CANELO ALVAREZ paid a gushing tribute to his wife Fernanda after accepting his loss to Terence Crawford with “humility”.
The Mexican superstar surrendered his super-middleweight throne after falling victim to a masterclass performance.
3
Canelo Alvarez kisses his wife FernandaCredit: Getty
Canelo was consoled by his wife Fernanda and daughter Mia in the aftermath of the defeat – and spoke out to thank his partner.
“I’m very proud of everything I’ve accomplished so far; you always want to win, but I accept this defeat with humility and learning,” he said on Instagram.
“I am very grateful to my team for all the sacrifices we have made together all these years.
“I already won because I have my family with me and millions of fans who have never stopped supporting me.
“Finally, thanks to Fernanda, my wife; for her patience and not letting go of my hand during this whole process.”
Crawford secured a stunning unanimous points win after 12 rounds of sensational boxing to become four-belt champion at 168lb.
The 42-0 American became the first man in boxing history to win undisputed belts in THREE different weight classes.
Jumping up from 154lb, Crawford became a FIVE-division champ, having started his reign of championship terror at the 135lb lightweight mark.
3
CANELO VS CRAWFORD LIVE: ALL THE LATEST FROM THE FIGHT OF THE CENTURY
Canelo vs Crawford – All the info
IT’S finally time – one of the biggest boxing matches EVER takes place THIS WEEKEND.
Two of boxing’s GOATs will meet in the ring as they fight for pound-for-pound supremacy and the super-middleweight crown.
Uganda is the latest of several countries to strike a deportation deal with the United States as President Donald Trump ramps up controversial efforts to remove migrants from the country.
In a statement on Thursday, Uganda’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Kampala had agreed for Washington to send over third-country nationals who face deportation from the US, but are unwilling to return to their home countries. The ministry said that the agreement was made under certain conditions.
Rights groups and law experts have condemned Trump’s controversial plans to deport millions of undocumented migrants. Those already deported include convicted criminals and “uniquely barbaric monsters,” according to the White House.
African countries, such as Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, have accepted similar deals, reportedly in exchange for lower tariffs. The US’s actions are exploitative and tantamount to treating the continent as a “dumping ground,” Melusi Simelane of the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) told Al Jazeera, adding that Washington was especially focusing on countries with weak human rights protection.
Here’s what you need to know about the Uganda deal and what countries might be getting in return for hosting US deportees:
What did Uganda agree to?
In a statement posted on X on Thursday, Bagiire Vincent Waiswa, the permanent secretary of Uganda’s Foreign Ministry, said the country had agreed to a “temporary arrangement” with the US. He did not state the timelines for when the deportations would begin or end.
There are caveats regarding the people who would be transferred, the statement continued, including that Uganda will not accept people with criminal records or unaccompanied minors and that it “prefers” that Africans be transferred as part of the deal.
“The two parties are working out the detailed modalities on how the agreement shall be implemented,” the statement added.
A US State Department statement confirmed that Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had held discussions over the phone regarding “migration, reciprocal trade, and commercial ties”.
The deal’s announcement came after weeks of speculation in local Ugandan media regarding whether the East African nation would accept US deportees.
On Wednesday, Foreign Affairs Minister Henry Okello Oryem denied the media reports, saying Uganda did not have the facilities to accommodate deportees.
Speaking to The Associated Press news agency, Oryem said Uganda was discussing issues of “visas, tariffs, sanctions and related issues” with the US, but not of migration.
“We are talking about cartels: people who are unwanted in their own countries. How can we integrate them into local communities in Uganda?” he told the AP.
A day later, Uganda’s narrative had flipped.
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni gestures as he speaks to the media at a joint briefing with Kenyan President William Ruto (unseen) at the State House during his two-day state visit in Nairobi on May 16, 2024 [Simon Maina/AFP]
What might Uganda gain from this?
The Foreign Ministry’s statement on Thursday did not state what Uganda might be getting in return.
Other countries, including Eswatini, have reportedly accepted deportees in exchange for lower tariffs.
