Abrego Garcia will return to family as he awaits trial over alleged human smuggling brought by Trump administration.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongfully deported by the administration of United States President Donald Trump, has been released from a jail in Tennessee.
Abrego Garcia was released on Friday and will rejoin his family in Maryland while he awaits the beginning of a trial based on allegations of human smuggling by the Trump administration, according to his lawyer.
The detention of Abrego Garcia, who remained held in an El Salvador prison known for abusive conditions even after the government admitted he had been mistakenly deported, became a flashpoint in the Trump administration’s push for mass deportations with little semblance of due process.
The government, faced with a court order, brought Abrego Garcia back to the US in June, despite previously claiming it had no authority to do so. Upon his return, the Trump administration announced criminal charges against him for alleged human smuggling.
Abrego Garcia, whom the Trump administration previously tried to link to the criminal group MS-13 through disproven claims, has denied the charges. His lawyers have depicted the criminal charges as a form of punishment for speaking out against his wrongful deportation and embarrassing the administration.
While he was previously cleared for pre-trial release from the Tennessee jail, his lawyers requested that he be allowed to remain there out of concern that the government would move to deport him again if he was released.
Those fears have slightly eased after a recent, separate court ruling that said the government must allow Abrego Garcia to challenge a deportation order. His lawyers filed a motion for dismissal of the criminal case, arguing that it is a form of retaliation from the government.
An immigration judge rejected Abrego Garcia’s application for asylum in 2019, but ruled that he could not be deported to El Salvador due to a “well-founded fear” of violence in that country.
The Trump administration has said that it will instead seek to deport Abrego Garcia to a third country.
A United States federal judge has granted a temporary block against a Texas law that would require the Ten Commandments from the Christian Bible to be displayed in the classrooms of every public school.
On Wednesday, US District Judge Fred Biery issued a preliminary injunction against Texas’s Senate Bill 10, which was slated to take effect on September 1.
Texas would have become the largest state to impose such a requirement on public schools.
But Judge Biery’s decision falls in line with two other court decisions over the past month: one in Arkansas and one in Louisiana, both of which ruled such laws are unconstitutional.
Biery’s decision opens by citing the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which bars the government from passing laws “respecting an establishment of religion”. That clause underpins the separation of church and state in the US.
The judge then argues that even “passive” displays of the Ten Commandments would risk injecting religious discourse into the classroom, thereby violating that separation.
“Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer. That is what they do,” Biery wrote.
“Teenage boys, being the curious hormonally driven creatures they are, might ask: ‘Mrs Walker, I know about lying and I love my parents, but how do I do adultery?’ Truly an awkward moment for overworked and underpaid educators, who already have to deal with sex education issues.”
Biery’s decision, however, only applies to the 11 school districts represented among the defendants, including Alamo Heights, Houston, Austin, Fort Bend and Plano.
The case stemmed from a complaint made by several parents of school-aged children, who were represented by groups including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
One of the plaintiffs was a San Antonio rabbi, Mara Nathan, who felt the version of the Ten Commandments slated to be displayed ran contrary to Jewish teachings. She applauded Wednesday’s injunction in a statement released by the ACLU.
“Children’s religious beliefs should be instilled by parents and faith communities, not politicians and public schools,” Nathan said.
Other plaintiffs included Christian families who feared the schoolhouse displays of the Ten Commandments would lead to the teaching of religious interpretations and concepts they might object to.
The Texas state government, however, has argued that the Ten Commandments symbolise an important part of US culture and therefore should be a mandatory presence in schools.
“The Ten Commandments are a cornerstone of our moral and legal heritage, and their presence in classrooms serves as a reminder of the values that guide responsible citizenship,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. He pledged to appeal Wednesday’s ruling.
But in his 55-page decision, Judge Biery, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1994, drew on a range of cultural references – from Christian scripture to the 1970s pop duo Sonny and Cher and the actress Greta Garbo – to sketch a history of the dangers of imposing religion on the public.
“The displays are likely to pressure the child-Plaintiffs into religious observance, meditation on, veneration, and adoption of the State’s favored religious scripture,” Biery wrote at one point.
He also said such displays risk “suppressing expression of [the children’s] own religious or nonreligious backgrounds and beliefs while at school”.
Biery even offered a winking, personal anecdote to illustrate the power that governments can hold over the adoption of religion.
“Indeed, forty years ago a Methodist preacher told a then much younger judge, ‘Fred, if you had been born in Tibet, you would be a Buddhist,’” Biery wrote.
A separate federal case involving Dallas area schools is also challenging the Ten Commandment requirement. It names the Texas Education Agency as a defendant.
Such cases are likely to eventually reach the Supreme Court, which currently has a six-to-three conservative supermajority and has shown sympathy for cases of religious displays.
In the 2022 case Kennedy v Bremerton School District, for instance, the Supreme Court sided with a high school football coach who argued he had the right to hold post-game prayers, despite fears that such practices could violate the First Amendment. The coach had been fired for his actions.
Judge Biery concluded Wednesday’s decision with a nod to how controversial such cases can be. But he appealed for common understanding with a prayer-like flourish.
“For those who disagree with the Court’s decision and who would do so with threats, vulgarities and violence, Grace and Peace unto you,” Biery wrote. “May humankind of all faiths, beliefs and non-beliefs be reconciled one to another. Amen.”
Since the controversial ban on July 7, more than 700 people have been detained at peaceful protests.
London’s Metropolitan Police say at least 60 people will face prosecution for “showing support” for Palestine Action, the activist group outlawed as a “terrorist organisation” last month for protesting Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Three others have already been charged.
“We have put arrangements in place that will enable us to investigate and prosecute significant numbers each week if necessary,” the force said in a statement on Friday.
Since the controversial ban on July 7, more than 700 people have been detained at peaceful protests, including 522 arrested at a protest last weekend for holding signs backing the group, believed to be the largest number of arrests at a single protest in the capital’s history.
Critics, including the United Nations, Amnesty International and Greenpeace, have called the ban an overreach that risks stifling free speech.
Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Parkinson said the latest decisions were the “first significant numbers” from recent demonstrations, adding: “Many more can be expected in the next few weeks. People should be clear about the real-life consequences for anyone choosing to support Palestine Action.”
The UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission has also warned against a “heavy-handed” approach, urging the government and police to ensure protest policing is proportionate and guided by clear legal tests.
The initial three prosecutions earlier this month stemmed from arrests during a July demonstration, with defendants charged under the Terrorism Act. Police said convictions for such offences could carry sentences of up to six months in prison, along with other penalties.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley praised the rapid coordination between officers and prosecutors, saying he was “proud of how our police and CPS teams have worked so speedily together to overcome misguided attempts to overwhelm the justice system”.
Home Office Minister Yvette Cooper defended the Labour government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action, stating: “UK national security and public safety must always be our top priority. The assessments are very clear, this is not a non-violent organisation.”
The group was banned days after claiming responsibility for a break-in at an air force base in southern England, which the government claims caused an estimated 7 million pounds ($9.3 million) in damage to two aircraft. The home office has accused it of other “serious attacks” involving “violence, significant injuries and extensive criminal damage”.
Palestine Action has said its actions target the United Kingdom’s indirect military support for Israel amid the war in Gaza.
The UK’s Liberal Democrats voiced “deep concern” over using “anti-terrorism powers” against peaceful protesters.
Hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated in several UK cities for nearly two years, calling for an end to Israel’s war on Gaza and for the British government to stop all weapons sales to the country.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said last month that the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by September unless Israel takes “substantive steps” to end its war on Gaza and commits to a lasting peace process. Many who have been protesting to end Palestinian suffering have said the move is too little, too late.
Washington, DC attorney general says in a new lawsuit that Trump is going far beyond his power under the law.
The United States capital, Washington, DC, has challenged President Donald Trump’s takeover of its police department in court, hours after his administration stepped up its crackdown on policing by naming the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) chief, a federal official, as the new emergency head of the department, with all the powers of a police chief.
