Donald Trump

A United States aircraft carrier, the USS George Washington, has begun to depart the western Pacific Ocean, leaving its port in Da Nang, Vietnam, for an anticipated deployment to the Middle East.

The ship is expected to replace the USS Abraham Lincoln, which is currently participating in the US-Israeli war against Iran.

The vessel’s movement on Saturday comes amid mounting concerns about the conditions on board the USS Lincoln, sparked by reports of sailors attempting to jump overboard.

The USS Lincoln has been deployed without a port stop for more than 266 days, a record duration for the Navy. It houses about 5,000 sailors and Marines.

In the wake of reports about supply shortages and mental health strain on the ship, US President Donald Trump and acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao indicated that the vessel would be rotated. The Pentagon has not confirmed, however, that the USS Lincoln will be replaced by the USS Washington.

The department historically has not commented on movements of key military assets, citing security concerns.

Analysts note that the USS Washington’s departure from the Pacific leaves no US aircraft carrier in the strategically significant region, where the US has long acted as a bulwark against China’s might.

Back-and-forth over conditions

Members of the Trump administration have spent much of this week batting away reports about deteriorating conditions on the USS Lincoln.

US media outlets have carried reports not only of sailors attempting to leap from the vessel, but also of diminishing hygiene supplies and paltry food, as well as issues with plumbing and waste disposal.

Several US senators have called for more information about the conditions on board and the reason for its record-setting deployment.

Since leaving San Diego, California, last November, the USS Lincoln has been sent to support military operations in Venezuela, before leaving for the Middle East shortly thereafter.

Its deployment was supposed to end in May. But after the US and Israel launched a war against Iran in February, its mission was extended indefinitely.

The war with Iran has shown no signs so far of ending, though fighting has remained largely subdued in recent days. Talks have stalled over issues including control of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway for global trade.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Trump downplayed concerns about the ship, saying instead the length of the aircraft carrier’s deployment was “not nearly enough”.

A day earlier, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said conditions on board had been “completely misrepresented”.

In a separate statement on Friday, Cao maintained the issues on board the ship were not dire, but he acknowledged “a small number of mental health cases were treated with no loss of life”.

He added that meal plans had been adjusted “when fresh resupply was unavailable”, but not a single meal had been missed.

“There is no question our young men and women have been pushed to their limits  — but they have never broken,” he said.

Still, some analysts say Iranian attacks have taken a toll on US military assets across the region, particularly a US Navy base in Bahrain. That has likely complicated typical resupply and maintenance procedures for aircraft carriers like the USS Lincoln.

Concerns about China

News of the USS Washington’s shift from the Pacific has spurred concern that its departure may further harm US deterrence against China. It was not clear if or when another carrier would be deployed to the region.

Bryan Clark, a former Navy submariner and defence analyst at the Hudson Institute, a think tank, told The Associated Press that Beijing may try to project strength in the aircraft carrier’s absence to unnerve US allies in the region.

“They’re using this as part of the narrative to demonstrate to the Philippines, to Japan, to Indonesia and others that the US is not the big dog in the western Pacific any more,” Clark said.

“They would just prefer that countries in the region decide that China is the bigger power and the US is not able to guarantee their security any more.”

Clark added he did not believe the change would in and of itself embolden China to launch an attack on Taiwan, the self-governing island it claims as its own.

Still, the shift comes as the US contends with a reported depletion in both its offensive and defensive weapon supplies as a result of the war with Iran.

Those shortages have already piqued concerns of a declining US ability to serve as deterrence against military aggression. Critics point out that a country like China, unlike Iran, has advanced military technology and a sprawling air force, which could pose a challenge to the US military.

Like the USS Lincoln, the USS Washington is a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. It has the capability to carry more than 6,000 passengers and about 90 aircraft.

Aug. 14 (UPI) — A Kentucky woman was arrested for allegedly vandalizing the National Mall’s World War II Memorial, officials said Friday.

Melissa L. Farris, 41 of Elizabethtown, is charged with depredation against federal property and destruction of veterans’ memorials, both of which are felonies. She faces 10 years in prison on each charge.

“Vandalizing our World War II Memorial is a despicable attack on a sacred monument honoring the Americans who fought and died for our freedom,” U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said in a statement on X.