Uganda has been hit with 15 percent tariffs on goods entering the US, as part of Trump’s reciprocal tariff wars. Senior government officials in early August told local media that the tariffs would disrupt Ugandan exports, especially in the agricultural sector, and that Kampala would enter negotiations for a better deal.
Coffee, vanilla, cocoa beans and petroleum products are some of Uganda’s key exports to the US. Kampala is particularly keen on boosting coffee exports to the US and competing with bigger suppliers like Colombia. The US, on the other hand, exports machinery, such as aircraft parts, to Uganda, which imposes an 18 percent tariff on imported products.
The US and Uganda have historically enjoyed friendly ties, with the US routinely sending aid to Kampala. However, after Uganda passed an anti-homosexuality bill into law in 2023, relations turned sour, and the US accused Uganda of “human rights violations”. The law proscribes punishment, including life sentences, for same-sex relations.
Washington thereafter cut aid funding for HIV programs and issued visa restrictions on Ugandan government officials “complicit in undermining the democratic process.” The US also banned Uganda from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a trade programme that helped African countries trade tariff-free with the US, but that Trump’s tariffs have effectively killed.
The World Bank additionally banned Uganda from its loans for two years, although the restriction was lifted this June.
Rights activists say the deal on deportees could make the US administration more favourably inclined towards Uganda, but at the expense of those deported.
“The proposed deal runs afoul of international law,” human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo told the AP. He added that such an arrangement leaves the legal status of deportees unclear as to whether they are refugees or prisoners.
“We are sacrificing human beings for political expediency; in this case, because Uganda wants to be in the good books of the United States,” Opiyo said.“That I can keep your prisoners if you pay me; how is that different from human trafficking?”
Does Uganda already host refugees?
Yes, Uganda is Africa’s largest refugee host country. It already hosts some 1.7 million refugees, largely from neighbouring South Sudan, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which are all dealing with armed conflict and unrest.
The United Nations has, in the past, hailed the country as having a “progressive refugee policy” and “maintaining an open-door approach to asylum”.
However, opposition activists are sounding the alarm over the government’s dismal human rights record. Uganda has been ruled by Museveni since 1986, with his party winning contested elections in landslides. Opposition members and journalists are often targeted in arrests. Some report being tortured in detention.
Speaking to the AP, opposition lawmaker Muwada Nkunyingi said the US deal could give Museveni’s government further Western legitimacy ahead of general elections scheduled for January 2026.
The deal was struck to “clear their image now that we are heading into the 2026 elections,” Nkunyingi said. He urged the US not to ignore what he described as human rights issues in Uganda.
Jasmin Ramirez holds a photo of her son, Angelo Escalona, at a government-organised rally protesting against the deportation of alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, who were transferred to an El Salvador prison, in Caracas, Venezuela, on Tuesday, March 18, 2025 [Ariana Cubillos/AP]
What other countries has the US sent people to?
Eswatini, Rwanda and South Sudan have struck similar agreements with the US.
Eswatini, in July, accepted five unnamed men from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba and Yemen.
Tricia McLaughlin, Department for Homeland Security assistant secretary, described them as “individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back”. She added that they were convicted of offences ranging from child rape to murder, and faced up to 25 years in jail. The men are presently held in detention facilities and will be sent back to their countries, according to officials who did not state a timeline.
Activists accuse the Eswatini government of engaging in the deal in exchange for lower tariffs from the US. The tiny country, which exports apparel, fruits, nuts and raw sugar to the US, was hit with a 10 percent tariff.
“No country should have to be engaged in the violation of international human rights laws, including breaching its domestic laws, to please the Global North in the name of trade,” Simulane of SALC, who is leading an ongoing court case challenging the Eswatini government’s decision, told Al Jazeera. The move, he said, was against the country’s constitution, which mandates that international agreements pass through parliament.
“What we want, at the core, is for the agreement to be published for public scrutiny, and for the public to understand (if) it indeed is in line with our national interest,” Simulane said. “We further want the agreement declared unconstitutional because it lacked parliamentary approval.”