District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb said on Friday in a new lawsuit that Trump is exceeding his power under the law. Schwalb urged a judge to rule that control of the department remains in the city’s hands, and he has also sought an emergency restraining order.
“The administration’s unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call D.C. home. This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,” Schwalb said.
Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser also pushed back, writing on social media that “there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”
Let us be clear about what the law requires during a Presidential declared emergency: it requires the mayor of Washington, DC to provide the services of the Metropolitan Police Department for federal purposes at the request of the President.
The lawsuit comes after Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Thursday night that DEA boss Terry Cole will assume “powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia Chief of Police”. The Metropolitan Police Department “must receive approval from Commissioner Cole” before issuing any orders, Bondi said.
Earlier this week, Trump announced that the federal government would take control of the District of Columbia (DC) Metropolitan Police Department to address surging crime.
“I’m announcing a historic action to rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse,” Trump said during the news conference, in which he was joined by Bondi, who was initially set to oversee the city’s police force while it is under federal control.
“This is Liberation Day in DC, and we’re going to take our capital back. We’re taking it back,” Trump said.
“I’m deploying the National Guard to help re-establish law, order and public safety in Washington, DC, and they’re going to be allowed to do their job properly,” he said.
Trump also said that he intends to remove the capital’s homeless population, but did not provide details on how the plan would be carried out.
Residents wary of escalated show of force
A Washington population already on edge from days of Trump administration ramp-ups has begun witnessing more significant shows of force across the city.
National Guard troops watched over some of the country’s most renowned landmarks and Humvees took position in front of the busy main train hub, Union Station.
Volunteers have helped homeless people leave longstanding encampments, but where they were relocating to was often unclear.
Department of Homeland Security police stood outside Nationals Park during a baseball game on Thursday. DEA agents patrolled The Wharf, a popular nightlife area, while Secret Service officers were seen in the Foggy Bottom neighbourhood.
The sudden spike in high visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many busy traffic areas, has struck residents going about their day-to-day lives.
Trump has the power to take over federal law enforcement for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he will re-evaluate as that deadline approaches.
National Guard troops are usually less of a heavy presence in Washington’s metropolitan area, typically being used during mass public events like the annual July 4 celebration. They have regularly been used in the past for crowd control in and around Metro stations.
United States President Donald Trump has pledged to evict homeless people from the nation’s capital, after days of musing about taking federal control of Washington, DC, where he has falsely suggested crime is on the rise.
“The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on Sunday.
“The Criminals, you don’t have to move out. We’re going to put you in jail where you belong. It’s all going to happen very fast.”
The announcement comes after Trump earlier this week threatened to deploy the National Guard as part of a crackdown on what he falsely says is rising crime in Washington, DC.
Trump’s Truth Social post on Sunday included pictures of tents and streets in Washington, DC with rubbish on them. “I’m going to make our Capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before.”
The White House declined to explain what legal authority Trump would use to evict people from the city. The Republican president controls only federal land and buildings in Washington.
Washington, DC, is ranked 15th on a list of major US cities by homeless population, according to government statistics from last year.
According to the Community Partnership, an organisation working to reduce homelessness in Washington, DC, on any given night, there are 3,782 single people experiencing homelessness in the city of about 700,000 people. These figures are down from pre-pandemic levels.
Most of the homeless people are in emergency shelters or transitional housing. About 800 are considered unsheltered or “on the street”, the organisation says.
A White House official said on Friday that more federal law enforcement officers were being deployed in the city following a violent attack on a young Trump administration staffer, which angered the president.
Crime in DC at ‘a 30-year low’
Alleged crimes investigated by federal agents on Friday night included “multiple persons carrying a pistol without license”, motorists driving on suspended licences, and dirt bike riding, according to a White House official on Sunday. The official said 450 federal law enforcement officers were deployed across the city on Saturday.
The Democratic mayor of Washington, DC, Muriel Bowser, said on Sunday that the capital was “not experiencing a crime spike”.
“We have spent over the last two years driving down violent crime in this city, driving it down to a 30-year low,” Bowser said on US media MSNBC’s news segment The Weekend.
The city’s police department reports that violent crime in the first seven months of 2025 was down by 26 percent in Washington, DC, compared with last year, while overall crime was down about 7 percent.
The city’s crime rates in 2024 were already their lowest in three decades, according to figures produced by the Department of Justice before Trump took office.
While Bowser did not directly criticise Trump in her remarks, she said that “any comparison to a war-torn country is hyperbolic and false”.
Trump’s threat to send in the National Guard comes weeks after he deployed California’s military reserve force into Los Angeles to quell protests over immigration raids, despite objections from local leaders and law enforcement.
The president has frequently mused about using the military to control US cities, many of which are under Democratic governance and hostile to his policies.
Bowser said that Trump is “very aware” of the city’s work with federal law enforcement after meeting with Trump several weeks ago in the Oval Office.
The US Congress has control of Washington, DC’s budget after the district was established in 1790 with land from neighbouring Virginia and Maryland, but resident voters elect a mayor and the City Council. Trump has long publicly chafed at this arrangement, threatening to federalise the city and give the White House the final say in how it is run.
For Trump to take over the city, Congress likely would have to pass a law revoking the legislation that established local elected leadership, which Trump would have to sign.
Trump is planning to hold a news conference on Monday to “stop violent crime in Washington, DC”. It is not clear whether he will announce more details about his eviction plan then.
Police in London on Saturday arrested 522 people who were protesting against the United Kingdom’s recent decision to ban the group Palestine Action, a tally thought to include the highest-ever recorded at a single protest in the British capital.
The Metropolitan Police on Sunday updated its previous arrest tally of 466 and said that all but one of the 522 arrests took place at a protest in central London’s Parliament Square and were for displaying placards backing Palestine Action.
The other arrest for the same offence took place at nearby Russell Square as thousands rallied at a Palestine Coalition march demonstrating against Israel’s war in Gaza, which has killed at least 61,430 people and wounded 153, 213.
The Met made 10 further arrests on Saturday, including six for assaults on officers, though none were seriously injured, it added on Sunday.
The protests were the latest in a series of rallies denouncing the British government’s ban of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 on July 5, days after the group took responsibility for a break-in at an air force base in southern England that caused an estimated 7 million pounds ($9.4m) of damage to two aircraft.
The group said its activists were responding to the UK’s indirect military support for Israel amid the war in Gaza.
Huda Ammori, cofounder of Palestine Action, said ahead of Saturday’s protests that they would “go down in our country’s history as a momentous act of collective defiance of an unprecedented attack on our fundamental freedoms”.
The force said the average age of those arrested on Saturday was 54, with six teenagers, 97 aged in their 70s, and 15 octogenarians.
A roughly equal number of men and women were detained.
In a statement following the latest mass arrests, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper defended the government’s decision, insisting: “UK national security and public safety must always be our top priority”.
“The assessments are very clear – this is not a non-violent organisation,” she added.
But critics, including the United Nations and groups such as Amnesty International and Greenpeace, have condemned the government’s proscription as legal overreach and a threat to free speech.
“If this was happening in another country, the UK government would be voicing grave concerns about freedom of speech and human rights,” Greenpeace UK’s co-executive director Areeba Hamid said on Saturday.
She added the government had “now sunk low enough to turn the Met into thought police, direct action into terrorism”.
Police across the UK have made scores of similar arrests since July 5, when being a member of Palestine Action or supporting the group became a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
Police announced this week that the first three people had been charged in the English and Welsh criminal justice system with such backing following their arrests at a July 5 demonstration.
In its update on Sunday, the Met revealed a further 26 case files following other arrests on that day are due to be submitted to prosecutors “imminently” and that more would follow related to later protests.
It believes that 30 of those held on Saturday had been arrested at previous recent Palestine Action protests.
Eighteen people remained in custody by Sunday lunchtime, but were set to be released on bail within hours, the Met added.
It noted officers from its counterterrorism command will now “work to put together the case files required to secure charges against those arrested as part of this operation”.
Protesters call for release of Israeli captives
Meanwhile, demonstrators calling for the release of Israeli captives held in Gaza marched in central London on Sunday.