Farris was arrested about 2 p.m. on Thursday when U.S. Park Police responded to reports of a disorderly person, according to the criminal complaint.

Law enforcement found spray paint and colored foam covering several portions of the Atlantic Theatre Pavilion of the memorial.

The words “Clean Hands Dirty $” were sprayed onto the walls in orange paint. There were also splatters of green and pink paint.

Officials said Farris had been arrested four days earlier for allegedly camping on federal property, the criminal complaint said.

She is also alleged to have posted videos on social media admitting to the vandalism.

In the postings, Farris said she is “cognitively aware” and “doing so to push my whistleblower case into the courtroom,” according to the criminal complaint.

“Our beautiful World War II Memorial was just hit by Spray Painting Vandals,” President Donald Trump said in a statement on Truth Social. “THERE CAN BE NO GREATER INSULT TO THOSE AMERICAN HEROES WHO DIED IN WORLD WAR II.”

Aug. 14 (UPI) — An American missionary who was kidnapped in Niger last fall has been released, officials said Thursday.

Kevin Rideout, 50, was abducted by three men from outside his home in the capital of Niamey on Oct. 21.

The details of his release are unclear, but he was in FBI custody and in good health as of Thursday, The New York Times reported.

Rideout, a pilot, was in Niger working for SIM, a North Carolina-based missionary organization.

“We are grateful to confirm that our good friend and brother in Christ, Kevin Rideout, has been released after over nine months in captivity,” SIM International Director Phil Bauman told CNN in a statement. “Kevin is in good health in the care of US officials.”

President Donald Trump said “the United States of America looks forward to welcoming” him home.

“Kevin was kidnapped by Jihadi terrorists in West Africa – the epicenter of Islamist terrorism, where there have been more deadly attacks in the past year than anywhere else on Earth,” the president added on Truth Social.

According to a new report, the United States federal government has taken a massive step back from its role in protecting civil rights across the country.

On Thursday, the nonprofit Human Rights Watch issued a 112-page analysis of the government’s civil rights activities from January 2025 through the start of 2026, a period that captures the opening months of President Donald Trump’s second term.

The report concludes that the federal agencies responsible for stopping discrimination have largely been gutted of their staff.

Additionally, top-down directives by Trump have de-emphasised the federal government’s role in protecting civil rights across the country, according to the group.

“While claiming to protect all Americans, the administration is rolling back systems that communities have long turned to for relief,” Trey Walk, a researcher at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement.

Which agencies did the report analyse?

The report examines four key agencies within the federal government dedicated to civil rights.

They include the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, the Office of Civil Rights at the Education Department, the Fair Housing Office at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Human Rights Watch spoke with current and former federal workers, lawyers, complainants and community groups who had been involved in cases alleging discrimination.

It also reviewed court filings and federal agency directives that illustrated the pivot in priorities under the second Trump administration.

What is the history of civil rights enforcement in the federal government?

The federal government’s role in civil rights protections goes back centuries, starting with the US Constitution.

In 1791, Congress ratified an addition to the country’s founding document that established civil protections like the freedom of religion. Those first 10 amendments became known as the Bill of Rights.

Over the decades, more amendments were added, most notably after the US Civil War, to guarantee rights like equal protection under the law.

While the Constitution contains explicit language about religion and race, critics point out that there is no language that confers equal protection based on sex or gender.

The history of the Department of Justice is closely entwined with the need to enforce civil rights law after the Civil War.

Created in 1870, the department addressed several needs, including a push to professionalise and centralise the country’s federal law enforcement. But it also helped prosecute violent white supremacist groups at a time when local authorities, particularly in southern states, sometimes refused to.

The US Civil Rights Movement, starting in the 1950s, also spurred a surge in federal infrastructure. It was the Civil Rights Act of 1957, for instance, that established a dedicated civil rights division within the Justice Department.

How did federal policy change under Trump?

Trump’s second term ushered in a backlash towards policies broadly considered to be part of the “diversity, equity and inclusion” movement, or DEI.

That movement gained popularity in the early 2020s, particularly after the murder of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, sparked a public reckoning over racial inequality.

Trump, however, has called DEI “racially discriminatory”. During his campaign for a second term, he argued that there was a “definite anti-white feeling in this country”.

