They are not listed by the UN as Non-Self-Governing Territories, a category that applies to territories whose people have not yet exercised the right to self-determination through decolonisation. Because Ceuta and Melilla are not on that list, they are not part of a UN decolonisation process.

There has also been no international court ruling or UN decision determining sovereignty over Ceuta and Melilla. The dispute remains a political disagreement between Spain and Morocco rather than a sovereignty dispute currently being adjudicated through an international legal process.

This is one of the key differences between Ceuta and Melilla and Western Sahara. Western Sahara remains on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories and is the subject of a separate UN-backed political process over its future status, while Ceuta and Melilla are treated internationally as territories under Spanish sovereignty.

This is the basis of Madrid’s position that the sovereignty question is settled. Spain argues that the two cities are not colonial possessions but fully integrated parts of the Spanish state, governed under Spanish law and protected as Spanish territory.

Morocco disputes that interpretation, arguing that the cities’ location on the African continent and their historical connection to North Africa mean they should be viewed differently from other Spanish cities.

Why does Morocco continue to claim the two cities?

The dispute is rooted in the long history of the western Mediterranean.

The Strait of Gibraltar has historically connected Europe and Africa rather than separating them. Armies, merchants, cultures and religions moved across it for centuries.

During the medieval period, Muslim dynasties based in present-day Morocco, including the Almoravids and Almohads, ruled large parts of the Iberian Peninsula. Their influence remains visible today in Spain’s architecture, language and cultural heritage.

Later, Portugal and Spain established footholds along the North African coast as European powers expanded their influence overseas.

Portugal captured Ceuta in 1415. After the Iberian Union between Spain and Portugal ended in 1640, Ceuta remained under Spanish rule. Spain has administered the city ever since.

Melilla has been under Spanish control since 1497.

Spain points to this long history of administration, together with citizenship and constitutional integration, as evidence that the two cities are fully part of Spain.

Morocco views the same history through a different lens, arguing that European-controlled territories on the African mainland remain a historical legacy of European expansion.

Why do the cities matter beyond Spain and Morocco?

The importance of Ceuta and Melilla extends far beyond their size.

For Spain, the cities are sovereign territory and a direct extension of the Spanish state into North Africa.

For the European Union, they represent its only land borders with Africa and are therefore central to debates over migration, border security and cooperation with neighbouring countries.

For Morocco, the cities remain linked to a broader question of territorial sovereignty, even as Rabat maintains close cooperation with Spain on migration, trade and security.

This combination of interests means that developments in Ceuta and Melilla can quickly become issues of regional significance.

Could the dispute be resolved?

There is little indication that either Spain or Morocco is seeking to reopen formal negotiations over sovereignty.

Spain maintains that Ceuta and Melilla are integral parts of the country and that their status is not negotiable.

Morocco continues to maintain its claim, but in recent years has generally prioritised practical cooperation with Spain over direct confrontation on the issue.

As a result, the dispute tends to reappear indirectly during periods of political tension, diplomatic disagreements or increased migration pressure.

What does the latest crossing reveal?

The immediate challenge remains humanitarian: managing migration while protecting the rights and safety of people attempting to reach Europe.

But the events in Ceuta also show why the city repeatedly returns to international headlines. Migration may trigger the immediate crisis, but the response is shaped by border policy, Spain-Morocco relations, legal developments and a sovereignty dispute that continues to influence relations between the two countries.

Ceuta and Melilla remain unusual because they are geographically part of Africa but politically part of Europe. As long as migration pressures and sovereignty disputes persist, they are likely to remain among the Mediterranean’s most sensitive border flashpoints.

A funeral was held for the victims of last week’s US strike on Iran’s Qeshm Island, where a couple and their two-year-old child were killed. Iran’s chief negotiator and parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, vowed the US would “pay the price” for their deaths.

More than 72 migrants died trying to reach Ceuta, but within hours the tragedy had become a political flashpoint.

Al Jazeera’s Ava Warriner examines the biggest claims about the crossings, what we know, and why analysts say the fallout could extend far beyond Spain.

A US federal appeals court says EPA likely acted unlawfully in trying to cancel Biden-era clean energy grants.

A United States federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration likely broke the law when it tried to cancel a multibillion-dollar clean energy programme, dealing a blow to the president’s broader push to dismantle Biden-era climate policies.

The full US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled on Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot freeze roughly $20bn in grants awarded to nonprofit groups for clean energy projects, reversing an earlier decision by the same court.

But the money will not be released immediately. The ruling has been temporarily put on hold to give the EPA time to ask the US Supreme Court to intervene.

At the centre of the dispute is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a programme created by Congress through former US President Joe Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.

The programme, often referred to as a “green bank”, was designed to give federal money to nonprofit organisations that would give out loans and invest in small energy projects, energy-efficient buildings and clean-energy infrastructure.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has been trying to dismantle the programme, saying it doesn’t align with his agency’s priorities and accusing its recipients of fraud, waste and mismanagement.

In a video posted on social media last February, Zeldin described the fund as an example of government waste.

“Shockingly, roughly $20bn of your tax dollars were parked at an outside financial institution by the Biden EPA,” he said. “This pot of $20bn was awarded to just eight entities that were then responsible for doling out your money to NGOs and others at their discretion.”