The protesters, who planned to march to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s residence in Downing Street for a rally, include Noga Guttman, a cousin of 24-year-old captive Evyatar David, who featured in a video that enraged Israelis when it was released by Hamas last week. The video showed an emaciated David saying he was digging his own grave inside a tunnel in Gaza.
In the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel, which triggered Israel’s war on Gaza, more than 200 people were taken captive. Some 50 of the captives still have not been released. Twenty are thought to be alive.
Israel last week announced its intention to seize Gaza City as part of a plan to end the war and bring the captives home. Family members and many international leaders have condemned the plan, saying it would lead to more bloodshed and endanger the captives.
“We are united in one clear and urgent demand: the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages,” Stop the Hate, a coalition of groups organising the march, said in a statement.
“Regardless of our diverse political views, this is not a political issue – it is a human one.”
Human Rights Watch says US arms were used in ‘unlawful indiscriminate’ Israeli attacks that killed Palestinian civilians.
Israel has used US-made bombs in “unlawful attacks” on schools sheltering displaced civilians in Gaza, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has said.
In a report released Thursday, HRW said Israel had carried out hundreds of strikes on schools since the start of its war on Gaza in October 2023, including “unlawfully indiscriminate attacks” using US munitions, which violated international law.
In its report, HRW investigated two incidents in 2024 in which it found that GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs supplied by the United States were used. One attack on the Khadija girls’ school in Deir el-Balah on July 27, 2024, killed at least 15 people, and another attack on the Zeitoun C school in Gaza City on September 21, 2024, left at least 34 dead.
Israeli authorities have not publicly shared information relating to the attacks. Israel has often said that its attacks on schools were targeting Hamas fighters. It has provided no evidence to indicate the presence of military targets at the sites of the attacks documented by the rights group.
In both attacks, HRW and that there was no evidence of a military presence at the schools on the days of the attacks.
The rights group also warned that recent Israeli attacks on schools sheltering displaced people were worsening the dire humanitarian situation in the territory.
HRW said that from July 1-10, 2025, Israeli forces struck at least 10 schools where displaced people were sheltering, killing 59 people and displacing dozens of families, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
The group emphasised that schools used to house civilians remain protected under international law unless used for military purposes.
The rights group called for an immediate halt to arms transfers to Israel, warning of potential complicity by governments providing military support.
“These strikes on schools sheltering displaced families are just one window into the carnage in Gaza,” said Gerry Simpson, associate director at HRW. “Other governments should not tolerate this horrendous slaughter of Palestinian civilians merely seeking safety.”
It also urged states to uphold their obligations under international law, including the Genocide Convention.
“Governments supporting Israel militarily can’t say they didn’t know what their weapons are being used for,” said Simpson.
According to the United Nations, nearly 1 million displaced Palestinians have taken shelter in Gaza’s schools since October 2023.
HRW said the repeated targeting of civilian infrastructure, including shelters, hospitals and schools, showed a pattern of attacks that may amount to war crimes.
HRW noted that nearly all of Gaza’s 564 schools have sustained damage, with 92 percent requiring full reconstruction or major repairs.
The UN has reported that at least 836 people sheltering in schools have been killed.
Au Kam San accused by police of being in contact with an unnamed ‘anti-China organisation abroad’ since 2022.
A leading democrat from Macau has been arrested for collusion with foreign forces to endanger national security, police said, as the semi-autonomous region further tightens its national security laws to align with those of China.
Macau’s police said in a statement on Thursday that Au Kam San had been taken from his residence for investigation on Wednesday.
The former Portuguese colony reverted to Chinese rule in 1999 via a “One Country, Two Systems” framework that promised a high degree of autonomy and rights protections.
Au, 68, is one of Macau’s most prominent democratic campaigners who served for nearly two decades as a lawmaker in the former Portuguese colony. He served in Macau’s legislature for two decades before stepping down in 2021.
The police statement did not give Au’s full name, but local media outlets reported that the man arrested was the campaigner, and Au’s wife arrived at the prosecution’s office on Thursday and was listed as a “witness”, online outlet All About Macau said.
“The resident has allegedly been in contact with an anti-China organisation abroad since 2022, providing the group with large amounts of false and seditious information, for public exhibitions overseas and online,” the police statement added.
The police did not say which foreign entity Au was in contact with, but said he had also sought to incite hatred against Beijing, disrupt a 2024 election for Macau’s leader and “provoke hostile actions by foreign countries against Macau”.
Au and his wife could not be reached for comment.
Through the years, Au had championed democratic reforms and helped foster civil society initiatives in the tiny gambling hub that returned from Portuguese to Chinese rule in 1999 – two years after the nearby former British colony of Hong Kong was handed back to China.
Unlike Hong Kong, which has seen big social movements challenge Chinese Communist Party rule in 2014 and 2019, the democratic opposition in the China-ruled former Portuguese colony has always existed on the fringes amid tight Chinese control.
Through the years, Au had led protests and railed against opaque governance and rising social inequalities, even as gambling revenues exploded in the city, which is home to about 700,000 people.
Au was one of the founders of several pro-democracy groups, including the New Macau Association, and had worked as a schoolteacher.
The arrest comes as authorities in neighbouring Hong Kong continue to crack down on dissent using two sets of powerful national security laws that have been leveraged to jail activists, shutter media outlets and civil society groups.
While Hong Kong’s democrats had actively challenged Beijing’s attempts to ratchet up control of the city since its return to Chinese rule, Macau’s government has faced far less public scrutiny, with authorities able to enact a sweeping set of national security laws as early as 2009.
This law was amended in 2023 to bring Macau in line with similar laws in Hong Kong and China and to bolster the prevention of foreign interference.
While Hong Kong’s democrats had actively challenged Beijing’s attempts to ratchet up control of the city since its return to Chinese rule, Macau’s government has faced far less public scrutiny, with authorities able to enact a sweeping set of national security laws as early as 2009 [File: Bobby Yip/Reuters]
The release of hundreds of thousands of pages related to civil rights leader comes despite his family’s opposition.
The administration of United States President Donald Trump has released more than 230,000 pages of files relating to the 1968 assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
In a statement issued on Monday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called the release “unprecedented” and cited the president’s commitment to “complete transparency”.
Trump signed an executive order after taking office, declassifying documents relating to the assassinations of King, former President John F Kennedy and former Senator Robert F Kennedy.
King’s records had been under a court-imposed seal since 1977, when the FBI first gathered them and turned them over to the National Archives and Records Administration.
The National Archives released records from John F Kennedy’s November 1963 assassination in March and files related to the June 1968 murder of Robert F Kennedy in April.
King was assassinated in April 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee. James Earl Ray was convicted of the murder and died in prison in 1998, but King’s children have expressed doubts that he was the assassin.
His family, including his two living children, Martin III, 67, and Bernice, 62, were given advance notice of the release and had their own teams reviewing the records ahead of the public disclosure. Those efforts continued even as the government unveiled the digital trove.
In a lengthy statement released on Monday, the King children called their father’s assassination a “captivating public curiosity for decades”. But the pair emphasised the personal nature of the matter and urged that “these files must be viewed within their full historical context”.
During his lifetime, the civil rights leader had been the target of an “invasive, predatory, and deeply disturbing disinformation and surveillance campaign” orchestrated by then-FBI director J Edgar Hoover, they said in a joint statement.
The FBI campaign was intended to “discredit, dismantle and destroy Dr. King’s reputation and the broader American Civil Rights Movement,” they said. “These actions were not only invasions of privacy, but intentional assaults on the truth.”
It was not immediately clear on Monday whether the release would shed any new light on King’s life, the civil rights movement or his murder.
Timing of release raises eyebrows
Besides fulfilling the intent of his January executive order, the latest release serves as another alternative headline for Trump as he tries to mollify supporters angry over his administration’s handling of records concerning the sex trafficking investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, who killed himself behind bars while awaiting trial in 2019, during Trump’s first presidency. Trump last Friday ordered the Department of Justice to release the grand jury testimony but stopped short of unsealing the entire case file.
