Corruption

Ahmed al-Jubouri and a close associate were arrested on charges of misusing contract funds in Saladin province.

The former governor of Iraq’s Saladin province, Ahmed al-Jubouri, also known as Abu Mazen, has been arrested on corruption charges, Iraqi media say.

Al-Jubouri was arrested in Baghdad on Saturday after allegedly embezzling funds from Saladin province contracts, a senior government source told the Iraqi News Agency said. The news was widely confirmed by other Iraqi media.

The politician served as governor of Saladin from 2013 to 2014, followed by a tenure as minister of state for provincial affairs between 2014 and 2015. He is currently secretary general of the National Masses Party, which holds three seats in Iraq’s parliament and is part of the ruling coalition.

Businessman Mohammed al-Hajaf, who has been described as al-Jubouri’s close associate, was arrested in Saladin province under the same charges.

The source did not reveal the amount of money that had been taken. Al-Jubouri and al-Hajaf have not publicly commented on the allegations.

The National Masses Party posted a photo of al-Jubouri on Facebook, captioned: “You can take pride in what you have done for sick and poor people.”

Both arrests come days after the State Administration Coalition, which consists of parties that form and support the government, reaffirmed the need to continue the anti-graft campaign and to support the prime minister’s efforts.

Earlier this year, new Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi assumed office amid growing United States pressure on Baghdad to tackle corruption and disarm Iran-backed armed groups that have targeted US facilities in Iraq.

Security forces arrested 47 prominent Iraqi politicians, lawmakers and officials in June, leading to the seizure of tens of millions of dollars and bringing renewed attention to the decades-long issue of corruption.

Al-Jubouri was previously arrested in November 2019 after his parliamentary immunity was revoked over alleged criminal activity related to the construction of student dormitories at Tikrit University. According to local media, he was later released on bail.

Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo reports from Buenos Aires, where police fired tear gas as thousands protested against a private property bill. Opponents fear it will lead to foreigners owning too much land, while the Milei government says the law would attract investment.

FIFA’s Gianni Infantino has scrapped his controversial plan to sell a stake in the World Cup to private investors after global outrage. The FIFA president is up for re-election next year, so why is no one running against him? Soraya Lennie unpacks the details.

In 2011, the Philippines’ government promised to deliver one of the world’s most ambitious regreening projects.

The idea was simple: pay locals to restore forests and cultivate barren land by planting and tending millions of trees.

But 15 years on, a joint investigation by 101 East and Lighthouse Reports reveals how the National Greening Program has failed to meet most of its targets.

Satellite imagery shows that instead of being protected, some forests are being destroyed, while some Indigenous communities fear losing the land their livelihoods depend on.

101 East investigates how the Philippines is failing its forests.

CREDITS

For Al Jazeera

Natashya Gutierrez, reporter

Lee Ali, cinematographer

Badrul Hisham, picture editor

Susan Kim, digital producer

Nicole Revita, local producer

David Boyle, graphics

Liz Gooch, senior producer

Nick Olle, supervising producer

Sharon Roobol, executive producer

For Davao Today

Lucelle Bonzo, reporter/local producer

For Lighthouse Reports

Min Lawi Lun, lead data investigator

Eva Constantaras, data editor

Margot Gibbs, lead supply chain investigator

Viktoriia Maksymova, data fellow

Paul Nicholas Soriano, project manager

The former president and his wife were sentenced to 15 years last year after being convicted of money laundering.

Former Peruvian President Ollanta Humala has been released from prison after the country’s Constitutional Court overturned his 15-year prison sentence for a case linked to a globe-spanning corruption scandal involving Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht.

Humala was serving his sentence at a special detention facility in eastern Lima that houses several of Peru’s jailed former leaders. The 64-year-old and his wife, Nadine Heredia, were found guilty last year of money laundering for receiving illegal contributions from Odebrecht, now known as Novonor, and the Venezuelan government in two presidential campaigns.

Heredia subsequently received asylum in Brazil.

“It has been decided to declare the entire criminal proceedings against Ollanta Moises Humala Tasso null and void,” read the Constitutional Court ruling dated July 15 and published on Thursday.

Humala, a former army officer who led the country from 2011 to 2016, was the first Peruvian ex-leader to face trial in the Odebrecht corruption scandal, which has also tainted three other former presidents.

He had filed a habeas corpus petition – a legal request asking the court to examine whether he had been unlawfully imprisoned – which the Constitutional Court declared to be “well-founded” because it found that he had been convicted for conduct that was not legally defined as money laundering when the campaign contributions were received.

The former president’s lawyer, Wilfredo Pedraza, said that his side has received the judgement “with considerable satisfaction”.

In 2016, Odebrecht agreed to pay $3.5bn in penalties after having spent $788m in bribes to foreign leaders and government officials in order to win infrastructure projects across Latin America.

Odebrecht admitted to having paid at least $29m in bribes to Peruvian officials between 2005 and 2014.

Eight years ago, during a campaign for Texas attorney general, Justin Nelson ran television advertisements with security camera footage of Ken Paxton pocketing an expensive pen that didn’t belong to him.

Four years ago, George P. Bush went after Paxton by putting up billboards that said “he’s a crook” next to his mugshot from when he was charged with securities fraud.

And this year, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn said “judgment day is coming” as he tried to fend off a Republican primary challenge from Paxton.

All of them lost. Now the question is whether James Talarico, who topped Rep. Jasmine Crockett in an expensive and fiercely contested Democratic primary, will have any more luck as he faces off against Paxton in one of the country’s most closely watched U.S. Senate races.

“The guy’s ability to take shots and just keep moving on and stay in elected office is unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my career, in 25 years of running campaigns,” said Ash Wright, who worked as a senior adviser to Bush.

Paxton never has been convicted and he’s survived by championing conservative legal battles over immigration, abortion and transgender issues in a Republican-dominated state. Much like President Trump, he’s long portrayed himself as the victim of political persecution.

Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico speaks at a rally in Houston in May.

(Danielle Villasana / Getty Images)

Former Paxton challengers and a half-dozen campaign strategists who worked against him warned that Texans may tune out any attempt to revive scandals that they’ve heard about for years, especially when rigid partisanship has convinced voters to be extraordinarily forgiving of candidates’ trespasses.

However, Talarico’s team has studied the previous races and is attempting its own version of the playbook by trying to paint Paxton as part of a broader culture of corruption that has failed to improve people’s lives.

Paxton’s campaign suggested Talarico’s claims were aimed at distracting voters from a record of “out-of-touch views.”

“Every time a fighter, like President Donald Trump and now Ken Paxton, stands up to the permanent political class, even after they are completely acquitted of wrongdoing, people like James Talarico continue pushing the same accusations and claiming corruption,” Paxton campaign spokesperson Madison Cercy said.

Paxton won first reelection despite indictment

Paxton was first elected as Texas attorney general in 2014, and Nelson ran against him in 2018. A Democratic lawyer from Austin, Nelson made Paxton’s indictment on charges of securities fraud central to his campaign, and poked fun at him for picking up another lawyer’s $1,000 pen after finding it at a courthouse security checkpoint.

“Vote Justin Nelson for Texas attorney general,” the narrator said. “He will fight on behalf of all Texans. And he won’t steal your pen.”