South Africa, which borders Eswatini on three sides, summoned the smaller country’s diplomats earlier in August to raise security concerns about the arrangement.
Similarly, the US sent eight “barbaric” criminals to South Sudan in July. The DHS listed them as being from Cuba, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, Mexico and South Sudan. They were convicted of crimes such as first-degree murder, robbery, drug trafficking, and sexual assault, the DHS said.
The men were initially diverted to Djibouti for months pending a legal challenge in the US. However, in late June, the US Supreme Court approved the move to South Sudan.
Rwanda, too, has confirmed that it will take 250 deportees from the US at an unnamed date. According to government spokesperson Yolande Makolo, the deportees will enjoy “workforce training, health care and accommodation”. The country previously struck a controversial migrant deal for a fee with the United Kingdom. That deal, however, fell through when the new Labour government was elected in the UK in 2024.
Outside Africa, El Salvador has taken in 300 migrants, mainly from Venezuela, for a $6m fee.
Costa Rica accepted 200 asylum seekers from Afghanistan, China, Ghana, India and Vietnam. While many have been repatriated, some 28 people were still in detention by June. It is unclear what the US offered in return.
Nearly 300 people from countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and China were sent to Panama in February.
President Trump has spent the first major overseas trip of his second administration — next stop Wednesday in Qatar — beating back allegations that he was personally profiting from foreign leaders by accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from the Gulf state’s royal family.
Trump has bristled at the notion that he should turn down such a gift, saying he would be “stupid” to do so and that Democrats were “World Class Losers” for suggesting it was not only wrong but also unconstitutional.
But Democrats were hardly alone in criticizing the arrangement as Trump prepared for broad trade discussions in Doha, the Qatari capital.
Several top Republicans in Congress have expressed concerns about the deal, including that the plane would be a security risk. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Tuesday said there were “lots of issues associated with that offer which I think need to be further talked about,” and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), another member of the Republican leadership team, said that Trump and the White House “need to look at the constitutionality” of the deal and that she would be “checking for bugs” on the plane, a clear reference to fears that Qatar may see the jetliner as an intelligence asset.
Criticism of the deal has even arisen among the deep-red MAGA ranks. In an online post echoed by other right-wing influencers in Trump’s orbit, loyalist Laura Loomer wrote that while she would “take a bullet for Trump,” the Qatar deal would be “a stain” on his administration.
The broad outrage in some ways reflected the stark optics of the deal, which would provide Trump with the superluxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet — known as the “palace in the sky” — for free, to be transferred to his personal presidential library upon his departure from office.
Accepting a lavish gift from the Persian Gulf nation makes even some stolid Trump allies queasy because of Qatar’s record of abuses against its Shiite Muslim minority and its funding of Hamas, the militant group whose attack on Israel touched off a prolonged war in the region.
Critics have called the deal an out-and-out bribe for future influence by the Qatari royal family, and one that would clearly come due at some point — raising serious questions around the U.S.’ ability to act with its own geopolitical interests in mind in the future, rather than Qatar’s.
Trump and Qatar have rejected that framing but have also deflected questions about what Qatar expects to receive in return for the jet.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in response to detailed questions from The Times, said in a statement that Trump “is compliant with all conflict-of-interest rules, and only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media.”
Leavitt has previously said it was “ridiculous” for the media to “suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit,” because he “left a life of luxury and a life of running a very successful real estate empire for public service, not just once, but twice.”
Ali Al-Ansari, media attache at the Qatari Embassy in Washington, did not respond to a request for comment.
Beyond the specific concern about Qatar potentially holding influence over Trump, the jet deal also escalated deeper concerns among critics that Trump, his family and his administration are using their political influence to improperly enrich themselves more broadly — including through the creation of a $Trump cryptocurrency meme coin and a promised Washington dinner for its top investors.
Experts and other critics have for years accused Trump of violating constitutional constraints on the president and other federal officials accepting gifts, or “emoluments,” from foreign states without the express approval of Congress.