On social media, users accused the administration of releasing King’s files as an attempt to distract from criticisms over its handling of the Epstein files.
This is shameful.
Instead of honoring the Trump administration’s promise to release the Epstein files, DNI Tulsi Gabbard is trying to distract the public by dredging up discredited FBI smears against Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., against his family’s wishes.
Bernice King and Martin Luther King III did not mention Trump in their statement on Monday. As of late Monday afternoon, the administration had not commented on the release.
The King records were initially intended to be sealed until 2027, until Justice Department lawyers in June asked a federal judge to lift the sealing order ahead of its expiration date.
Pam Bondi says the proposed change will give her discretion over who can own firearms, in a move opposed by gun control groups.
Washington, DC – United States Attorney General Pam Bondi has begun a process to make it easier for individuals with criminal convictions to own guns.
The move on Friday comes amid a wider push by the administration of President Donald Trump to make good on campaign promises to gun rights groups, which criticise restrictions on firearm ownership as violations of the Constitution’s Second Amendment. Trump ordered a review of government gun policies in February.
Gun control advocates, meanwhile, have voiced concerns over the administration’s ability to adequately assess which convicted individuals would not pose a public safety risk.
In a statement released on Friday, Bondi said individuals with serious criminal convictions have been “disenfranchised from exercising the right to keep and bear arms — a right every bit as constitutionally enshrined as the right to vote, the right to free speech, and the right to free exercise of religion — irrespective of whether they actually pose a threat”.
“No longer,” she added.
Under the plan, Bondi seeks to return the power to determine which individuals convicted of crimes can own firearms directly to her office.
That exemption process has currently been overseen by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. However, Congress has, for decades, used its spending approval powers to stem the processing of exemption requests.
The Department of Justice said the proposed change “will provide citizens whose firearm rights are currently under legal disability with an avenue to restore those rights, while keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous criminals and illegal aliens”.
The US attorney general would have “ultimate discretion to grant relief”, according to the department.
It added that, “absent extraordinary circumstances”, certain individuals would be “presumptively ineligible” for the restoration of their gun rights. They include “violent felons, registered sex offenders, and illegal aliens”.
The plan was outlined in a “proposed rule” submitted to the Federal Register on Friday. It will undergo a final public comment period before it is adopted.
In Friday’s statement, US Pardon Attorney Edward Martin Jr said that his team was already developing a “landing page with a sophisticated, user-friendly platform for Americans petitioning for the return of their gun rights, which will make the process easier for them”.
When details of Bondi’s plan initially emerged in March, the gun control group Brady was among those who voiced opposition.
“If and when gun rights are restored to an individual, it needs to be through a robust and thoughtful system that minimizes the risk to public safety,” the group’s president, Kris Brown, said in a statement.
She added that Trump’s restoration of gun rights to those who were convicted — and later pardoned — for their role in the storming of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, raised concerns over how the administration would exercise its discretion.
“This would be a unilateral system to give gun rights back to those who are dangerous and high risk, and we will all be at greater risk of gun violence,” she said.
The rights group Cristosal says it has evacuated staff from El Salvador amid pressure from President Nayib Bukele.
The El Salvador human rights and anti-corruption watchdog Cristosal says it has relocated its operations outside the country, as the government of President Nayib Bukele intensifies its crackdown on dissenting voices.
Cristosal said on Thursday that it has suspended work in El Salvador and relocated its staff out of the country, where the group plans to continue its work in exile.
“When it became clear that the government was prepared to persecute us criminally and that there is no possibility of defence or impartial trial, that makes it unviable to take those risks anymore,” Noah Bullock, executive director of Cristosal, told the news agency Reuters, speaking from Guatemala.
The Bukele government has stepped up its targeting of organisations and figures that scrutinise the government’s record on issues such as corruption and security, threatening rights groups and independent media with what critics say are fabricated legal challenges.
Ruth Lopez, a prominent anti-corruption and justice advocate with Cristosal, was arrested on corruption charges in May and remains in detention. Her arrest has been denounced by organisations such as Amnesty International and the United Nations.
Bukele also announced a new law in May requiring non-governmental organisations that receive support from outside the country to register with the government and pay additional taxes.
Cristosal has operated in El Salvador for 25 years and has become a target of ire for Bukele with investigations into government corruption and reports on the human toll of El Salvador’s campaign of mass arrests and suspension of key civil liberties in the name of combating gang activity.
“Under a permanent state of exception and near-total control of all institutions, El Salvador has ceased to be a state of rights,” the group said in a statement on Thursday. “Expressing an opinion or demanding basic rights today can land you in jail.”
The Bukele government declared a “state of exception” in March 2022, granting the government and security forces exceptional powers and suspending key civil liberties. The government’s push has substantially reduced the influence of powerful gangs that had previously smothered life in Salvadoran cities with exploitation and violence.
Those successes have won Bukele widespread popularity, but come at a steep cost: scores of people swept into prisons without charge, held in abysmal conditions and with no means of contesting their detention. Bukele himself has also faced accusations of coordinating behind the scenes with powerful gang leaders.
While the government has boasted that violent crime has fallen to record lows and the gangs have been smashed, it has continuously renewed the exceptional powers under the state of emergency, which dissidents say are being used to target and harass human rights advocates and critics of the government.
In April 2023, the investigative news outlet El Faro also stated that it would relocate its administrative and legal operations outside the country over fears of legal harassment and surveillance, while its reporters would continue to work in El Salvador.
Tensions are palpable in the West African nation of Togo as highly anticipated local government elections are being held following weeks of angry protests calling for leader Faure Gnassingbe to resign.
Although small, Togo commands weight as a developing maritime and transit hub in the region because of an important port in the seaside capital, Lome, which is perched on the edge of the Atlantic. The country serves as a gateway into inland Sahel nations and is also home to a major West African airline, meaning unrest there could reverberate across the region.
Voters heading out to cast their ballots on Thursday, July 17, are expected to elect leaders of the country’s 117 municipalities, amid a heavier-than-usual security presence and shuttered land borders.
At the same time, demonstrators have scheduled protests in the capital, Lome, to intentionally clash with the date of the vote, prompting fears of possible widespread violence.
Led largely by the country’s youth population, antigovernment demonstrations erupted in June after a controversial constitutional change. Protests have been met with brute force from Togolese security forces; at least seven people have died, local rights groups say. The protests are only the latest in the restive country, where more frequent demonstrations in recent years are pressuring the decades-long dynastic government.
Here’s what to know about the current political situation in Togo:
Demonstrators set up a barricade during a protest calling for Faure Gnassingbe’s resignation in Lome, Togo, on Thursday, June 26, 2025 [Erick Kaglan/AP]
Why are Togolese protesting?
Large demonstrations have been held in Lome in recent years, with Togolese calling for Gnassingbe, who has led the country since 2005, to step down.
Between 2017 and 2018, thousands of protesters took to the streets in demonstrations tagged “Faure Must Go” and “Togo stands up”. The uprising rocked the nation of four million and resulted in violent crackdowns from security officials. The government thereafter banned public demonstrations for “security reasons”.
Although officially a democracy, Togo operates in practice as a militarised state, with the army heavily involved in politics. The capital is crawling with stern-faced, armed gendarmes who are often accused of arresting and torturing dissidents.
This year’s bout of protests was triggered after popular rapper and TikToker Tchala Essowe Narcisse, popularly known as Aamron, was arrested for publishing a video where he called for protests to mark the president’s June 6 birthday.
However, anger had been simmering over the high costs of living in the country, and particularly, over new constitutional reforms that opposition leaders and civil society organisations say could see Gnassingbe rule for life. Thursday’s municipal elections will be the first polls held under the new reforms.
First approved in April 2024 by a parliament dominated by the governing Union pour le Republic (UNIR) party, the constitutional amendment swapped the presidential system in the country for a parliamentary one.
Controversially, though, it also introduced a new all-powerful position: President of the Council of Ministers. The role essentially regains all the powers of a president and is without clear official limits. Opposition leaders argued at the time that it would allow Gnassingbe to appoint a dummy president and remain the de facto leader until at least 2030. They called it a “constitutional coup”.