Since starting his second term, Trump has sought to undo policies that his administration argues give unfair advantages to demographics like women and minorities.

In addition, federal agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division suspended certain cases they were pursuing, including some involving sexual harassment and transgender rights.

New investigations were opened instead, including against the footwear giant Nike, which was accused this year of discrimination against white employees.

In May 2025, the Department of Justice also announced it would halt investigations and reform agreements involving police departments accused of racial discrimination.

Such measures had been taken in places like Louisville, Kentucky, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, after public outcry over the police killings of unarmed Black people, including Floyd.

What did the Human Rights Watch report find?

The report chronicled an overall weakening in the federal bodies designed to protect civil rights.

Job cuts and resignations were part of that trend. The Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, for instance, boasted about 365 lawyers in January 2025, when Trump took office.

By the end of that year, three-quarters of those lawyers had left the agency, an exodus driven by what Human Rights Watch called a “coordinated effort to undermine career staff”.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department told Al Jazeera its Civil Rights Division “remains dedicated to protecting the rights of all Americans”.

The department also said it had added 100 personnel since the 2025 departures.

According to the spokesperson, the Civil Rights Division is currently focused on “protecting religious liberty, Second Amendment rights, and women’s and girls’ spaces, standing against illegal race-based policymaking and DEI, and defending parents’ fundamental right to direct their children’s upbringing and education”.

What other offices were affected?

Other agencies in the Human Rights Watch report likewise saw a decrease in their ranks as well as a reduction in their civil rights work.

The Office of Fair Housing went from 31 staffers to 11 by mid-2025. Some 115 complaints prepared by the office and referred to the Justice Department for possible legal action were quashed, according to the report.

At the Department of Education, the Office for Civil Rights initially had 568 workers across 12 offices when Trump took office in 2025. Within a few months, seven of those offices were shuttered, and half of the civil rights-related workers were gone.

Between May and September 2025, the office dismissed about 90 percent of the nearly 10,000 complaints it received, a higher rate than it would have in the past, the report said.

What has been the impact of these changes?

Human Rights Watch found that many victims and communities grappling with discrimination no longer had the benefit of a federal agency to help them in their cases.

One community housing group told Human Rights Watch that the Department of Housing and Urban Development no longer responds in a timely fashion to reported instances of anti-LGBTQ discrimination.

Some federal agencies also appear to have walked away from their role in monitoring discrimination and overseeing reforms around the country, according to the report.

The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has a long history of investigating discrimination claims and working with school districts to enact change.

But Human Rights Watch observed that the office has largely stopped dealing with complaints under Trump.

While the Office of Civil Rights required policy changes or monitoring in response to 336 cases in the first half of 2024, only 59 cases received such a remedy over a similar period in 2025.

In Springfield, Massachusetts, for instance, parents complained after white students held a mock “slave auction” on the social media platform Snapchat, where they bid for the sale of their fellow Black students. That case is no longer being pursued by the Office of Civil Rights as of last year.

A new poll shows Lula leading Bolsonaro, but the gap has closed ahead of Brazil’s high-stakes presidential election.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has retained his lead over right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro ahead of October’s election, according to a new poll.

A Quaest survey published on Friday found Lula would take 43 percent of the vote in a simulated run-off, against 40 percent for Bolsonaro, effectively a statistical tie given the poll’s two-point margin of error.

The result marks a narrowing from an earlier Quaest poll on August 5, which had put Lula ahead by a wider five-point margin, 44 percent to 39 percent.

In a first-round scenario, Lula leads more comfortably with 38 percent, followed by Bolsonaro at 31 percent. Three other candidates trail far behind: Renan Santos and Ronaldo Caiado each polled at 4 percent, and Romeu Zema at 2 percent.

Under Brazilian electoral rules, if no candidate secures more than half the valid votes in the first round, the top two finishers advance to a run-off.

Flavio Bolsonaro, the eldest son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, has emerged as the standard-bearer for Brazil’s right after his father was barred from running in the election.

The elder Bolsonaro was ruled ineligible for office after Brazil’s top electoral court found he had abused his power while in office. He was later convicted separately over a plot to overturn his 2022 election loss to Lula.

