crisis

The Chadian government has launched the 2026 National Humanitarian Response Plan (NHRP) and the Refugee Response Plan (RRP) to coordinate assistance for vulnerable people uprooted by war. Amid a growing refugee crisis, including the arrival of 7,000 new Sudanese refugees at the eastern Oure Cassoni camp, the Chadian authorities established these schemes to tackle the humanitarian crisis overwhelming the country.

At an event held on Feb. 5, in N’Djamena, Chad’s capital city, the coordinator of the initiatives, Francois Batalingaya, commended humanitarian actors for their “constant engagement, which is essential for support to populations confronted by multiple crises”. He stressed the importance of mobilisation at both national and international levels, recognising the contributions of government, technical, financial, and humanitarian partners.

According to Batalingaya, the humanitarian plan is based on an analysis of four major drivers of crisis: conflicts and displacement, food and nutritional insecurity, sanitary emergencies, and climatic shocks. He revealed that 4.5 million people in Chad need assistance, with 3.4 million identified as priority targets, requiring nearly US$1 billion in financing.

He acknowledged persistent challenges, including financial deficits, insecurity, administrative constraints, and the need for stronger national appropriations and leadership. “Faced with these stakes, we must reinforce collective action and increase advocacy in order to avoid certain populations going without assistance,” he said.

The Minister of Social Action, National Solidarity and Humanitarian Affairs, Zara Mahamat Issa, described the launch of the NHRP and RRP as “a key moment for strategic planning and an exercise in accountability towards vulnerable populations.” She noted Chad’s continued solidarity in hosting refugees despite regional security crises, climate change, forced displacement, and socio-economic fragility.

“The government reaffirms its engagement to place the protection of vulnerable populations at the heart of its public action, considering humanitarian response as a factor of stability, social cohesion and sustainable development,” Zara said. She noted that transparency, accountability, and localisation of assistance are priorities, and called for better coordination amid limited resources.

During Batalingaya’s visit to the Oure Cassoni refugee camp, where more than 7,000 Sudanese refugees had recently arrived, he highlighted issues around the humanitarian crisis in Chad. He described the visit as “an immersion into an increasing humanitarian crisis which necessitates immediate responses.”

Testimonies from refugees, community leaders, and aid partners revealed feelings of uncertainty, exhaustion, and a shortage of basic necessities in the refugee camps. “Behind each of these problems are the suspended lives of children lacking access to education and families deprived of shelter,” stated a local humanitarian worker.

The refugees urgently need water, sanitation, healthcare, nutrition, food security, shelter, household items, protection, and education. “Oure Cassoni is an alarm signal. Without rapid and reinforced mobilisation, humanitarian needs would continue to overwhelm response capacities. The urgency is real, and inaction is no longer an option,” Batalingaya warned.

Loneliness is a growing epidemic worldwide, but in Japan, it has become particularly severe as the pressures of modern life increasingly isolate individuals from their communities.

A Place for You is a mental health hotline where dedicated volunteers provide critical support to thousands in need every day. Two people who are struggling to find meaning in their lives turn to the online chat service as they seek connection. As they become aware of their need for human bonds, they embark on a journey of healing and renewal.

Dear Tomorrow is a documentary film by Kaspar Astrup Schroder.

Volker Turk appeals for $400m after cuts to operations in 17 countries.

The human rights chief of the United Nations says his office has been pushed into “survival mode” as he appealed for $400m to cover its funding needs this year.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said on Thursday that budget cuts last year reduced operations in 17 countries, including Colombia, Myanmar and Chad.

Turk warned the cuts are undermining global human rights monitoring as he outlined his agency’s funding needs after the United States and other major Western donors last year reduced their humanitarian spending and support for UN-linked agencies.

“These cuts and reductions untie perpetrators’ hands everywhere, leaving them to do whatever they please,” he told diplomats at his office’s headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. “With crises mounting, we cannot afford a human rights system in crisis.”

While the US government under former President Joe Biden was the top single donor to Turk’s agency in voluntary contributions at $36m in 2024, the current administration under President Donald Trump halted its contributions in 2025.

“I am thankful to our 113 funding partners, including governments, private and multilateral donors, for their vital contributions,” Turk said. “But we are currently in survival mode, delivering under strain.”

Trump has repeatedly said the UN has potential but has failed to live up to it. During his time in office, the US has withdrawn from UN bodies such as the World Health Organization and UNESCO and cut funding to dozens of other agencies.