On May 3 this year, Gnassingbe was sworn into the new executive role, as critics predicted. Politician Jean-Lucien Savi de Tove, 86, is now president, and is the oldest in Togo’s history.
In late June, thousands of demonstrators poured into the streets of Lome in anger, calling for Gnassingbe to step down from office after rapper Aamron’s arrest and alleged torture. Protesters set up barricades and hurled stones at security forces, who responded with force, firing tear gas canisters into the crowd, according to reporting by the Reuters news agency.
Le Front Citoyen Togo Debout, a coalition of 12 civil society and human rights groups, accused security officials of arbitrarily arresting civilians, beating them with batons and ropes, and stealing and destroying private property.
At least seven people were discovered dead in the aftermath of the protests, according to the coalition, including two minors. Their bodies were discovered days after the demonstrations in various lagoons and lakes around Lome.
Meanwhile, a Togolese government statement said the deaths were caused by drowning and cautioned residents living near water bodies to be extra careful in the current rainy season.
The ‘Don’t Touch My Constitution’ movement demanded an international investigation into the claims, while Togo’s Catholic Bishops said the levels of violence were “unacceptable and unjustified”.
Togo’s Faure Gnassingbe at a session during the United Nations climate change conference COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan, November 13, 2024 [File: Maxim Shemetov/Reuters]
Who is Faure Gnassingbe?
Just days after his father died in 2005, Faure Essozimna Gnassingbe was hurriedly installed as the country’s president by the army, extending decades of his family’s rule over Togo.
Despite outrage in the country, which led to widespread protests in which at least 500 people were killed, the younger Gnassingbe did not relinquish power and went on to organise and win elections that year, which many critics called a ruse.
His father, the late Gnassingbe Eyadema, seized power in a military coup and ruled the country with a tight fist for 38 years (1967-2005), making him the longest-serving African ruler at the time he died. His “rule of terror” was characterised by a one-party system and deadly repression of dissent, according to Amnesty International. The younger Gnassingbe, while having fostered multi-party rule and infrastructural development in the country, appears to be angling for his father’s record, critics say.
Combined, the father-son duo has commandeered Togo for 58 years. With 60 percent of the population under 35, most Togolese have never experienced life under a different political administration.
Gnassingbe has won every election since 2005. In 2019, in an attempt to circumvent demonstrations calling for his resignation, parliament ushered in constitutional amendments that, the government argued, automatically reset Gnassingbe’s terms. That allowed him to run for the 2020 and 2025 presidential elections.
At first glance, the latest reforms from 2024 appear to acquiesce to what some critics have been demanding: A weakened president elected by the parliament for a single six-year term, rather than an all-powerful leader.
However, what most did not see coming was that Gnassingbe would be appointed to a more powerful position.
A picture of Jacques Koami Koutoglo, a 15-year-old who died in recent mass protests in Lome, Togo [Erick Kaglan/AP]
Are protesters being targeted? And what is the M66 Movement?
As tensions simmer, demonstrators and civil society accuse Togolese officials of targeting protest leaders, many of whom are living in exile in neighbouring countries, as well as France and the United States.
Last week, the government issued international arrest warrants targeting those believed to be leading organisers, especially members of the M66 Citizens’ Movement – a political collective of bloggers and activists, named after Gnassingbe’s June 6 birthday date. Officials say the group is “inciting unrest and terrorism” in the country.
“The countries where these individuals reside are urged to cooperate,” Security Minister Calixte Madjoulba said at a news briefing. “Wherever they are, we will pursue them.”
M66 members called for renewed protests on July 16 and 17 in a bid to boycott the municipal elections, which form part of a wider push by the government to devolve power at the centre and attempt to improve local governance. Local elections were not held between 1986 and 2020, as the government kept postponing them. Instead, the central authorities designated special administrators who critics say served the government’s interests.
Some opposition leaders have also called for boycotts, although Jean-Pierre Fabre, leader of the main opposition National Alliance for Change, told reporters this week that taking part in the vote was necessary to show Togolese what’s possible.
“The elections will not change anything in this country and we know it very well,” Zaga Bambo, a France-based music artist who claims to be a member of the group, said in a Facebook post. Bambo also dismissed the arrest warrants, telling French media channel RFI that he was unfazed by it.
Activist Farida Nabourema echoed calls for boycotts on social media platform X. “You participate, you lose, you cry out, then you fall silent. And every five years, you start over,” she wrote.
The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on Tuesday that it was scrapping a policy requiring people to take off their shoes while passing through airport screenings.
The policy, long a source of ire for travellers, had its roots in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, when authorities sought to bolster security around air travel through a host of measures.
Many more rules have been added in the time since, some criticised as arbitrary and needlessly intrusive, and have been supplemented by the integration of measures such as facial scanning technology at airports across the country.
What’s behind the change, what rules remain, and could other policies change next?
STARS, STRIPES, AND SHOES ON! 🇺🇸👟
Under the leadership of @Sec_Noem, DHS is announcing a new policy today which will allow passengers traveling through domestic airports to keep their shoes on through security screening at TSA checkpoints.
The “shoes off” policy was first implemented by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in 2006 and required travellers to remove their shoes as they advanced through airport security screenings to check them for possible explosives.
Those enrolled in TSA PreCheck, a programme in which people who pass a basic security check are allowed to bypass certain airport security measures, had already been allowed to pass through screenings with their shoes on.
Why was it implemented?
The policy was the result of a failed December 2001 attack by a British man named Richard Reid, who packed explosives into his shoes and tried to detonate them during a flight from Paris to Miami.
The incident, like many attempted attacks carried out in the post-9/11 period, was highly amateur: Reid, a petty criminal who became an Islamic fundamentalist, was foiled after an airline worker noticed that he was trying to light his shoe on fire with a match.
But the failed attack played into fears that were prominent during the post-9/11 era. And, when it came to safety, why take a chance?
“TSA can’t just rely on the next attack being as incompetent as this one was,” Jay Stanley, a privacy advocate and senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told Al Jazeera.
The agency asked people, on a voluntary basis, to consider removing their shoes while passing through screening so they could be checked for explosives. TSA later made the policy mandatory in August 2006.
An FBI agent, left, sits next to a suspect identified by authorities as Richard Reid, right, as he is transported in a car from State Police barracks at Logan International Airport in Boston on Saturday, December 22, 2001 [Elise Amendola/AP Photo]
Why was the policy scrapped?
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement on Tuesday that eliminating the policy would remove a source of strain on travellers and reduce TSA wait times at airports, and was no longer necessary due to technological innovations.
“We expect this change will drastically decrease passenger wait times at our TSA checkpoints, leading to a more pleasant and efficient passenger experience,” she said.
The change was effective immediately.
What other policies remain in place, and could they change?
While the “no shoes” policy is gone, travellers expecting an easy, stress-free trip to the airport should temper their expectations as many other security measures remain in place.
Passengers will, for example, still have to remove their belts, coats, laptops, and certain items from their bags while passing through security. Rules limiting gels and liquids in carry-on items to 3.4 ounces (100 ml) still apply, and checked bags must also be subjected to X-ray screenings.
Canines used for detecting bombs and drugs are still frequently used, and full-body scanners were brought to airports after another failed attack in December 2009, in which a man tried to detonate explosives smuggled onto a plane in his underwear.
Noem has suggested that DHS is reviewing some rules, but did not offer further details.
Are those measures effective or just security theatre?
Travellers have long fumed about an ever-growing list of measures that can seem arbitrary and do not always have a clear utility.
While the government argues that the increases in airport security reflect efforts to patch up vulnerabilities exposed by the 9/11 hijackers and subsequent failed attacks, some experts say that certain measures provide the impression of security more than provable benefits.
“People are hesitant to push back against new rules because nobody wants to be seen as responsible if there’s another attack,” said Stanley.
“Security theatre has always been a part of this, where you make a big show of security in order to give people the impression of greater safety.”