The poll, conducted by Quaest between August 10 and 13, surveyed 2,004 people and was commissioned by the Brazilian media group Globo.

Lula launched his re-election bid on August 2 at the Workers’ Party convention in Sao Paulo, casting himself as a defender of Brazilian “sovereignty” as pressure from the administration of United States President Donald Trump looms over the race.

He called for increased defence spending and pledged to shield Brazil’s reserves of rare earths and other critical minerals from foreign control. “I want to be prepared, so that no one invades this country,” he said.

He warned that China, the US and France would not get access to Brazil’s mineral wealth without respecting the country’s sovereignty. He also told the convention: “In Brazil, we do not accept anyone sticking their nose where it does not belong.”

Trump has maintained close ties with the Bolsonaros. In June, Lula warned Trump not to interfere in the presidential race.

“Don’t meddle in the Brazilian elections, because the Brazilian elections are a Brazilian problem, just as American elections are their business, not mine,” Lula said.

With the race tightening two months out from the vote, the results so far have shown a competitive presidential race, even as Lula continues to hold a narrow structural advantage heading into the final stretch of the campaign.

US president’s words come as Treasury chief says US will use economic measures against Iran that have ‘never been seen’.

Aug. 14 (UPI) — The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is returning home after a lengthy, record-breaking deployment which some crew members’ families said caused their loved ones to attempt suicide, Navy officials announced Friday.

The vessel will be replaced in the Middle East by another aircraft carrier, President Donald Trump later told reporters, while dismissing concerns over the mental well-being of its sailors and Marines during its 266-day deployment.

The USS Abraham Lincoln “crushed their deployment and will return home soon as part of a planned rotation,” acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao said in a social media statement. “Details will come but let me be clear: the safety and security of our Sailors and Marines always comes first.”

The Lincoln’s time at sea “was extended because the mission demanded it. Deployments are hard,” he added, while criticizing what he called a “dishonest” portrayal of the crew’s health situation by media allegedly attempting to “paint our warriors as victims.”

Families of sailors serving on the ship have told reporters several crew members have tried to jump overboard or have been stopped from doing so in recent months as the Lincoln’s deployment reached record-setting proportions.

This prompted Senate Armed Services Committee member Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., to voice “serious concerns” about the length of the warship’s deployment as well as additional reports of supply shortages and contaminated water.

Cao on Friday admitted that “a small number of mental health cases were treated with no loss of life” and that meal plans “were adjusted” when fresh resupply was unavailable “without a single meal being missed.

“There is no question our young men and women have been pushed to their limits-but they have never broken,” he said. “They are rightly tired — but have never been out of the fight.

“However, it is clear, knowing the whole story, our force and their families are not victims. They are the epitome of American strength and resilience.”

The Abraham Lincoln will be replaced in the Middle East by the USS George Washington, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Trump, meanwhile confirmed another carrier is on its way, telling reporters that the Lincoln “is moving right now or very shortly and it’s being replaced with another very similar ship.”

He responded, “no, they’re not,” when asked if sailors’ families are concerned, and questioned whether the 266-day deployment was too long, he answered, “No, no, no. Not nearly long enough.”

For almost 40 years, a stamp of approval from Oprah Winfrey has been the ultimate status symbol, and a near-guarantee of commercial success — just ask Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil.

Winfrey’s talk show launched in 1986 and became a sensation. The talk show raked in Daytime Emmy awards, and the host’s sway with the audience was undeniable. Winfrey’s influence was, and still is, so potent that marketing pros called the boost in sales following an endorsement “the Oprah Effect.” Books have shot to the top of bestseller lists, brands such as Spanx and Ugg have become household names and multiple television personalities have been launched, including two controversial health professionals whose endorsements from Winfrey haven’t exactly aged well for some fans.

During a recent interview with the Television Academy’s Emmy Magazine, Winfrey addressed her ties with the conservative TV personalities, saying “People criticize me for Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz, because of their politics or their views.”

In the ’90s, Phil McGraw was a licensed psychologist who co-founded a trial consulting firm and was hired to help Winfrey when she was sued in Texas for questioning the safety of beef on her show amid a mad cow disease epidemic happening in the U.K. According to disgruntled cattlemen, the “Oprah Effect” doesn’t just have the power to boost sales, it can drop them too.