Nelson argued that his approach was effective, reflected in Paxton’s narrow margin of 3.6 percentage points in a year when Republican Greg Abbott was reelected as Texas governor by more than 13 percentage points. Nelson’s campaign spent roughly $6.5 million, about half of what Paxton’s campaign spent.

“My message was working,” Nelson said. “I just needed to go louder and longer.”

In 2022, Paxton faced a Republican primary challenge from George P. Bush, the Texas land commissioner and the grandson and nephew of two former presidents from the state.

The securities fraud case was ongoing, and Paxton also was under federal investigation over accusations that he abused his position to benefit an Austin real estate developer, took bribes and retaliated against whistleblower employees.

Paxton responded by portraying himself as a Trump-era Republican and Bush as the heir to a privileged political legacy.

Pro-Paxton organizations spent more than $20 million, about twice as much as Bush and his allies. The race went to a runoff, in which Paxton defeated Bush by 34 percentage points.

Paxton ran against Rochelle Garza, a Democratic civil rights lawyer from Brownsville, in the general election. She said her campaign had a 300-page opposition research file on Paxton but it was difficult to figure out how to approach his past because voters had heard about it for years.

“The amount of potential hits on Paxton can make message discipline challenging,” Garza said.

Paxton ran as the leading legal opponent of President Biden, promoting a string of lawsuits against Biden’s Democratic administration on immigration, abortion and gender policy.

Overwhelmingly outspent, Garza lost by roughly 10 percentage points.

Some supporters see Paxton as a ‘flawed’ fighter

There was more trouble ahead for Paxton.

He split with his wife, who later filed for divorce “on biblical grounds.” He also was impeached by the Texas House, although the Senate acquitted him in 2023 and allowed him to remain in office. The securities fraud case ended in 2024, and Paxton was directed to pay nearly $300,000 in restitution.

Throughout the years, he’s maintained strong support from Republican voters like David and Nancy Lapp, a retired couple from the small town of Wolfforth. They described him as a conservative warrior who has been a victim of persecution.

“He’s had his share of scandals, and almost all of them have, so it’s not necessarily disqualifying anymore,” said David Lapp, 76. “He’s a flawed person, no doubt about it, but he fights for traditional American ideals.”

He added that “nowadays, as long as you’re not in jail, they’ll elect you.”

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press reporters Jesse Bedayn in Del Rio, Texas, and Marc Levy in Wolfforth, Texas, contributed to this report.

Thousands marched in Tunisia’s capital to demand the resignation of President Kais Saied five years after he suspended parliament. Protesters revived the 2011 revolution’s slogan ‘the people want the fall of the regime’ as they decried democratic backsliding, economic hardship and political repression.

Leaders of India’s youth-led “Cockroach” movement are set to hold talks with government representatives on Friday in an effort to resolve a growing political crisis triggered by national examination paper leaks. Despite the dialogue, protest leaders have made clear that nationwide demonstrations will continue until their key demands, including the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, are met.

The negotiations come after activist Sonam Wangchuk ended a 26-day hunger strike overnight, raising hopes of a possible breakthrough in the weeks-long standoff that has brought tens of thousands of young protesters to the streets of New Delhi.

The movement has become the biggest youth-led challenge to Prime Minister Narendra Modi since he first took office in 2014. Opposition parties have backed the protesters’ demands and disrupted the ongoing monsoon session of parliament, turning the issue into one of the most significant political crises of Modi’s third term.

Government and Protest Leaders Prepare for Talks

Representatives of the self-styled Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which emerged from an online satirical movement into a nationwide protest campaign, will meet government ministers at a neutral venue.

CJP spokesperson Saurav Das said the movement hoped the government would engage seriously with protesters’ concerns.

“We hope that the government comes with an open mind and listens to the people of this country who have been on the streets for so long,” Das told reporters. “We will explain our demands in greater detail, and we hope the government will respond positively.”

However, he stressed that negotiations would not halt the movement.

“We are not backing out,” Das said. “Real change begins at the grassroots, and that is exactly what we intend to continue.”

Education Minister’s Resignation Remains Central Demand

While the government has indicated its willingness to continue discussions, protesters insist accountability must begin with the removal of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

Thousands gathered again at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar protest site on Thursday, where demonstrators vowed to remain until Pradhan resigns.

“We will continue protesting until Dharmendra Pradhan is removed,” protester Sudesh Singh said. “If we stop now, we compromise the future of millions of students.”

The demonstrations were sparked after authorities cancelled the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), India’s highly competitive medical entrance examination, following the discovery that question papers had been leaked. Nearly two million students were affected by the cancellation, triggering widespread anger over repeated failures in India’s examination system.

From Online Satire to National Movement

The Cockroach Janta Party began as an online satirical campaign involving only a few hundred young supporters. It rapidly evolved into a nationwide movement after the examination scandal, attracting millions of followers on social media and drawing large crowds to protests across the country.

Monday’s march toward parliament saw tens of thousands of protesters defy restrictions before clashes broke out with police, who used tear gas and batons to disperse demonstrators.

Further confrontations occurred on Wednesday night when more than 10,000 people gathered in central Delhi.

Analysts say the movement reflects broader frustrations among India’s youth over limited employment opportunities, repeated examination scandals and declining confidence in public institutions.

Security Tightened Across the Capital

Authorities have significantly increased security measures around the protests.

The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation announced that 17 metro stations in central Delhi would remain closed again on Friday, marking the third major shutdown of the capital’s transport network this week.

Mobile internet services around the protest area were also disrupted, with Reuters journalists reporting patchy connectivity throughout Friday morning.

Officials say the restrictions are necessary to maintain public order, though protesters argue they are intended to suppress demonstrations.

Government Plans Legal Reforms

Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced on Thursday that his cabinet would consider legislation aimed at strengthening punishment for those responsible for examination paper leaks.

The proposed amendments would seek faster prosecutions and tougher penalties for individuals involved in leaking examination papers.

Protest leaders, however, argue that stricter punishments alone will not solve the problem.

They say systemic reforms are needed to restore confidence in India’s examination process and prevent future leaks before they occur.

Political Stakes Continue to Rise

The protests have quickly evolved from a dispute over examination integrity into a broader political challenge.

Opposition parties, led by the Congress Party, have embraced the movement’s demands, seeing an opportunity to pressure Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ahead of several important state elections scheduled for next year, including contests in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Punjab.

Political analysts warn that the growing movement could reshape India’s political landscape if the government fails to address the concerns of young voters, who form a crucial part of the BJP’s electoral base.

The protests have also been accompanied by an unprecedented surge in online criticism, memes and satire targeting Modi, reflecting what observers describe as diminishing public hesitation to openly challenge one of India’s most influential political leaders.

Friday’s talks may provide the first opportunity for both sides to de-escalate the crisis, but with demonstrations set to continue regardless of the outcome, pressure on the government is unlikely to ease in the near term.

With information from Reuters.

The ‘Farmgate’ scandal nearly cost President Cyril Ramaphosa the leadership of his African National Congress in 2022.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has won a court challenge temporarily halting a parliamentary impeachment process over misconduct allegations linked to the “Farmgate” scandal.

The Western Cape High Court granted Ramaphosa an “interim interdict” that temporarily prevents the impeachment committee from proceeding with public hearings while the president challenges the legality of a 2022 report that found he “may have committed” serious violations and misconduct.