A TSA security checkpoint in Pittsburgh International’s Landside terminal in Imperial, Pennsylvania, US on June 9, 2019 [Gene J Puskar/AP Photo]
But enforcing so many rules can be difficult for agency workers themselves, who have the industrial-scale task of screening around two million travellers per day.
A 2015 report from the agency’s inspector general found that TSA officers had failed to detect weapons, explosives and other prohibited items brought through security by undercover agents to test the effectiveness of the system in 95 percent of cases.
Despite such concerns, TSA has continued to grow in size and scope each year. The agency has a workforce of nearly 63,000 people and a budget that is set to reach more than $11bn in 2025. In 2006, when “shoes off” was first implemented, it was around $6bn.
What new technologies are being used in airport security?
In her statement, Noem said that one of the reasons that the “shoes off” policy could be safely discarded is that “cutting-edge technological advancements” have rendered it unnecessary.
One that travellers may have noticed is the greater use of facial recognition technology, a development some privacy advocates have viewed with concern.
What are the privacy concerns?
Petra Molnar, a lawyer and author of the book, The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, told Al Jazeera that in an era of heightening restrictions on movement, airports have become testing grounds for new technologies, with civil liberties a largely secondary concern.
“With increasingly more digital technologies used at borders, airports have become epicentres of surveillance tech, with facial recognition and biometric technologies augmenting to physical surveillance practices,” said Molnar.
“Airports and borders are often one of the first places where new surveillance technologies are tested out, often with little regulation and oversight. Airports are the true testing grounds where unregulated technology experiments can run unchecked.”
While the decision to scrap the “shoes off” policy is a rare example of airport security measures being dialed back in the name of efficiency and convenience, it also comes at a time when those traveling or returning to the US are increasingly wary of being pulled aside and questioned about their political views on topics such as Israel’s war in Gaza.
The administration of President Donald Trump recently warned, for example, that international students entering the US must make their social media profiles available for inspection by authorities.
“The goal of security measures should be to ensure that nobody can get through this security process if they pose a threat,” said Stanley. “The problems start when the government tries to categorise people by traits they believe could make them a risk, and to do that, you need to go into people’s lives and find out more about them.”
Human Rights Watch says Asmara’s move was an effort to distract from independent reporting on the ‘country’s dire rights record’.
The United Nations Human Rights Council has rejected Eritrea’s attempt to shut down an independent investigation into alleged rights abuses, in a move hailed as vital to preventing impunity.
Eritrea’s rare bid to scrap the mandate of the UN special rapporteur on its human rights record was defeated on Friday, with only four votes in favour, 25 against, and 18 abstentions.
The move by Eritrea surprised some observers and marked one of the few times a state under active investigation tried to end such scrutiny through a formal vote.
Human Rights Watch welcomed the outcome, calling it “an important message that the international community is not fooled by Eritrea’s efforts to distract from, and discredit, independent human rights reporting on the country’s dire rights record.”
Eritrea’s motion argued that alleged rights violations were not systemic and blamed “capacity constraints” common to other developing nations. But European states responded with a counter-resolution to extend the mandate for another year, which passed with ease.
In his latest report in June, Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker, the UN-appointed special rapporteur and a Sudanese human rights lawyer, said Eritrea had shown “no meaningful progress” on accountability.
He referenced the 2016 UN inquiry that found “systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations … committed in Eritrea under the authority of the Government … may constitute crimes against humanity.”
In the 2016 report, the UN’s Commission of Inquiry (COI) for Eritrea said the government of President Isaias Afwerki had committed heinous crimes since independence a quarter-century ago, including the “enslavement” of 400,000 people.
Many of those abuses are allegedly linked to a harsh national service programme in the secretive Horn of Africa state, which for many is almost impossible to escape and which the COI compared to lifetime enslavement.
Ending investigation would enable ‘impunity’
DefendDefenders, a pan-African human rights organisation, said Babiker’s role remained vital for victims and the wider Eritrean diaspora.
“The expert plays an indispensable role, not only for the victims and survivors of Eritrea’s abuses, but also for the Eritrean diaspora,” the group said in a statement.
The EU warned that terminating the mandate would enable “impunity and repression to deepen in silence.”
Eritrea’s representative, Habtom Zerai Ghirmai, lashed out at the decision, accusing the EU of displaying a “neo-colonial saviour mentality complex”.
He added, “The continued extension of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate is an affront to reason and justice.”
Iran, Sudan and Russia – all under their own UN investigations – supported Eritrea’s motion. China also backed the move, arguing that such mandates were a misuse of international resources.
A federal task force threatens to cut all of Harvard’s federal funding over alleged violations of the rights of Jewish and Israeli students.
US President Donald Trump’s administration has accused Harvard University of violating the civil rights of its Jewish and Israeli students and threatened to cut off all federal funding to the institution.
The announcement on Monday is the latest action by the Trump administration against the United States’s oldest university after the institution rejected earlier demands to alter its operations.
In a letter sent to Harvard president Alan Garber, a federal task force said its investigation has concluded that “Harvard has been in some cases deliberately indifferent, and in others has been a willful participant in anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students, faculty, and staff”.
The letter went on to say that the majority of Jewish students at Harvard felt they suffered discrimination on campus, while a quarter felt physically unsafe.
It also threatened further funding acts if Harvard did not change course.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” it said, without elaborating what the reforms needed were.
In a statement, Harvard pushed back against the allegations.
The university said that it had taken “substantive, proactive steps” to combat anti-Semitism on campus, and had made “significant strides to combat bigotry, hate and bias”.
“We are not alone in confronting this challenge and recognise that this work is ongoing,” it said, adding that it remains “committed to ensuring members of our Jewish and Israeli community are embraced, respected, and can thrive at Harvard”.
At a White House briefing later, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said discussions between the Trump administration and Harvard were taking place “behind closed doors”, but offered no further details.
Protests against Israel’s war on Gaza
US universities have faced controversy over alleged anti-Semitism on their campuses since the eruption last year of nationwide student protests against Israel’s war on Gaza.
Trump has called such protests “illegal” and accused participants of anti-Semitism. But protest leaders – who include Jewish students – have described their actions as a peaceful response to Israel’s actions, which have elicited concerns about human rights abuses, including genocide.
The Trump administration has frozen some $2.5bn in federal grant money to Harvard, moved to block it from enrolling international students and threatened to remove its tax-exempt status.
It has demanded that Harvard end all affirmative action in faculty hiring and student admissions and disband student groups that promote what it calls criminal activity and harassment.
It also called for changes to the admissions process “to prevent admitting international students hostile to the American values”, including “students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism”.
Harvard has rejected those demands, and sued the administration, calling its actions “retaliatory” and “unlawful”.
The Trump administration has also gone after top colleges, including Columbia, Cornell and Northwestern.
In early March, Columbia – whose protest camps were copied by students at colleges all over the country – had $400m in federal funding cut from its budget.
The school later agreed to a list of demands from the Trump administration. These included changing its disciplinary rules and reviewing its Middle East studies programme.
Separately, University of Virginia president James Ryan said last week he chose to step down rather than fight the US government as the Trump administration investigated the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
Around the same time, the Trump administration also launched a probe into hiring practices at the University of California system – which enrols nearly 300,000 students – to determine whether they violate federal anti-discrimination laws.
The universities have, meanwhile, said that the Trump administration’s actions threaten academic freedom and free speech, as well as critical scientific research.
The 80-year-old leader pledges economic growth from today’s GDP of $66bn to $500bn within the next five years.
Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has confirmed he will contest next year’s presidential election, setting the stage for a potential extension of his nearly 40-year rule.
The 80-year-old announced late on Saturday that he had expressed his interest “in running for … the position of presidential flag bearer” for his National Resistance Movement (NRM) party.
Museveni seized power in 1986 after a five-year civil war and has ruled ever since.
The NRM has altered the constitution twice to remove term and age limits, clearing the way for Museveni to extend his tenure.
Rights groups accused him of using security forces and state patronage to suppress dissent and entrench his power – claims he denies.
Museveni said he seeks re-election to transform Uganda into a “$500bn economy in the next five years”. According to government data, the country’s current gross domestic product stands at just under $66bn.