Last month, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned in a letter sent to all UN member nations that the world body faces “imminent financial collapse” unless its financial rules are overhauled or all 193 member nations pay their dues.

Last year, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had appealed for $500m in voluntary contributions but received $257m. It received $191m through the regular budget, about $55m less than initially approved, The Associated Press news agency reported.

Laura Farnsworth Dogu is not, at first glance, your typical Trump appointee.

A career diplomat with postings under the Obama and Biden administrations, she represents a branch of government President Trump has cut back and long vilified.

Yet her selection for Trump’s top envoy to Venezuela signals a rare strategic choice, leveraging her experience with authoritarian regimes at a moment when Washington is recalibrating its approach to Caracas after the overthrow of Nicolás Maduro.

“There are not very many cases in this administration where they have relied on a career diplomat,” says Elliott Abrams, who served as Trump’s special representative for Venezuela in 2019. “This is actually an anomaly.”

Abrams suggests the appointment of Dogu — who met with the interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, in Caracas on Monday — could reflect a desire for a seasoned expert to manage day-to-day diplomacy as the administration embarks on one of its most complex foreign policy undertakings.

“What he really needs is a professional to oversee the embassy and do the traditional diplomatic things while all policy is made in Washington,” Abrams said, referring to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Dogu, 62, arrived in Venezuela on Saturday to reopen the U.S. Embassy. She is recognized in Central America for her methodical, approachable style and deep understanding of Latin America’s political and cultural dynamics. However, her direct and outspoken approach has also led to controversy, with enraged officials in Honduras once wanting to declare her persona non grata.

Her new position as chargé d’affaires augments a career that includes senior roles in hostage recovery for the FBI and as ambassador to Nicaragua and Honduras during periods characterized by social and political volatility.

Before taking on her new position, she served as the foreign policy advisor to Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the leader of the operation that targeted Maduro. Her office did not respond to a request for interview.

Her experience navigating authoritarian governments and fragmented opposition movements makes her a pragmatic choice for a volatile post-Maduro transition. In a Senate hearing on Jan. 28, Rubio stressed the post’s importance for restoring a limited U.S. mission to gather intelligence and engage with Venezuelan stakeholders.

Dogu will be tasked with navigating Venezuela’s fractured opposition, which includes leaders inside the country, exiles abroad and figures struggling for influence in a potential transition. Abrams, the veteran diplomat, said engaging opposition actors, such as Maria Corina Machado, is a core diplomatic responsibility, particularly in a country the United States does not recognize as having a legitimate government. At the same time, maintaining relations with the turbulent, divided government will be her responsibility as well.

Abrams also cautioned that Washington priorities will define Dogu’s mission, and those priorities might not always align neatly with democratic objectives.

“The question is how the administration defines the interests of the United States,” Abrams said. “Does it include a free and democratic Venezuela? I don’t think we really know the answer yet.”

A family ethos of public service

A Texas resident and the daughter of a career Navy officer, Dogu often traces her commitment to public service to her upbringing in a military family. That ethos shaped her diplomatic career and has been a defining thread across generations, with both of her sons also serving in the military.

She has received multiple State Department honors, speaks Spanish, Turkish and Arabic and served in Mexico, El Salvador, Egypt, Turkey and Morocco.

Diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Venezuela have been suspended since 2019. She takes over from John McNamara, who had served as chargé d’affaires since February 2025 and traveled to Venezuela in January to discuss the potential reopening of the embassy.

According to a statement, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil Pinto, indicated that the two governments will hold discussions to establish a “roadmap on matters of bilateral interest” and resolve disagreements through mutual respect and diplomatic dialogue.

Dogu is no stranger to Venezuelan issues. During a 2024 news conference, while serving as ambassador to Honduras, she publicly criticized the participation of sanctioned Venezuelan officials in Honduran government events.

“It’s surprising for me to see [Honduran] government officials sitting with members of a cartel based in Venezuela,” Dogu said at the time, referring to a meeting between the government of President Xiomara Castro and Venezuela’s defense minister, Vladimir Padrino López.

The United States has accused Padrino López of involvement in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and there is a $15-million reward for information resulting in his arrest or conviction.

Years earlier, Dogu had offered a blunt assessment of Venezuela’s economic collapse. Speaking in 2019 at Indiana University’s Latin American Studies program, she described Venezuela as “a very wealthy country, [with] huge oil supplies, but they’ve managed to drive their economy into the ground,” the Indiana Gazette reported.