“Pending the determination by this court of the applicant’s review … respondents are interdicted from proceeding with a public impeachment hearing,” Judge Andre le Grange announced on Friday.

“Farmgate”, a scandal involving half a million dollars stashed in a sofa at Ramaphosa’s ranch, nearly cost the president the leadership of his African National Congress (ANC) in late 2022. Meanwhile, allegations of corruption within the party contributed to the ANC losing its majority in an election in May 2024, the most closely contested vote in South Africa‘s democracy.

Ramaphosa has always denied any wrongdoing and ruled out resigning over the incident since the allegedly undeclared stash of foreign currency came to light after it was reported stolen in 2020.

The president said the $580,000 that was hidden at his luxury Phala Phala farmhouse in the northern Limpopo province was proceeds from the sale of buffaloes. But the episode has been a major embarrassment, raising questions about why he had so much money stuffed in furniture.

Friday’s ruling is a boost for Ramaphosa as he also awaits the outcome of a separate court case challenging an independent panel’s findings that he may have a case to answer over the scandal.

Ramaphosa’s spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said the president respects the ruling.

“[He] reaffirms his respect of judicial independence and separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution,” Magwenya said in a statement. “The president will continue to cooperate with and abide by processes of accountability.”

Political analysts expect Ramaphosa to remain in power, even if the impeachment process does get off the ground and ultimately leads to a vote on whether he should be removed from office.

Ramaphosa still enjoys the backing of his ANC party, the country’s biggest, which leads a coalition government. The ANC holds about 40 percent of seats in the National Assembly. It is not clear how all the ANC’s coalition partners would vote in the impeachment process.

Mexican journalist Alejandro Leyva Aguilar was shot dead while eating at a street food stall in Oaxaca. He had spent years reporting on alleged corruption and criminal violence. His murder marks the fourth journalist killing in Mexico since June.

There are certain truths that are self-evident to all but the willfully blind or stubbornly obtuse.

Heat is hot.

Rain is wet.

Donald Trump is the most brazenly corrupt president in the history of the United States.

The money-grubbing chief executive has raked in at least $2.2 billion during his first year back in office. He’s funneled millions of taxpayer dollars and foreign payments to his businesses. The grift, er, gift of a tricked-out Air Force One from the Qatari government — which Trump plans to keep in retirement — is only the most high-flying example of his avarice.

There’s so much more.

The notorious tax dodger filed suit against himself, allowing his complicit Department of “Justice” to engineer a flimflam settlement amounting to a get-out-of-jail free card that shields Trump and his sticky-fingered family from Internal Revenue Service oversight. He’s used his pardon power to draw contributions.

It’s so blatant and so consistent with Trump’s dodgy corporate background — a career checkered with six bankruptcies — that it’s easy to shrug off his presidential swindling as just more of the same. That’s been Trump’s political superpower: normalizing the outrageous and anesthetizing many Americans to all but the most extreme affronts. Even those have limited shock value these days.

On Thursday, California’s junior U.S. senator, Democrat Adam Schiff, will take to the floor of the chamber to assay the president’s many conflicts of interest, warn against complacency of the seen-it-all variety and offer his prescription for a cleansing once Trump slinks out of the gold-slathered Oval Office.

“The scope of the corruption we’ve seen in this administration is beyond anything we have imagined in prior years or prior administrations, “ Schiff said in a preview of his speech. “It’s really novel and breathtaking.”

Schiff is, of course, one of the president’s long-standing nemeses. As a House member, he led Trump’s first impeachment trial. His frequent criticism of the president, on the cable TV circuit and beyond, earned Schiff a slug of juvenile nicknames and other Trumpian put-downs, as well as a federal investigation — which now appears dormant — into supposed mortgage fraud.

Kitchen-table talk

Trump defenders will be quick to dismiss Schiff’s floor speech as just more overripe agitation.

Birds fly. Fish swim. Schiff attacks Trump.

But the purpose of his remarks, Schiff said, goes beyond simply enumerating the abundant examples of presidential profiteering. (It was a struggle, he said, keeping the list to a top 10.) His intent, he said, is “to bring home … the real cost to ordinary people” of Trump’s egregious self-dealing. Explaining why — in a practical, feel-it-in-your-wallet sense — people should care.

“If a president approves a merger not because it’s good for consumers, not because it’s good for the economy, but because participants in the merger paid him millions, what’s the cost to them?” Schiff said, referring to the proposed marriage of Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery and the money CBS shelled out for a flimsy lawsuit against “60 Minutes.” The settlement was widely seen as a way to smooth Paramount’s merger with Skydance Media, which is now bidding to swallow Warner Bros.

“The cost is they’re paying more for their streaming services,” Schiff said. “They’re getting laid off if they work in the industry. “

In 2024, Democrats lost the White House at least in part because they spent so much time talking about noble but abstract concepts like defending democracy and the rule of law, rather than highlighting ways they’d work to bring down the price of bacon and eggs.

Times change. Now it’s the cost of beef and gas that’s plundering paychecks.

Looking to November and beyond

Schiff insists it’s not an either/or choice. To prevail in November’s midterm elections, which means winning at least one chamber of Congress, Schiff said Democrats should discuss both affordability and Trump’s venality. He sees the two as being irrevocably entwined.

“The positive message is we are singularly focused on your cost of living,” Schiff said from his office on Capitol Hill. “We want to build more housing and bring down the cost of housing. We want to attack anti-competitive mergers of grocery stores and food companies to bring down the cost of food. We have a whole agenda that is designed to make your life more affordable.

“Why isn’t the administration doing this?” he said. “And the answer is, they’re corrupt. They’re focused on their own economic well-being. They’re doing great for themselves. They could care less about you.”

Schiff plans to introduce a number of proposed remedies. They include legislation to ban corporate executives from serving in the executive branch if they’ve been convicted of corruption or financial crimes, and a requirement that government employees recuse themselves from matters affecting the financial interests of any employer they’d worked for within the previous four years.

Although the measures stand no chance of passing in the current Congress, Schiff said “it’s important to show the American people, ‘Hey, this is what we intend to do if you give us the majority.’”

He acknowledged that the depth of presidential dishonesty, its constancy and deep weave in the fabric of this administration, can have a deadening effect: “When the guy working the teleprompter at the White House, betting on how many times the president will use a certain word in his speech, is a blip in the corruption…”

But Schiff said it’s important not to turn away or shrink from the malodor rising from Trump’s swampy Washington.

“You just have to take the time to break it down for people,” Schiff said. “I think putting things in context, trying to snap people out of the norm-shattering numbness of this administration, is a daily challenge. But it’s one that we have to undertake.”

There’s no certainly no harm in stating the truth. It’s worth trying, over and over.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Trump, long a critic of ‘forever wars,’ may be stumbling into one with Iran
The deep dive: Unhappy with Kaiser’s medical dispute process, some patients push for state reform
The L.A. Times Special: Chabria: Newsom pushes California to crack down on sex trafficking — fast

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Police used batons and tear gas to disperse protesters as tens of thousands of people joined the Cockroach Janta Party’s march on parliament in New Delhi. Protesters have been demanding the resignation of India’s Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan following exam scandals that have triggered nationwide outrage.

In the latest lawsuit against Paramount Skydance, a corporate shareholder has alleged corruption at the highest levels of the company, which is battling to complete its $111-billion takeover of rival Warner Bros. Discovery to create a new media behemoth.