Ugandans are due to vote in January to choose a president and members of parliament.
Challenger
Opposition leader Bobi Wine, a pop star-turned-politician whose real name is Robert Kyagulanyi, has confirmed he will run again. Wine rejected the 2021 results, alleging widespread fraud, ballot tampering and intimidation by security forces.
Ugandan opposition leader Robert Kyagulanyi, also known as Bobi Wine [File: Sumy Sadurni/AFP]
Tensions have risen in recent months after parliament passed a law allowing military courts to try civilians, a practice the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in January.
The government insisted the change is necessary to tackle threats to national security, but rights organisations and opposition figures argued it is a tool to intimidate and silence critics.
Uganda for years has used military courts to prosecute opposition politicians and government critics.
In 2018, Wine was charged in a military court with illegal possession of firearms. The charges were later dropped.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has criticised Uganda’s military courts for failing to meet international standards of judicial independence and fairness.
Oryem Nyeko, senior Africa researcher at HRW, said this year: “The Ugandan authorities have for years misused military courts to crack down on opponents and critics.”
Violence begets violence, so many religions say. Americans should know. After all, the United States – a nation founded on Indigenous genocide, African enslavement and open rebellion against an imperial power to protect its wealthiest citizens – cannot help but be violent. What’s more, violence in the US is political, and the violence the country has carried out overseas over the generations has always been connected to its imperialist ambitions and racism. From the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites on June 21 to the everyday violence in rhetoric and reality within the US, the likes of President Donald Trump continue to stoke the violent impulses of a violence‑prone nation.
The US news cycle serves as continual confirmation. In June alone, there have been several high‑profile shootings and murders. On June 14, Vance Boelter, a white male vigilante, shot and killed former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, after critically wounding State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. That same day, at a No Kings mass protest in Salt Lake City, Utah, peacekeepers with the 50501 Movement accidentally shot and killed Samoan fashion designer Arthur Folasa Ah Loo while attempting to take down Arturo Gamboa, who was allegedly armed with an AR‑15.
On June 1, the start of Pride Month, Sigfredo Ceja Alvarez allegedly shot and murdered gay Indigenous actor Jonathan Joss in San Antonio, Texas. On June 12, Secret Service agents forcibly detained and handcuffed US Senator Alex Padilla during Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s news conference in Los Angeles.
Mass shootings, white vigilante violence, police brutality, and domestic terrorism are all normal occurrences in the United States – and all are political. Yet US leaders still react with hollow platitudes that reveal an elitist and narcissistic detachment from the nation’s violent history. “Such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America. God bless the great people of Minnesota…” said Governor Tim Walz after Boelter’s June 14 shootings. On X, Republican Representative Derrick Van Orden wrote: “Political violence has no place in America. I fully condemn this attack…”
Despite these weak condemnations, the US often tolerates – and sometimes celebrates – political violence. Van Orden also tweeted, “With one horrible governor that appoints political assassins to boards. Good job, stupid,” in response to Walz’s message. Senator Mike Lee referred to the incident as “Nightmare on Waltz Street” before deleting the post.
Political violence in the US is commonplace. President Trump has long fostered it – such as during a presidential debate in Philadelphia, when he falsely claimed Haitian immigrants “eat their neighbours’ pets”. This led to weeks of threats against the roughly 15,000 Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. On June 9, Trump posted on Truth Social: “IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT… harder than they have ever been hit before.”
That led to a federally-sanctioned wave of violence against protesters in Los Angeles attempting to end Trump’s immigration crackdowns, including Trump’s takeover and deployment of California’s National Guard in the nation’s second-largest city.
But it’s not just that Trump may have a lust for political violence and is stoking such violence. The US has always been a powder keg for violence, a nation-state that cannot help itself.
Political violence against elected officials in the US is too extensive to list fully. Assassins murdered Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James A Garfield, William McKinley, and John F Kennedy. In 1804, Vice‑President Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Populist candidate Huey Long was assassinated in 1935; Robert F Kennedy in 1968; Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was wounded in 2011.
Many assassins and vigilantes have targeted those fighting for social justice: Dr Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Elijah Parish Lovejoy, Marsha P. Johnson, and civil‑rights activists like Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, Viola Liuzzo, and Fred Hampton. Jonathan Joss and Arthur Folasa Ah Loo are more recent examples of marginalised people struck down in a white‑supremacist society.
The most chilling truth of all is that, because of the violent nature of the US, there is no end in sight – domestically or overseas. The recent US bomb mission over Iran is merely the latest unprovoked preemptive attack the superpower has conducted on another nation. Trump’s unilateral use of military force was done, presumably, in support of Israel’s attacks on Iran, allegedly because of the threat Iran poses if it ever arms itself with nuclear weapons. But these are mere excuses that could also be violations of international law.
It wouldn’t be the first time the US has sought to start a war based on questionable intelligence or reasons, however. The most recent example, of course, is the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a part of George W Bush’s “preemptive war” doctrine, attacking Iraq because they supposedly had a stockpile of WMDs that they could use against the US in the future. There was never any evidence of any stockpile of chemical or biological weapons. As many as 2.4 million Iraqis have died from the resulting violence, statelessness, and civil war that the initial 2003 US invasion created. It has not gone unnoticed that the US mostly bombs and invades nation-states with majority people of colour and non-Christian populations.
Malcolm X said it best, a week after Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F Kennedy in 1963: “Being an old farm boy myself, chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad; they’ve always made me glad.” Given that Americans consume nine billion chickens a year, that is a huge amount of retribution to consider for the nation’s history of violence. Short of repealing the Second Amendment’s right-to-bear-guns clause in the US Constitution and a real commitment towards eliminating the threat of white male supremacist terrorism, this violence will continue unabated, with repercussions that will include terrorism and revenge, domestically and internationally. A country with a history of violence, elitism, and narcissism like the US – and an individual like Trump – cannot divorce themselves from their own violent DNA, a violence that could one day consume this nation-state.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
Despite a heavy downpour and slippery roads, supporters of presidential candidate Tidjane Thiam poured into Abidjan’s streets in the thousands on Saturday to march on the offices of the Ivory Coast electoral commission.
Decked in the white and green colours of Thiam’s main opposition Democratic Party of Ivory Coast (PDCI), the demonstrators chanted his nickname – “Thithi president!” – in a show of support for a candidate now officially barred from the vote. Placards reading “There’s no Plan B!” flew high amid protest songs.
“We strongly denounce the arbitrary and unjustified removal of President Thiam, as well as other major opposition leaders,” PDCI’s executive secretary, Sylvestre Emmou, one of few people allowed through a large police barricade to submit a complaint to the commission, told his soaked compatriots. “This is unacceptable and dangerous for peace and democracy in our country,” he said.
The protests highlight rising tensions in West Africa’s second-biggest economy, ahead of the October general elections that many fear could lead to violence in a country with still-fresh memories of the 2011 election-related civil war.
At stake is Ivory Coast’s continued stability amid a regional security crisis, but a likely fourth-term bid by incumbent President Alassane Ouattara has concerned many voters and political rivals, alongside what critics say is the government’s targeted ban on opponents.
Ouattara’s strongest challenger, Thiam, was struck from a final list of candidates on June 4 after the electoral commission said he was ineligible to run because he’d automatically lost Ivorian citizenship when he took French citizenship in the 1980s.
Although Thiam gave up his French nationality to regain his Ivorian one in February, a court ruled in May that he was not technically Ivorian when he enrolled in the electoral register in 2022.
Thiam’s supporters accuse Ouattara, who has led since 2011, of clearing the way for a fourth term. The last elections in 2020 were boycotted by the opposition, which argued Ouattara had reached his term limits, handing him an easy victory. In the 2015 elections, Ouattara was a clear favourite.
Former President Laurent Gbagbo and his old right-hand man Charles Ble Goude have been struck off too for convictions related to the 2011 civil war. Ex-Prime Minister Guillaume Soro, who was convicted of fraud, was also removed.