Crisis and confrontations

Nominated by President Obama to serve as ambassador to Nicaragua in 2015, she said at her confirmation hearing that Obama had “rightly maintained” that “no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by another.” She added: “America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.”

Dogu left her Nicaragua post in October 2018 amid nationwide protests and a severe government crackdown that resulted in at least 355 deaths, according to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. At the time, Dogu said she learned from authorities that paramilitary groups had targeted her for death.

In 2019, she linked the unrest in Nicaragua to the Cold War, citing an “unfortunate negative synergy” among Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. “We never left the Cold War in Latin America,” she said.

Nicaraguan opposition figures, many now exiled, remember Dogu as an accessible diplomat. Former presidential candidate Juan Sebastián Chamorro called her a “methodical and approachable official” who upheld State Department policy and democratic principles.

Lesther Alemán, then a student leader who frequently interacted with Dogu during the 2018 protests, described her as publicly blunt but privately empathetic. Alemán emphasized Dogu’s ability to engage “all sides of the coin,” making her effective with both the “authoritarian governments and with the opposition.”

Alemán said Dogu initially had a good relationship with the Nicaraguan government, including a personal friendship with then-first lady and current co-President Rosario Murillo. However, that relationship soured after Dogu publicly supported opposition groups during the political crisis.

Her experience in Honduras proved more contentious. After Dogu made her statements regarding Venezuela, Rasel Tomé, vice president of the National Congress and a senior figure in the governing Liberty and Refoundation Party, urged lawmakers to declare her “persona non grata.”

Tomé justified this request by accusing her of making “interventionist statements” directed at the government.

Criticism continued after Dogu’s departure from Honduras in 2025. An opinion column published by the Committee of Relatives of the Disappeared in Honduras argued that her relationship with the country had been marked by distrust.

“Although Ambassador Laura Dogu makes an effort to say goodbye amicably,” the piece read, “we all know that the relationship between her and Honduras was not sincere because it was disrespectful; it was not trustworthy because it was interventionist.”

This week, the U.S. Embassy posted online an upbeat video of showing Dogu entering the mission, meeting with Venezuelans and outlining plans for what she calls a “friendly, stable, prosperous and democratic” Venezuela. “Our presence marks a new chapter,” she says, “and I’m ready to get to work.”

Mojica Loaisiga is a special correspondent writing for The Times under the auspices of the International Center for Journalists.

We’re talking to educators with decades of experience and seeing why nobody is reading books any more. Is it fair to blame everything on technology? Are parents being present enough with their children, and what does that mean for our collective future?

Presenter: Stefanie Dekker

Guests:
Beth Gaskill – Founder of Big City Readers

Keisha Siriboe – Literacy advocate

Margaret Kunji – Former educator

SAN FRANCISCO — Katie Porter’s still standing, which is saying something.

The last time a significant number of people tuned into California‘s low-frequency race for governor was in October, when Porter’s political obituary was being written in bold type.

Immediately after a snappish and off-putting TV interview, Porter showed up in a years-old video profanely reaming a staff member for — the humanity! — straying into the video frame during her meeting with a Biden Cabinet member.

Not a good look for a candidate already facing questions about her temperament and emotional regulation. (Hang on, gentle reader, we’ll get to that whole gendered double-standard thing in a moment.)

The former Orange County congresswoman had played to the worst stereotypes and that was that. Her campaign was supposedly kaput.

But, lo, these several months later, Porter remains positioned exactly where she’d been before, as one of the handful of top contenders in a race that remains stubbornly formless and utterly wide open.

Did she ever think of exiting the contest, as some urged, and others plainly hoped to see? (The surfacing of that surly 2021 video, with the timing and intentionality of a one-two punch, was clearly not a coincidence.)

No, she said, not for a moment.

“Anyone who thinks that you can just push over Katie Porter has never tried to do it,” she said.

Porter apologized and expressed remorse for her tetchy behavior. She promised to do better.

“You definitely learn from your mistakes,” the Democrat said this week over a cup of chai in San Francisco’s Financial District. “I really have and I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how do I show Californians who I am and that I really care about people who work for me. I need to earn back their trust and that’s what campaigns are literally about.”

She makes no excuse for acting churlish and wouldn’t bite when asked about that double standard — though she did allow as how Democratic leader John Burton, who died not long before people got busy digging Porter’s grave, was celebrated for his gruff manner and lavish detonation of f-bombs.

“It was a reminder,” she said, pivoting to the governor’s race, “that there have been other politicians who come on hot, come on strong and fight for what’s right and righteous and California has embraced them.”