Controlling shareholders Larry Ellison and his son David have presided over a firm that allegedly made “illegal promises and payments to secure regulatory approval,” for the Ellison family’s Paramount purchase last summer, according to the shareholder lawsuit filed this week in Delaware court.

Larry Ellison allegedly discussed with President Trump how Paramount’s pending Warner Bros. acquisition would result in a shake-up at CNN, states the lawsuit filed by Paramount shareholder Paul Robbins.

“The Ellisons [won] the bidding war for Warner Bros. by promising sweeping changes at CNN and other personal benefits to President Trump,” according to the 59-page complaint.

The case was brought on Robbins’ behalf by the nonprofit Public Integrity Project and the advocacy group Freedom of Press Foundation, which has been critical of the Trump’s administration policies toward the media.

The complaint noted that Netflix withdrew from the bidding in February — the same day Co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met at the White House with then-Atty. General Pam Bondi and another top official.

The lawsuit suggests Netflix dropped out after recognizing the challenges of dealing with the Trump Administration and that Trump always wanted to see the prize go to Paramount because of his close ties to the Ellison family, who have ushered in more favorable news coverage of Trump and the departure of late night comedian Stephen Colbert.

Robbins does not appear to have first-hand accounts supporting his claims, which are based on public documents and media reports about dealings between the Ellisons and Trump. He has owned Paramount stock since 2021, but the lawsuit does not say how many shares he owns.

He could not be reached for comment.

A Paramount spokesperson could not be immediately reached.

Previously, a Paramount spokesperson said: “No commitments from either David or Larry Ellison have been made to any government body, State AG or federal agency regarding the future of CNN or any other news property, other than the goal to deliver truth-based journalism.”

It’s the third lawsuit lobbed at Paramount this week. On Monday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta led a coalition of 12 Democrat state attorneys general filed a federal antitrust lawsuit seeking to block the Paramount-Warner merger due to concerns about consolidation in movie distribution and cable channels.

The Writers Guild of America added another an antitrust lawsuit against Paramount on Tuesday, alleging the massive merger would result in fewer jobs and lower pay for writers.

Many in Hollywood are opposed to the deal due to fears that another studio consolidation would bring more layoffs, programming cutbacks and a fragile business environment due to the heavy debt burden — nearly $80 billion — that Paramount would have to take on to buy Warner Bros.

The shareholder lawsuit noted that Paramount participated in a raucous event with UFC fighters on the White House lawn in June to celebrate Trump’s 80th birthday and the nation’s 250th anniversary. Paramount has UFC broadcast rights.

The event came two days after Trump’s Justice Department wrapped its regulatory review of Paramount’s Warner Bros. proposal, giving the merger a key green light.

Justice Department investigators reportedly did not have a chance to express potential antitrust concerns when high-level Justice Department officials closed the inquiry — a major win for Paramount and the Ellisons, the lawsuit states.

“There have been some line attorneys in the DOJ that have reviewed this [merger] and have some concerns,” New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James said Tuesday during a virtual town hall with opponents of the merger. “Their analysis of this particular case was ignored by the front office, if you will, at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. [the White House] That’s the front office.”

Ellison’s Skydance Media emerged with its deal to buy Paramount two years ago. Previous controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, was desperate for an exit and Trump was mounting his White House comeback by battling then-President Joe Biden, then Kamala Harris.

Trump declined an invitation to appear on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” then under Redstone control. He became infuriated by an October 2024 interview with Harris on “60 Minutes.”

Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS (he later upped it to $20 billion). After Trump won the election, he had considerable sway over Paramount because it needed his administration’s approval for the sale to the Ellisons.

Paramount agreed to pay Trump $16 million to end his “60 Minutes” lawsuit, allowing the sale to go forward. The Ellisons acquired Paramount in August, then set their sights on Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.

“The Ellisons proceeded to remake CBS in the President’s image, bought properties he enjoyed, and even hosted events to honor him,” the lawsuit said. “This helped the Ellisons, but it appears to have hurt Paramount and its media outlets.”

In late April, David Ellison hosted an elaborate dinner in Washington to honor the “Trump White House,” according to invitations to the event, “even though President Trump continually insulted journalists at CBS and elsewhere,” the lawsuit said.

On Wednesday, during a confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill, U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) blasted acting Atty. General Todd Blanche for his attendance at the dinner while his agency was reviewing the Paramount deal.

Also on Wednesday, the nonprofit news site ProPublica reported Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has accepted $63,000 in free tickets from CBS in recent years — while Paramount mergers were pending.

Times Staff Writer Ben Wieder contributed to this report.

Hungarian parliament passes amendment that would remove President Sulyok, appointed under ex-Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Hungary’s parliament has approved a constitutional amendment to remove President Tamas Sulyok from his largely ceremonial position, the latest move to dismantle the power of figures associated with former Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

The measure, passed on Monday with 139 votes in favour and only six opposing, would immediately bring an end to Sulyok’s term in office and pave the way for parliament to elect a new president.

Hungarians voted out the right-wing nationalist Orban in April, with new Prime Minister Peter Magyar’s Tisza Party winning in a landslide. The election result ended 16 years of power for Orban’s Fidesz party, which had come to dominate many aspects of the country.

Since Magyar’s victory, he has sought to erode that power, including by removing the current president. The constitutional amendment also introduces a series of judicial reforms, creates a body to investigate alleged financial abuses under the previous government, and imposes a 12-year term limit on lawmakers.

Sulyok now has five days to sign the constitutional amendment passed by parliament. Magyar has said that parliament will launch an impeachment procedure against Sulyok if he does not sign it.

The president and other members of Fidesz boycotted Monday’s parliamentary session.

Sweeping away the old order

The parliament elected Sulyok, a former chief of the Constitutional Court of Hungary, in February 2024. He was nominated to replace Katalin Novak, who resigned after pardoning a man convicted of covering up child sexual abuse.

But days after Magyar’s centre-right Tisza Party won a two-thirds parliamentary super-majority in April, the new prime minister declared Sulyok “unworthy to embody the unity of the Hungarian nation” and demanded that he leave office once the new government was formed.

In June, after the deadline to resign had passed, Magyar branded the president a “puppet” of Orban and promised to strip him and other holdovers from office by constitutional means. Weeks later, he unveiled a reform programme, dubbed “Operation Cleansing Fire”, which seeks to install a new constitution, purge state institutions and establish an anticorruption office.

While the presidency is a largely symbolic post, it is empowered to approve laws and can refer them to the Constitutional Court for review, raising fears that Sulyok might use his presidential powers to stymie Tisza’s ambitious reform agenda.

The jailing of one of Indonesia’s most influential entrepreneurs in a controversial corruption case has raised fears of damage to investor confidence in Southeast Asia’s largest economy.

Nadiem Makarim, the cofounder of the popular super-app Gojek, was last month sentenced to 10 years in prison for allegedly abusing his authority while serving as the country’s education minister.

Makarim was found guilty of giving favourable treatment to Google, an early investor in Gojek, when procuring Chromebook laptops for schoolchildren during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prosecutors argued that Makarim, who served as former Indonesian President Joko Widodo’s education minister from 2019 to 2024, inflicted state losses of $120m, alleging that he should have been aware the laptops would not work in remote areas with poor internet access.