Ouattara will suffer illegitimacy if he runs without those four, Sylvain N’Guessan, a politics professor at the University of Bondoukou, told Al Jazeera.
“He will be seen as a candidate who had to exclude all other serious candidates to impose himself. What relationship will such a president have with the other parties, with the voters?” he said.
Pedestrians walk past an image of Ivorian businessman and presidential hopeful Tidjane Thiam in Abidjan on April 16, 2025 [Issouf Sanogo/AFP]
A ‘new face’ in turbulent politics
Many Ivorians, particularly young voters, view businessman Thiam as a breath of fresh air and a departure from the divisive establishment politics that have seen power concentrated in the hands of a few.
At 62, he is two decades younger than Ouattara and is related to Felix Houphouet-Boigny, the first Ivorian prime minister. Thiam was the first Ivorian student to land a place at Paris’s prestigious Ecole Polytechnique in 1982, from where he was launched to top-flight firms like consulting giant McKinsey. In 1994, he returned home to take up a ministerial position that saw him launch several infrastructure projects. A military coup in 1999, however, cut short that career.
In 2015, he became the first African head of Swiss bank Credit Suisse but stepped down in 2019 after an espionage scandal: a colleague accused Thiam of spying on him, although a court later cleared him of wrongdoing. In 2022, Thiam returned to the Ivory Coast and the once-ruling PDCI party.
Thiam’s party promises a return to the economic development that flourished under Houphouet-Boigny, who is credited with the “Ivorian Miracle” or the rapid development that came after colonial rule.
Thiam has also promised to include everyone, regardless of ethnicity or religion.
“He presents as a new leader, a new face who could lead Cote d’Ivoire differently,” N’Guessan said, adding that young Ivorians were tired of faces like Ouattara’s and Gbagbo’s, who are associated with turbulent politics.
Critics say his international career means he’s out of touch locally, but Thiam claims he is nonetheless well-loved. In an interview with the BBC in April, he accused the government of specifically targeting him with a colonial-era law he said was rarely used. Thiam pointed to Ivorian-French footballers who hold dual nationalities and play for French clubs and the Ivorian national team.
“I don’t think anyone in Cote d’Ivoire believes that this is not a case of the government exploiting the legal system,” he said, referring to his removal based on nationality. “This government has been in power for 15 years. Does it deserve five more? For me, that’s what should be at the centre of the presidential campaign, not my passport,” Thiam said at the time.
Al Jazeera reached out to the Ivorian government for comment but did not hear back by the time of publication.
Supporters of Alassane Ouattara take part in a campaign meeting ahead of the 2020 presidential election in Abidjan [Sia Kambou/AFP]
Away from identity politics
A day after Thiam’s supporters gathered in Abidjan, Ouattara’s ruling Rally of Houphouetists for Democracy and Peace (RHDP) members also rallied in Yopougon, the most populous suburb of Abidjan.
Banners reading “In Yopougon, our champion is ADO”, a reference to the president’s nickname, were stretched across a stage where senior party members extolled Ouattara. The gathering set the stage for the party’s grand congress on June 21-22, where Ouattara is expected to officially announce his candidacy.
“There is only one road – the road of President Alassane Ouattara,” former prime minister Patrick Achi declared to the gathered crowd.
Ouattara, 83, is rumoured to be half-Burkinabe. He was the target of inflammatory identity politics for years, with his rivals questioning his “Ivoirite” and enforcing laws that disqualified him from running. When he finally won elections in 2011, Gbagbo refused to hand over power, resulting in a civil war that killed some 3,000 people.
Ouattara has since amended the Ivorian constitution to allow presidential candidates with at least one Ivorian parent in a 2016 referendum. He has nurtured the country back from the brink into a flourishing economy, evident in the 7 percent average yearly growth recorded in the past decade.
Then in 2020, Outtara ran in and won elections. Critics and boycotting opposition said his third-term bid was unconstitutional while Outtara argued his mandate was reset by the new constitution. Violence was reported in some areas.
N’Guessan said Ivorians don’t have the appetite for the immense suffering of 2011, and warned that reviving identity politics by preventing Thiam from running once again is “dangerous”.
“We should learn the lessons to address the issue of nationality with a little more perspective,” he said. “The same words produce the same effects, the same evils.”
The prominent legal organisation has called the US president’s executive orders against law firms unconstitutional.
The American Bar Association (ABA) has sued the administration of US President Donald Trump, seeking an order that would prevent the White House from pursuing what it called a campaign of intimidation against major law firms.
The lawsuit, filed on Monday in a federal court in Washington, DC, alleged that the administration violated the United States Constitution by issuing a series of executive orders targeting law firms over their past clients and employees.
According to the complaint, those executive orders were used to “to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the President does not like”.
Dozens of executive agencies and US officials are named in the suit, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Kash Patel and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
In a statement, the ABA — the country’s largest voluntary association for lawyers — called Trump’s attacks on law firms “uniquely destructive”.
“Without skilled lawyers to bring and argue cases, the judiciary cannot function as a meaningful check on the executive branch,” the association wrote.
Four law firms have separately sued the administration over President Trump’s orders, which stripped their lawyers of security clearances and restricted their access to government officials and federal contracting work.
Four different judges in Washington have sided with the firms and temporarily or permanently barred Trump’s orders against them. One of the firms that sued and won a preliminary victory, Susman Godfrey, is representing the ABA in Monday’s lawsuit.
White House spokesperson Harrison Fields responded to Monday’s lawsuit with a statement calling it “clearly frivolous”.
He added that the ABA has no power over the president’s discretion to award government contracts and security clearances to law firms.
“The Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on this issue,” Fields said.
Despite Trump’s court losses, nine law firms have struck deals with the president, pledging to offer nearly $1bn in free legal services to stave off similar executive orders.
Monday’s lawsuit escalates a clash between the ABA and the Trump administration, which has cut some government funding to the group and has moved to restrict its role in vetting federal judicial nominees.
In March, Bondi — the chief law enforcement officer in the US — warned the group that it could lose its role in accrediting law schools unless it cancels a requirement related to student diversity.
Hundreds of people have joined protests over the death in police custody of political blogger Albert Ojwang.
A Kenyan police officer has been arrested in connection with the death of Albert Ojwang, a political blogger who died in police custody, in a case that has reignited anger over police abuse and triggered street protests in Nairobi.
Police spokesperson Michael Muchiri said on Friday that a constable had been taken into custody, the AFP news agency reported.
He did not give further information, referring queries to the Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA), which is leading the investigation. There was no immediate comment from the IPOA.
Ojwang, 31, was declared dead on Sunday, two days after his arrest in the town of Homa Bay in western Kenya for allegedly criticising the country’s deputy police chief Eliud Lagat.
The police initially claimed Ojwang fatally injured himself by banging his head against a cell wall, but an autopsy revealed injuries that pathologists said were “unlikely to be self-inflicted”.
The government’s own pathologist found signs of blunt force trauma, neck compression and soft tissue injuries, suggesting an assault. Independent pathologist Bernard Midia, who assisted with the post-mortem, also ruled out suicide.
Amid growing pressure, President William Ruto on Wednesday said Ojwang had died “at the hands of the police”, reversing earlier official accounts of his death.
The incident has added fuel to longstanding allegations of police brutality and extrajudicial killings in Kenya, particularly following last year’s antigovernment demonstrations. Rights groups say dozens were unlawfully detained after the protests, with some still unaccounted for.
Earlier this week, five officers were suspended to allow for what the police described as a “transparent” inquiry.
On Thursday, protesters flooded the streets of the capital, waving Kenyan flags and chanting “Lagat must go”, demanding the resignation of the senior police official Ojwang had criticised.
Ruto on Friday pledged swift action and said that his administration would “protect citizens from rogue police officers”. While Ruto has repeatedly promised to end enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, human rights groups accuse his government of shielding security agencies from accountability.
According to IPOA, 20 people have died in police custody in just the past four months. The death of Ojwang, a vocal online critic, has become a symbol of growing public frustration with unchecked police power.
International pressure is mounting, with both the United States and European Union calling for a transparent and independent investigation into Ojwang’s death.