Voters, she said, “want someone who will not back down.”

Porter warmed to the subject.

“If you are never gonna hurt anyone’s feelings, you are never gonna take [JPMorgan Chase Chief Executive] Jamie Dimon to task for not thinking about how his workers can’t afford to make ends meet. If you want everyone to love you, you are never gonna say to a big pharma CEO, ‘You didn’t make this cancer drug anymore. You just got richer, right?’ That is a feistiness that I’m proud of.”

At the same, Porter suggested, she wants to show there’s more to her persona than the whiteboard-wielding avenger that turned her into a viral sensation. The inquisitorial stance was, she said, her role as a congressional overseer charged with holding people accountable. Being governor is different. More collaborative. Less confrontational.

Her campaign approach has been to “call everyone, go everywhere” — even places Porter may not be welcomed — to listen and learn, build relationships and show “my ability to craft a compromise, my ability to learn and to change my mind.”

“All of that is really hard to convey,” she said, “in those whiteboard moments.”

The rap on this year’s pack of gubernatorial hopefuls is they’re a collective bore, as though the lack of A-list sizzle and failure to throw off sparks is some kind of mortal sin.

Porter doesn’t buy that.

“When we say boring, I think what we’re really saying is ‘I’m not 100% sure how all this is going to work out.’ People are waiting for some thing to happen, some coronation of our next governor. We’re not gonna have that.”

Gavin Newsom, she noted, was a high-profile former San Francisco mayor who spent eight years as lieutenant governor before winning the state’s top job. His predecessor was the dynastic Jerry Brown.

None of those running this time have that political pedigree, or the Sacramento backgrounds of Newsom or Brown, which, Porter suggested, is not a bad thing.

“I actually think this race has the potential to be really, really exciting for California,” she said. “… I think everyone in this race comes in with a little bit of a fresh energy, and I think that’s really good and healthy.”

Crowding into the conversation was, inevitably, Donald Trump, the sun around which today’s entire political universe turns.

Of course, Porter said, as governor she would stand up to the president. His administration’s actions in Minneapolis have been awful. His stalling on disaster relief for California is grotesque.

But, she said, Trump didn’t cause last year’s firestorm. He didn’t make housing in California obscenely expensive for the last many decades.

“When my children say ‘I don’t know if I want to go to college in California because we don’t have enough dorm housing,’ Trump has done plenty of horrible attacks on higher ed,” Porter said. “But that’s a homegrown problem that we need to tackle.”

Indeed, she’s “very leery of anyone who does not acknowledge that we had problems and policy challenges long before Donald Trump ever raised his orange head on the political horizon.”

Although California needs “someone who’s going to [buffer] us against Trump,” Porter said, “you can’t make that an excuse for why you are not tackling these policy changes that need to be.”

She hadn’t finished her tea, but it was time to go. Porter gathered her things.

She’d just spoken at an Urban League forum in San Francisco and was heading across the Bay Bridge to address union workers in Oakland.

The June 2 primary is some ways off. But Porter remains in the fight.

US president says he still has confidence in Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem amid calls for her resignation.

US President Donald Trump said his administration intends to “de-escalate” the spiralling crisis in the state of Minnesota after federal agents killed two United States citizens, including intensive care nurse Alex Pretti, who was shot by two Border Patrol officers over the weekend.

“I don’t think it’s a pullback. It’s a little bit of a change,” President Trump told Fox News on Tuesday.

“We’re going to de-escalate a little bit,” Trump said, referring to a sweeping federal immigration crackdown in Minneapolis that has led to weeks of protests, the killing of Pretti and Renee Good, and a standoff between state and federal officials.

Top Trump officials, including Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, are under fire from Democrats and a growing number of Republicans over how they responded to Pretti’s shooting.

Pretti was filming Border Patrol officers with his phone when he was shot and killed on Saturday.

He was also a licensed gun owner with a permit to carry a weapon in public, which he was wearing at the time of the shooting and which appears to have been confiscated by officers before he was killed.

Trump told Fox News that he still had confidence in Noem despite calls for her resignation.

Noem, who oversees both Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), responded to the killing by accusing Pretti of engaging in “domestic terrorism” and suggested the ICU nurse had brandished his weapon at Border Patrol agents during an altercation.

Noem’s remarks preceded any investigation findings and broke with the longstanding protocols of how US officials discuss a civilian shooting by law enforcement. Her characterisation of events also conflicted with preliminary video evidence showing that Pretti did not take out his weapon at any time while he was tackled and later shot and killed by officers.