Critics of the prosecution have argued that the case against Makarim lacks evidence and that the startup founder-turned-politician is the latest victim of a campaign of political retribution being waged by the administration of Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto.

Nicky Fahrizal, a researcher of politics and social change at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Jakarta, said foreign investors will inevitably think twice before committing capital to Indonesia following the verdict.

“The Nadiem case, along with a string of similar incidents, has served as a warning signal to investors,” Fahrizal told Al Jazeera.

“For them, non-economic factors, such as legal certainty and the quality of the judicial system, are absolute prerequisites.”

Makarim was found guilty by a panel of five judges on June 30, following charges related to the procurement of more than 1 million laptops intended for use in schools in remote and impoverished areas.

At the trial held at the Indonesian Court for Corruption Crimes in Jakarta, prosecutors alleged that Makarim deliberately tailored the tender specifications to favour Google, which invested in Aplikasi Karya Anak Bangsa (AKAB), Gojek’s then-parent company.

Scrutiny of the tender process first arose among the public after it emerged that the Chromebooks often did not work in remote areas, raising questions about how Google was chosen in the first place.

“Choosing a device that relies on an internet connection amid uneven infrastructure… demonstrates a mismatch with needs…” Judge Sunoto said during the sentencing.

Following the verdict, prosecutor Corneles Geeb Paulus hailed the outcome as a victory for “the schoolchildren whose rights were taken away and who were deprived of equitable access to digital education across Indonesia”.

Google has denied providing or offering authorities any inducements to win the tender.

The California-based tech giant, which has a market value of more than $4 trillion, was not indicted in the case.

“From a legal standpoint, authorities seem to have hit a wall in their efforts to secure sufficient evidence and establish the necessary criminal nexus to prosecute the corporation,” the CSIS’s Fahrizal said.

“From a political perspective, Google is a tech giant with immense business influence.”

Taking action against Google could have jeopardised the government’s ongoing digitalisation efforts, Fahrizal added, describing the company as “too big to fail” within the digital sector.

Trissia Wijaya, an Indonesian-born research fellow at the University of Melbourne’s Asia Institute, said Nadiem’s prosecution, coupled with the uncertainty of the business environment under Prabowo, would inevitably erode market confidence.

“Regardless of whether Nadiem is actually guilty or not, he is a symbol of startups and market optimism in Indonesia, especially in the mid-2010s,” Wijaya told Al Jazeera.

“When Gojek started booming and gaining traction, Indonesia was one of the main target countries for global investors, both from the US and China, to invest in the fintech industry,” Wijaya added, describing Indonesia’s business environment as being at a “critical juncture.”

Since taking office in 2024, Prabowo has faced criticism over his handling of the economy, including high levels of spending on public initiatives, such as his signature free lunch programme, which is expected to cost about $15bn this year.

In June, the Indonesian rupiah hit an all-time low against the US dollar, a nadir economic analysts partly attributed to investors’ scepticism about Prabowo’s populist economic policies.

For his part, Prabowo has denied that he is anti-business, while emphasising that Indonesia must uphold the rule of law.

“Some have claimed that I dislike foreign investors and will drive them away, but that is not the case. I have met many investors who are planning to enter the market,” Prabowo told a conference for young entrepreneurs in the city of Lampung last month.

“The government must create a favorable environment for entrepreneurs, including the enforcement of the law. If the law is not enforced, what ensues is the law of the jungle… law based on power, and in the end, that is not good for any of us.”

‘Credibility’ of government policies

Siwage Dharma Negara, a co-coordinator of the Indonesia studies programme at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, said Indonesia’s reputation as an investment destination had already been in decline before the Makarim verdict.

“Investors are unsure about the credibility of government policies, and they are unsure about the credibility of institutions, whether executive, legislative, or judicial in Indonesia,” Negara told Al Jazeera.

“Nadiem’s case is only one factor that has damaged foreign investor confidence. But there are many other factors that contribute, including government policies that are increasingly less pro-market.”

Teguh Yudo Wicaksono, an economics lecturer at Universitas Islam Indonesia in Yogyakarta, said that although he does not expect the case to have much of an impact on foreign investment, it could deter Indonesian talent based overseas from returning home.

“This could result in a brain drain and Indonesia losing talent,” Wicaksono told Al Jazeera.

Makarim attended Harvard Business School and Brown University in the United States before returning to Indonesia in 2006 and cofounding Gojek four years later.

In 2019, Gojek, which began as a ride-hailing business before evolving into a super-app that also offers food delivery and digital payment services, became the first Indonesian tech company to achieve a valuation of more than $10bn.

Not all observers see the Makarim case as a negative for investor sentiment.

I Gusti Ngurah Bayu Pradana, an expert in business law at the Bali-based Malekat Hukum International Law Firm, said the enforcement of corruption law should be seen as a “positive signal for legal certainty and governance quality in a country, rather than a negative one”.

“Experienced foreign investors generally understand that the greatest risk in investing is not the existence of law enforcement, but rather, legal uncertainty, or a situation in which the rules of the game are unclear, legal processes lack transparency, or enforcement is selective and unpredictable,” Pradana told Al Jazeera.

While Makarim was found guilty of abusing authority and causing state losses, he was acquitted of an additional charge of directly seeking to enrich himself, and he was handed a lower sentence than the 18 years sought by the prosecution.

While reading the verdict, Judge Andi Saputra also presented a dissenting opinion, saying that he found “no evidence of malicious intent or malicious acts” and scant “causal connection or indication between the conflict of interest and the corporate crime”.

The Malekat Hukum law firm’s Pradana pointed to the judge’s dissenting view as evidence of the Indonesian judiciary’s independence and rigorous fact-finding.

“For foreign investors considering Indonesia as an investment destination, the takeaway from this case should not be alarm, but rather confidence that Indonesia’s legal system functions and can hold anyone accountable equally before the law,” Pradana said.

“So long as investment contracts are clearly drafted, business processes are conducted transparently, and implementation complies fully with applicable laws and regulations, investment in Indonesia remains a safe and promising choice.”

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has issued subpoenas against journalists from The New York Times, in what advocates say is an escalating attack on the free press.

Late on Friday, the Times reported that at least four of its reporters have received subpoenas, some delivered to their homes by federal agents.

Those subpoenas compel them to testify before a grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday.

“The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects,” said David McCraw, the newspaper’s lawyer, in a statement quoted by the Times.

News of the subpoenas prompted outcry from leading news groups including the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), which demanded their withdrawal.

“The subpoenas are an extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations, and have a chilling effect on the work of journalists across the country,” said CPJ’s chief executive officer Jodie Ginsberg.

The subpoenas were authorised by a top official in Trump’s Department of Justice: Jay Clayton, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Clayton is in line to succeed Bill Pulte as the director of national intelligence, a cabinet-level role Pulte holds on an interim basis. The Senate is set to begin hearings on Clayton’s confirmation next week.

Scrutiny on NATO travel coverage

At issue is The New York Times coverage of Trump’s return flight from the 2026 NATO summit in Ankara, Turkiye, this week.

While Trump flew to Europe on his new Air Force One, a jet gifted by Qatar and retrofitted by the US military, he left on the old Air Force One.

Trump claimed the switch was made to allow the new jet to visit RAF Mildenhall, an air force base in Suffolk, England, that supports US military operations.

He framed it as an opportunity to allow military members to tour the aircraft.