During Trump’s first term, allegations that he was flouting the law and using his office to enrich himself — including by maintaining an active stake in his golf courses and former Washington hotel while foreign dignitaries seeking to curry favor with him racked up massive bills there — went all the way to the Supreme Court before being dismissed as moot after he’d been voted out of office.
Since Trump’s return to office, however, concerns over his monetizing the nation’s highest office and the power and influence that come with it have exploded once more — and from disparate corners of the political landscape.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), left, speaks with Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security oversight hearing on May 8, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington.
(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)
In a speech last month on the Senate floor, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) alleged dozens of examples of Trump and others in his family and administration misusing their positions for personal gain — what Murphy called “mind-blowing corruption” in Trump’s first 100 days.
Murphy mentioned, among other examples, the meme coin and dinner; corporations under federal investigation donating millions to Trump’s inaugural fund and those investigations being halted soon after he took office; reports that Trump has sold meetings with him at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for millions of dollars; and Donald Trump Jr.’s creation of a private Washington club with million-dollar dues and promises of interactions with administration officials.
Murphy also noted Trump’s orders to fire inspectors general and other watchdogs meant to keep an eye out for corruption and pay-to-play tactics in the federal government, and his scaling back of laws meant to discourage it, such as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Corporate Transparency Act.
“Donald Trump wants to numb this country into believing that this is just how government works. That he’s owed this. That every president is owed this. That government has always been corrupt, and he’s just doing it out in the open,” Murphy said. “But this is not how government works.”
When news of the Qatar jet deal broke, Murphy joined other Democratic colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a statement denouncing it.
“Any president who accepts this kind of gift, valued at $400 million, from a foreign government creates a clear conflict of interest, raises serious national security questions, invites foreign influence, and undermines public trust in our government,” the senators wrote. “No one — not even the president — is above the law.”
Other lawmakers — from both parties — have also weighed in.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) blasted Trump’s acceptance of the plane as his “lastest con” and a clear attempt by the Qatari government to “curry favor” with him.
“This is why the emoluments clause is in the Constitution to begin with. It was put in there for a reason,” Schiff said. “And the reason was that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that any action taken by the president of the United States, or frankly any other person holding federal public office, wasn’t going to be influenced by getting some big gift.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in an interview with MSNBC on Monday that he did not think it was a “good idea” for Trump to accept the jet — which he said wouldn’t “pass the smell test” for many Americans.
Experts and those further out on the American political spectrum agreed.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law and an expert in constitutional law, said the gift of the jet, “if it is to Trump personally,” clearly violates a provision that precludes the president from receiving any benefit from a foreign country, which America’s founders barred because they were concerned about “foreign governments holding influence over the president.”
Richard Painter, the top White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said that Trump accepting the jet would be unconstitutional. And he scoffed at the ethics of doing business with a nation that has been criticized as having a bleak human rights record.
“After spending millions helping Hamas build tunnels and rockets, Qatar has enough to buy this emolumental gift for” Trump, Painter wrote on X. “But the Constitution says Congress must consent first.”
Painter criticized the White House justifying the deal by saying that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi had “signed off” on it, given Bondi’s past work for the Qatari government, and said he knew of no precedent for a president receiving a lavish gift without the approval of Congress. He noted that Ambassador Benjamin Franklin received a diamond-encrusted snuff box from France’s King Louis XVI, but only with the OK from Congress.
Robert Weissman, co-president of the progressive nonprofit Public Citizen, said that it was unclear whether Trump would heed the cautionary notes coming from within his own party, but that the Republican-controlled Congress should nonetheless vote on whether the jet was a proper gift for him to receive.
“If the members of Congress think this is fine, then they can say so,” Weissman said, “and the voters can hold them accountable.”
Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro, a prominent backer of Trump, criticized the deal on his podcast Monday, saying that Trump supporters would “all be freaking out” if Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, had accepted it.
“President Trump promised to drain the swamp,” Shapiro said. “This is not, in fact, draining the swamp.”