“The days of irresponsibly shovelling boatloads of cash to far-left activist groups in the name of environmental justice and climate equity are over,” he added.

The following month, the EPA froze billions of dollars that were being held at Citibank to be distributed as grants.

The organisations, which included the Climate United Fund, Coalition for Green Capital and three others, denied any wrongdoing and sued, arguing the administration was illegally withholding money already approved by Congress and attempting to kill the programme because it opposed its climate goals, not because of evidence of fraud.

Tuesday’s decision overturns a ruling by a three-judge panel of the same appeals court last September that sided with the administration. The full appeals court agreed to revisit that decision, a rare move reserved for significant cases.

The majority of judges said the EPA’s attempt to terminate the grants and claw back the money “based solely on a policy disagreement” likely violated the Inflation Reduction Act. It also said the agency hadn’t provided assurance that it would leave the funds untouched if the injunction were lifted.

The ruling restores an order issued last year by US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who found the EPA had failed to justify cancelling the grants and warned the administration was encroaching on Congress’s power to decide how federal money is spent.

The case is one of several legal challenges to US President Donald Trump’s efforts to reverse Biden’s climate agenda. Since returning to office, Trump has rolled back environmental regulations, expanded support for fossil fuel production and sought to unwind clean energy initiatives, arguing they impose unnecessary costs on businesses and consumers.

Guatemala’s Fuego volcano began erupting on Monday, prompting a nationwide orange alert and the evacuation of two nearby villages, with residents moved to temporary shelters. The highly active volcano’s deadly 2018 eruption has prompted renewed preventative measures.

While FBI poll monitoring is not new, US lawmakers raise alarm amid Trump’s years-long, evidenceless claims of election fraud.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced it has sent federal monitors to polls in four Democratic-leaning cities in Michigan, amid warnings that the administration of United States President Donald Trump could use such monitors for partisan aims.

The DOJ announced the monitors would be present during Michigan’s primary vote on Tuesday as part of an effort to “ensure free and fair elections nationwide”, according to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon.

“The Department of Justice is devoting extensive resources to ensure uniform and nondiscriminatory monitoring,” it said.

While the department has for decades overseen an election monitoring programme to ensure compliance with federal civil rights laws, lawmakers and advocates have raised concerns over how such a programme could be used under the current administration.

Trump has for years alleged, without evidence, that US elections have been marred by widespread fraud. He has never acknowledged his 2020 loss to US President Joe Biden.

Michigan has played a major role in those claims.

In a primetime speech delivered in mid-July, Trump re-upped a previously concluded probe into alleged voter fraud in the city of Muskegon as he called on the FBI to reinvestigate the case. Local officials had already determined that several voter registration forms had been fraudulently filled out in the city by employees of a consulting firm attempting to falsely reach their quotas.

No fraudulent ballots were cast in connection with the fake voter registration forms. State officials have highlighted the situation as proof of the efficacy of their election security practices.

The announcement on Tuesday came weeks after the Department of Justice said it planned to monitor 15 jurisdictions across six states: Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia. The DOJ has said it will expand the use of monitors leading into November.

The department did not give a reason for why the four Michigan cities –  Detroit, Hamtramck, Lansing, and East Lansing – were selected.

Detroit, Lansing and East Lansing are all heavily Democratic leaning. Hamtramck, considered the first Muslim-majority city in the US, has historically leaned Democratic, but has shifted increasingly Republican in recent years.

Residents of the state on Tuesday were casting ballots to determine party nominees in local, state and US Congressional races for the midterm election in November.

Key races include a fierce Democratic Senate race, with progressive Abdul El-Sayed hoping to defeat US Representative Haley Stevens, widely viewed as a weathervane for the party’s future.

Voters will also decide the candidates for the gubernatorial race, with Trump-backed US Representative John James facing off with former presidential candidate Perry Johnson on the Republican side, as Democrat Jocelyn Benson, the current Michigan state secretary, is expected to sail to victory in her party’s primary.

Democrats ask for assurances

In a letter to the Department of Justice dated Monday, 10 Democratic senators asked for assurances that FBI monitors deployed across the country will not “target jurisdictions in a partisan manner; discourage voter participation or interfere with the voting process; or pressure, harass, or interfere with state and local election officials as they do their jobs”.

They noted the wider context in which the monitors are being deployed, including efforts by the Trump administration to obtain state voter rolls. On Tuesday, a judge ruled the administration could not access Colorado’s voter data, the latest in a string of similar rulings.

Trump has also called for Republicans to “nationalise” elections. Under the US Constitution, state governments administer elections, in a system of decentralisation that advocates have long argued protects against wholesale interference.

The senators said that the DOJ has characterised the monitors as “routine” and “non-partisan”.

“However, it would be remiss not to acknowledge concerns that monitors are being deployed disproportionately to jurisdictions in states governed by Democratic leaders or with Democratic chief election officials,” they wrote.

“Moreover, election monitors are being deployed in the context of President Trump’s ongoing threats to nationalise, militarise, and otherwise interfere with the conduct of free and fair elections.”