“It’s going to go to a couple of bases,” Trump said at the time, “so the soldiers can see it because it’s truly magnificent.”

But at the same July 8 news conference, Trump referenced concerns about his safety.

When asked about the airline switch by a reporter from The New York Post, Trump responded, “You know, the life of a president is very dangerous.” He proceeded to add that he’s “number one on the kill list for Iran”.

That same day, The New York Times reported swapped his new presidential jet for his old one because of security concerns, citing anonymous sources. The change reportedly came at the urging of the Secret Service.

Then, the next day, the Times expanded its coverage with a follow-up report, indicating that the new Air Force One lacked the security capabilities of the old jet.

The article anonymously cited two former Air Force officials as saying there would not have been enough time to make the necessary upgrades before the Ankara flight.

It is unclear what modifications have already been made, but experts have estimated that the updates could cost up to $1bn.

Friday’s subpoenas targeted four of the journalists involved in the Times’s reporting on the subject: Eric Schmitt, Tyler Pager, Eric Lipton and Julian E Barnes.

According to the Times, before the subpoenas were issued, the newspaper was contacted by a senior official from the FBI.

That person, who was unnamed, asked the newspaper to hold off on its reporting about Air Force One, citing national security. The FBI official also requested information on the Times’s anonymous sources.

The newspaper, however, declined to provide such information, in line with standard journalistic practice.

A testy relationship with journalists

The subpoenas mark the latest clash between the Trump administration and US media outlets that report on its activities.

Trump himself has a long-running feud with the Times. In September, he sued the newspaper for $15bn in damages, alleging it had defamed him and attempted to “sabotage” his candidacy in the 2024 presidential election, which he won.

After his initial complaint was thrown out as “improper”, Trump refiled it in October.

The Times, for its part, has sued the Department of Defence under Trump over its attempts to impose media restrictions on journalists.

Just this week, the Times also filed a countersuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, after it alleged the newspaper had discriminated against a white, male employee for failing to give him a promotion.

The Times has described the effort as an attempt to muffle the press, in violation of the free-speech protections enshrined in the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

The Times is not the only newspaper to face legal backlash from the Trump administration. In December, Trump launched a $10bn lawsuit against the BBC, arguing that a documentary it aired misrepresented his speech before the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Trump is also seeking $10bn from The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a birthday message he allegedly sent to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. After that suit was thrown out, Trump refiled it in May.

The Trump administration has also taken actions against individual journalists.

In January, for instance, the FBI executed a raid on the house of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, who covered the Trump administration’s efforts to scale back the federal workforce.

The raid came as part of an investigation into a government contractor accused of leaking information to the news media, but at least two judges have barred the Trump administration from using the information it seized from Natanson.

The Trump administration has denied seeking to erode the freedom of the press, instead citing national security needs.

But McCraw, the Times lawyer, argued that, with the latest subpoenas, the White House was trying to restrict “the American public’s right to know how their government is operating”.

“This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs,” he said.

Top Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, also weighed in on the subpoenas, using them to slam Trump as corrupt.

“Donald Trump is one of the weakest, most thin-skinned individuals the world has ever seen,” Schumer wrote on social media.

“Reporters have the right and duty to report the truth. It’s not their fault his foreign-gifted plane is a national security threat. This subpoena is a gross overreach and a disgusting misuse of federal law enforcement resources that should alarm every American.”

The government of Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo has been accused of human rights abuses against critics.

Nicaragua’s government has stripped masses of lawyers of their licences to practise, in what critics see as yet another attack on the country’s critics.

On Friday, a United Nations expert called the government’s actions a “purge of the legal profession”, aimed at eroding the country’s final shreds of democratic checks and balances.

Nicaragua’s husband-wife co-presidents, Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo, have led a government that has increasingly carried out an all-out crackdown on dissent.

That effort intensified after mass social protests in 2018 that the government violently repressed.

Since then, the government has imprisoned adversaries, religious leaders, journalists and others, forcing thousands to flee the country. It has also stripped hundreds of their Nicaraguan citizenship and possessions.

Since 2018, it has also shut down more than 5,000 nongovernmental organisations, largely religious groups, but also local rotary clubs and scouting organisations.

In recent days, lawyers noticed that their licences to practise law in Nicaragua were removed without explanation from the Supreme Court of Justice’s registry, according to Reed Brody, an American human rights lawyer and member of a UN panel of experts on the Central American country.

Other lawyers also confirmed their certifications were revoked.

There was no official notification by the government, and Nicaragua’s government did not respond to a request for comment by The Associated Press news agency.

Brody said the full scope of the revocation was not immediately clear, but it “would certainly appear to be at least hundreds, if not thousands of lawyers” who were affected.

“This follows the pattern that we’ve been seeing for years. First, they closed the NGOs, the universities, the independent media. You know, they’ve gone after the churches, and now it seems the legal profession,” Brody said. “Anyone who might stand between the government and citizens.”

Brody said he knew of at least 20 lawyers who had been affected.

Juan Diego Barberena, a lawyer and human rights defender exiled in Costa Rica since 2022, was among those stripped of his official certification and said he knew of at least 25 more colleagues like him.

On Thursday, Barberena tried to access his legal accreditation on the government’s database and said his name and licence number were wiped clean from the system.

“This is a means of exercising totalitarian control over the legal profession,” Barberena said. “This means that the dictatorship can decide who gets to practise and who doesn’t.”

The move echoes other steps the government has taken in recent years.

Many Nicaraguan exiles who were stripped of their citizenship and rendered “stateless” have reported similar stories. They or their family members would search for their birth certificates and other legal documents in official databases, only to be told they do not exist.

But Barberena and Brody said the move this week by authorities went a step further, noting that those erased from the system were not just dissenters. Some were simply Nicaraguans living abroad.

Others practised criminal or family law that didn’t touch on politics, while some were government sympathisers, Barberena said.

Brody framed it as a move to whittle away at any last remaining shred of independence in a judicial system already firmly under control of Ortega and Murillo.

“On one hand, it’s an arbitrary measure to punish political dissent,” Barberena said. “On the other, it’s the dictatorship looking medium-term and wanting to prevent lawyers, experts and academics from participating in the future of the country’s institutions.”

Ethics experts sounded the alarm Wednesday after new financial disclosure reports revealed that President Trump’s income ballooned to $2.2 billion in 2025, with $1.4 billion coming from various new cryptocurrency-related businesses.

“It’s bribery. It’s graft. It’s exploitation of public power for private financial gain,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and an expert in government ethics. “Trump has — with the acquiescence of a somnolent, GOP-controlled Congress and the active assistance of John Roberts’ Supreme Court — transformed the presidency into a massive corruption racket.”

Trump reported income of over $600 million in 2024. But after he entered the White House in 2025, he reported that his income had soared to more than $2.2 billion.

The 2025 annual disclosure report filed with the Office of Government Ethics shows that Trump ramped up his real estate business in countries across the globe, particularly in the Middle East, at a time when his government was negotiating over vital issues of military aid and economic tariffs. The president also expanded his dealings in the relatively new realm of cryptocurrency.

According to the 927-page report, Trump made $635 million in royalties from Celebration Coins and more than $500 million from his World Liberty Financial crypto firm. He drew in millions from a raft of Trump-branded merchandise including God Bless the USA Bibles and sneakers depicting him with his hand raised in a fist. He also brought in $10.4 million from a property in the United Arab Emirates and $9 million from a property in Saudi Arabia.