A CBP official informed Congress on Tuesday that two federal officers fired shots during the killing of Pretti.

According to a notice sent to Congress, officers tried to take Pretti into custody and he resisted, leading to a struggle. During the struggle, a Border Patrol agent yelled, “He’s got a gun!” multiple times, the official said in the notice, according to The Associated Press news agency.

A Border Patrol officer and a CBP officer each fired Glock pistols, the notice said.

Investigators from CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility conducted the analysis based on a review of body-worn camera footage and agency documentation, the notice said. US law requires the agency to inform relevant congressional committees about deaths in CBP custody within 72 hours.

WASHINGTON — The crisis touched off by President Trump’s demand to take ownership of Greenland appears over, at least for now. But the United States and its European allies still face a larger long-term challenge: Can their shaky marriage be saved?

At 75 years old, NATO has survived storms before, from squabbles over trade to estrangement over wars in Vietnam and Iraq. France, jealous of its independence, even pulled its armed forces out of NATO for 43 years.

But diplomats and foreign policy scholars warn that the current division in the alliance may be worse, because Trump’s threats on Greenland convinced many Europeans that the United States has become an unreliable and perhaps even dangerous ally.

The roots of the crisis lie in the president’s frequently expressed disdain for alliances in general and NATO in particular.

Long before Trump arrived in the White House, presidents from both parties complained that many NATO countries weren’t pulling their weight in military spending.

But earlier presidents still considered the alliance an essential asset to U.S. foreign policy and the cornerstone of a system that prevented war in Europe for most of a century.

Trump has never seemed to share that view. Even after he succeeded in persuading NATO members to increase their defense spending, he continued to deride most allies as freeloaders.

Until last year, he refused to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to help defend other NATO countries, the core principle of the alliance. And he reserved the right to walk away from any agreement, military or commercial, whenever it suited his purpose.

In the two-week standoff over Greenland, he threatened to seize the island from NATO member Denmark by force, an action that would have violated the NATO treaty.

When Britain, Germany and other countries sent troops to Greenland, he threatened to hit them with new tariffs, which would have violated a trade deal Trump made only last year.

Both threats touched off fury in Europe, where governments had spent most of the past year making concessions to Trump on both military spending and tariffs. When Trump backed down, the lesson some leaders drew was that pushing back worked better than playing nice.

“We do prefer respect to bullies,” French President Emmanuel Macron said.

“Being a happy vassal is one thing. Being a miserable slave is something else,” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said.

The long-term danger for the United States, scholars said, is that Europeans might choose to look elsewhere for military and economic partners.

“They just don’t trust us,” said Richard N. Haass, a former top State Department official in the George W. Bush administration.

“A post-American world is fast emerging, one brought about in large part by the United States taking the lead in dismantling the international order that this country built,” he wrote last week.

Some European leaders, including Macron, have argued that they need to disentangle from the United States, build military forces that can defend against Russia, and seek more reliable trade partners, potentially including India and China.

But decoupling from the United States would not be easy, fast or cheap. Europe and Canada still depend on the United States for many of their defense needs and as a major market for exports.

Almost all NATO countries have pledged to increase defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product, but they aren’t scheduled to reach that goal until 2035.

Meanwhile, they face the current danger of an expansionist Russia on their eastern frontier.

Not surprisingly for a group of 30 countries, Europe’s NATO members aren’t united on the question. Macron has argued for more autonomy, but others have called for caution.

“Despite all the frustration and anger of recent months, let us not be too quick to write off the transatlantic partnership,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said at Davos.

“I think we are actually in the process of creating a stronger NATO,” said Finnish President Alexander Stubb. “As long as we keep doing that, slowly and surely we’ll be just fine.”

They argue, in effect, that the best strategy is to muddle through — which is what NATO and Europe have done in most earlier crises.

The strongest argument for that course may be the uncertainty and disorder that would follow a rapid erosion — or worse, dissolution — of an alliance that has helped keep its members safe for most of a century.

The costs of that outcome, historian Robert Kagan warned recently, would be borne by Americans as well as Europeans.

If the United States continues to weaken its commitments to NATO and other alliances, he wrote in the Atlantic, “The U.S. will have no reliable friends or allies, and will have to depend entirely on its own strength to survive and prosper. This will require more military spending, not less. … If Americans thought defending the liberal world order was too expensive, wait until they start paying for what comes next.”