Noah Bookbinder, an ethics expert and former president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a nonprofit watchdog group in Washington, described Trump’s business dealings while in the White House as “entirely unprecedented, certainly in modern history, but I think by most ways of measuring, in all of American history.”

“This is corruption,” Bookbinder said. “You have a president who has been quite transparently using the presidency in ways that benefit his business interests and intertwining the presidency and business interests.”

But the president and the White House brushed aside ethics concerns about the money Trump is making.

Trump told reporters Wednesday that he made a lot of money before he came to the White House, he had “big institutions” run his money, and that he had benefited, like every other American, as the stock market went up.

“We’re all profiting,” he said. “I’m profiting because I have a lot of money and a lot of cash.”

In a statement, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said: “Neither the President nor his family has ever engaged — or will ever engage — in conflicts of interest. … All actions by President Trump and his administration are taken in the best interest of the American people.”

Although the report does not show exactly how much Trump is earning — it provides details of revenue, rather than profit — the scale of the president’s cryptocurrency dealings elevated ethics watchdogs’ long-standing concerns.

Jordan Libowitz, a vice president at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, said the most concerning detail of the new report is the hundreds of millions of dollars coming in from various crypto ventures partnered with companies that the American public knows little about.

“At a time when his own administration itself is setting regulation for these types of companies,” Libowitz said, “there’s just this massive opportunity for corruption when foreign governments and foreign nationals can pour tens of millions of dollars into the president’s pocket.”

As a real estate mogul, Trump has long invested in hotels, condominiums and golf courses. But cryptocurrency, Libowitz said, offers vastly more potential for corruption.

“There’s only so many hotel rooms you can book, so many rounds of golf, but there’s no limit with crypto,” Libowitz said. “You can just buy his meme coin and he gets a cut, so you kind of take out the middleman, but also the cap or the amount of money you can funnel to the president.”

Libowitz said it was also problematic for Trump to expand his real estate empire in foreign countries, particularly the Middle East.

“Now it seems that almost all his new developments are in foreign countries, and that opens up, if you’re building this giant resort, you’re going to need help from the local government, whether it’s tax breaks or utility issues, or building a road, or speeding up permits,” Libowitz said. “These are ways that foreign governments can do favors for the American president.”

In the half a century before Trump was elected, ethics experts say, presidents from Nixon to Obama publicly released their tax returns, sold properties or put the proceeds in a blind trust managed by someone they did not know.

“They weren’t doing it because they legally had to, but because they thought it was the right thing to do,” Libowitz said.

Ever since Trump was first elected in 2016 and opted to not sell his businesses or put them in blind trusts, ethics experts have urged Congress to impose more aggressive financial oversight over money in politics.

“Congress needs to update the law, and basically, mandate blind trusts and sale of assets and disclosure of tax returns,” Libowitz said.

Noting that the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause explicitly states that the president cannot accept things of value from foreign or domestic governments, ethics experts say Trump is flouting the law and Congress has chosen to not enforce it.

Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said Congress needed to close loopholes that exempt presidents from federal conflict of interest laws as well as enforce the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

“Nobody holding a position of trust with the United States government can accept emoluments, profits and benefits from foreign governments, and that is flatly prohibited under the United States Constitution,” Painter said. “Now, if the United Arab Emirates put money into Liberty Financial, as I understand they did … and then Trump makes money off Liberty Financial, that’s a Foreign Emoluments Clause problem.”

Congress, he said, should empower an independent prosecutor to investigate such conflicts.

“The problem with the Foreign Emoluments Clause is how do we enforce it?” Painter said. “The founders and head of the Congress enforced it by impeaching anybody who took a bunch of foreign government money, but I guess that system’s not working. That’s a serious problem.”

Trump has launched a slate of crypto-friendly policies since returning to the White House for a second term.

A new government report has shown that United States President Donald Trump made millions from cryptocurrency and settlements with media companies last year, raising questions about possible conflicts of interest.

On Tuesday, the US Office of Government Ethics released annual financial disclosure forms for both Trump and his vice president, JD Vance.

One 927-page document itemises all of Trump’s reported assets and income for 2025. They include more than $1.4bn from his family’s cryptocurrency ventures.

Trump received more than $500m from World Liberty Financial, a crypto venture he and his sons co-founded. The president also reported another $635m from the sale of his $TRUMP meme coins.

The report suggests that investments in digital assets now generate one of the largest tranches of Trump’s income, overtaking even the real estate empire he inherited from his father.

The revelation is likely to intensify scrutiny of Trump’s policies.

Since returning to the White House in January 2025, Trump has launched a slate of crypto-friendly policies as he seeks to make the US the “crypto capital of the world”.

Early in his second term, for instance, the president announced that his government would create a national strategic cryptocurrency reserve to help ensure the stability of certain digital assets.

He also hosted the first-ever White House cryptocurrency summit.

The forum included several technology leaders that had been under investigation during the administration of Trump’s predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden.

But Trump reversed those actions. In February 2025, for instance, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced it would drop charges against Coinbase, the largest US-based cryptocurrency exchange, after it was accused of acting as an unregistered broker.

Other digital currency firms came under suspicion for fraudulent transactions.

Trump has coupled the shift away from government oversight with efforts to champion new legislation, including the GENIUS Act.

The law, passed in Congress in July 2025, created a general regulatory framework that required stablecoin, a type of cryptocurrency, to be backed one-to-one by US dollars. Advocates said the law would help to make cryptocurrency more mainstream.

“The entire crypto community: For years, you were mocked and dismissed and counted out,” Trump said during the law’s signing ceremony. “You were counted out as little as a year and a half ago, but this signing is a massive validation.”

But Trump’s increasingly close ties to the cryptocurrency industry have drawn criticism for its potential for corruption.

Last week, five Democratic senators, including Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal, called on their Republican colleagues to join them in forcing Trump administration officials to testify under oath about their cryptocurrency dealings.

They pointed to investments from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in World Liberty Financial, the company the Trump family co-owns with government envoy Steve Witkoff’s sons.

Those investments, they argued, “raise questions about what more the UAE may receive — or may have already received – at the expense of U.S. national security after investing in the Trump family crypto company”.

The five Democrats urged immediate hearings on the matter.

Indonesia court finds former education minister guilty of abuse of authority and of causing state losses.

A court in Indonesia has sentenced former Education Minister Nadiem Makarim, co-founder of the Gojek app, to 10 years in prison on corruption charges.

Judges at the Jakarta anti-corruption court on Tuesday found Makarim guilty of corruption related to the procurement of Chromebook laptops for schools during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Chief Judge Purwanto Abdullah, presiding over the ruling at Indonesia’s Corruption Court in Jakarta, said a panel of judges had found Makarim guilty of abuse of authority and of causing state losses. He was found not guilty of directly seeking to enrich himself.

The court said the case caused state losses of approximately $120m. It also ordered Makarim to pay a fine of Rp1 billion ($55,850) and Rp809 billion (more than $45m) in restitution, or face additional prison time.

The verdict marks a sharp fall for the Ivy League-educated entrepreneur once seen as a symbol of Indonesia’s startup sector.

Makarim, 41, co-founded Gojek in 2010, growing it from a call centre with 20 motorcycle drivers into a major ride-hailing and delivery platform.

He became one of Indonesia’s youngest cabinet ministers in 2019 and served as education minister until 2024.

Prosecutors said his decision to purchase Chromebook laptops, which run Google’s ChromeOS, was linked to the US tech giant’s investment in Gojek.

Makarim has consistently denied wrongdoing and vowed to appeal.

“The judges couldn’t even look me in the eye,” he said, adding he could not pay the amount ordered under the ruling.

The former minister has said the procurement saved money and called the case an “investigative error”.

In his defence this month, he said: “Experts and factual witnesses have stated: there is no element of state loss, no element of violation of the law, no element of self-enrichment, enrichment of another person or company, and no malicious intent or bad intentions.”

Prosecutors had sought an 18-year prison sentence and Rp5.68 trillion (about $313m) in restitution. Google was not charged and has denied any wrongdoing.

GoTo Group, formed after Gojek merged with Tokopedia in 2021, said Makarim had not had a decision-making role since resigning in 2019.

Makarim, whose lawyer father once served on the ethics committee of Indonesia’s anti-corruption body, said he joined the government to encourage professionals to enter public service.

For more than two decades, corruption has been a serious issue in Iraq.

The oil-rich nation has consistently been ranked as one of the most corrupt in the world.

But this week, its new government has embarked on an unprecedented anti-corruption crackdown.

It’s targeting many high-profile politicians and other senior figures accused of making illicit wealth and abuse of office.

Iraqis have repeatedly protested against what they say is rampant corruption in their nation.

Now, they hope the new government keeps this promise to eradicate what they call a ‘pandemic of fraudulent activities’ at the highest echelons of power.

But what are the challenges ahead in this battle?

Presenter: Imran Khan

Guests:

Ahmed Rushdi – President of the think-tank, House of Iraqi Expertise Foundation.

Renad Mansour – Deputy Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House.

Manuel Pirino – Regional Advisor for Middle East and North Africa at Transparency International.

New Delhi, India – Brajesh Kumar climbs three floors every evening to sit in solitude on the rooftop terrace of his house overlooking the Ram Temple in Ayodhya in northern India’s Uttar Pradesh.

Over decades, the 65-year-old has seen the once-sleepy town metamorphose into the biggest flashpoint of the Hindu majoritarian movement, championed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Where the temple stands used to be the site of the 16th-century Babri Mosque, but in 1992 a Hindu mob tore it down, sparking religious riots that killed nearly 2,000 people across the country, mostly Muslims.

Two and a half years ago, Modi presided over the consecration ceremony of the new temple, devoted to the Hindu god Ram. Many Hindus believe Ram, the god worshipped as an epitome of righteousness, was born there.

To Hindu devotees like Kumar, the temple – despite the controversy and deaths that defined its birth – brought a sense of serenity.

Until recently.

For the past month, the temple has been embroiled in allegations that those entrusted with its management have instead embezzled donations worth potentially millions of dollars that the site attracted from devotees.

“We have been betrayed [by the management], who have looted our faith, nothing less,” Kumar told Al Jazeera. “Left to them, they will sell us all one day in the name of religion and stuff their own pockets.”

The allegations have led to police investigations, arrests and political fallout that could shape elections in India’s most populous state that are only months away.

Ayodhya’s can of worms

Since its inauguration, the Ram Temple has been among the top religious sites in India, attracting millions of Hindu devotees.

An independent trust, the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, manages the shrine. Although it is outside the purview of the government, its executive members wield political influence, and some of them come from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the ideological wellspring of the BJP.

The corruption allegations first surfaced this month after Mahipal Singh, a former supervisor of the trust’s accounting team, publicly called out irregularities. Al Jazeera could not reach him for comment.

After a public uproar, Akhilesh Yadav, a former chief minister of Uttar Pradesh from the opposition Samajwadi Party, picked up the issue, alleging that millions of rupees in donations had gone missing.

The mounting pressure pushed the state government, ruled by the BJP, to form a three-member investigation team, which has submitted a report on the alleged misappropriation of donations.

Although the content of the report has not been made public, the state police registered a criminal case and have arrested at least eight people, including those involved in counting cash and valuable offerings at the temple.

More devotees have come forward since, seeking the whereabouts of their valuables, including silver bricks and gold jewellery and artefacts, that they had handed over to the trust’s executives.

On Friday, the trust’s longstanding general secretary, Champat Rai, stepped down with other high-profile trustees. The allegations have been particularly damning for Rai, who has been a central figure in the movement for the Ram Temple.

But it has done little to cool down the tensions in the state, where thousands of devotees, including some BJP supporters, feel cheated.

‘Cunning thieves running Ram Temple’

Santosh Dubey was among those tried for tearing down the Babri Mosque in 1992. He has never shied away from his role and instead has flaunted it.

After the mosque’s demolition, Dubey waited for a final verdict about what was to happen to the site from the courts, where both sides fought bitterly for decades. In 2019, the Supreme Court awarded the site to Hindus – even though it deemed the destruction of the mosque illegal. The top court gave a piece of land to Muslims outside Ayodhya to build a new mosque. In 2020, Dubey and others accused of roles in demolishing the mosque were acquitted — the court cited a lack of adequate evidence.

If those verdicts felt like vindication to Dubey, the alleged embezzlement at the temple has enraged him.

“This corruption causes me deep anguish, a pain that words cannot express,” Dubey told Al Jazeera, speaking from Ayodhya. “All I can say is that nothing less than the death penalty would suffice for them.”

“Cunning, dishonest and ruthless thieves are running the Ram Temple, and they have created such an atmosphere of fear that no one is willing to speak out against them,” he said.

Dubey said the government will struggle to ignore the anger among devotees because the episode batters the BJP’s narrative that it is a saviour of the Hindu faith.

This is not the first time that the temple trust has been the subject of controversy. In 2021, the trust allegedly bought land at highly inflated prices using public donations.

BJP spokespeople refused to comment on the recent allegations when Al Jazeera reached them.

‘Impact on upcoming election’

Devotees of the temple and critics of the government are accusing authorities of attempting a cover-up.

Opposition leader Yadav described the state government’s initial handling of the case as “suspicious”. “The government is arresting the counting staff while shielding the big fish who orchestrated the structural rot,” Yadav said while demanding transparency in the investigation.

Karpatri Maharaj, a prominent Hindu seer associated with the Ram Temple movement, told Al Jazeera that the government is using junior employees as scapegoats and arresting them.

Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, is led by the firebrand Hindu monk-turned-politician Yogi Adityanath, who is often seen as a potential successor to Modi within the RSS-led Hindu majoritarian movement known as Hindutva.

Modi’s party lost a significant base in the state in the 2024 national elections when the BJP fell short of a majority, forcing it to rely on allies’ support to stay in power.

For the BJP, which has long used the campaign for the Ram Temple as a central political plank, the new controversy could prove a challenge before elections in Uttar Pradesh scheduled for early next year, political analyst Rasheed Kidwai said.

“It would have a massive negative impact on the BJP if more religious leaders came forward to speak on this,” Kidwai told Al Jazeera. “This is not something that would be forgotten because it is a matter of faith, and the state chief comes from a religious order himself.”

The episode carries broader lessons, he said: Pandering to religious emotions and fanning divisions can bite back. “What has been benefitting the BJP in these years can also cause immense damage,” Kidwai said.