Winfrey won the case in 1998, and was so impressed by McGraw that she invited him onto her show and he subsequently landed a weekly segment. A few years later, he launched his own talk show with Winfrey’s backing.

“Dr. Phil, he was so practical, so down to earth, so real. And he would ride in the car with me every morning on the way to trial, where I’m literally sitting on trial for six weeks. I felt that he was so instrumental in helping me. I thought, ‘Oh, you could help a lot of people. You should come on my show,’” she told the outlet.

Dr. Oz came into the fold, Winfrey said, by way of introduction from her best friend, fellow television personality and news anchor Gayle King.

“He explained practical things like colon cancer and bowel movements,” Winfrey told Emmy Magazine. “I thought he had the language for explaining medical things in a way that was helpful to me. I thought it would be helpful to many other people. And that is how they ended up on the show.”

Dr. Mehmet Oz made his debut on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” in 2004, and in the next few years he made more than 60 appearances, offering health advice to viewers. In 2009, he followed in Dr. Phil’s footsteps and launched his own talk show, with Winfrey’s production company backing the venture.

In recent years, Dr. Phil has aligned himself with MAGA, and in October 2024 he spoke at Donald Trump’s Madison Square Garden presidential campaign rally. Last year, he embedded with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials during raids, including in Chicago, where he and his crew taped arrests.

In 2020, when Dr. Phil celebrated a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, he thanked Winfrey in his speech, saying she has mentored him and moved him forward in life. “No doubt about it… You cannot understand the power of the O factor,” he said. “There would be no Dr. Phil without Oprah, so blame her if you’re going to blame somebody.”

Similarly, Dr. Oz aligned himself with the MAGA and Make America Healthy Again movements. He ran for senate in Pennsylvania in 2022 with an endorsement from Trump. After losing, he joined the Trump administration as the administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Since McGraw and Oz became vocal allies of the Trump administration, news stories involving them have spawned a thread of replies and reposts with comments pointing the finger at Winfrey for platforming the men many moons ago.

“Oprah spun off Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, and gave oxygen to Suzanne Somers’ and Jenny McCarthy’s toxic messages. Her impact on the public discourse around medical advice was pretty uniformly terrible. I am not a fan,” reads one post on X.

“If it weren’t for Oprah, this quack Dr. Phil would be a nobody. Oprah has a lot to answer for,” reads another.

And, “Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz are the two worst things Oprah ever foisted on the public.”

Winfrey may have platformed the men decades ago, but her stance is clear today: “Everybody has their own path in life, and it has not one thing to do with me, and I don’t have one thing to do with them. At the time, the reason and intention behind me giving them their breaks was I thought they had valuable information to share that had been meaningful to me.”

The US has not confirmed the revocation, which comes amid crackdown on Mexican politicians with alleged ties to cartels.

The son of former Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has accused the United States of revoking his visa in a politically motivated manoeuvre.

Andres Manuel Lopez Beltran made the allegation late on Thursday in a public letter addressed to US President Donald Trump and posted on social media.

He accused US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his deputy, Christopher Landau, of ordering the visa revocation.

“There is no reason whatsoever to justify such an arrogant action,” Lopez Beltran wrote to Trump. “It is worth emphasising that these officials have no evidence against me regarding any immoral or criminal act.”

The US State Department has not publicly responded to his claim.

His letter comes as part of a trend of visa revocations from the US. Several Mexican officials, across the political spectrum, have had their visas cancelled, as part of what the Trump administration characterises as a broad crackdown on individuals linked to drug cartels.

Who is Lopez Beltran?

The 39-year-old Lopez Beltran is a prominent politician in Mexico, having recently stepped down from the leadership of the left-wing Morena party.

His father founded the party in 2011 and went on to govern Mexico as its president from 2018 to 2024.

Currently, another Morena politician, Claudia Sheinbaum, holds the presidency, and Morena boasts decisive majorities in both chambers of Mexico’s Congress.

Lopez Beltran is expected to run for a seat in the Chamber of Deputies next year.

For much of his father’s presidency, Lopez Beltran stayed out of party politics, instead focusing on his chocolate business.

However, he was elected Morena’s secretary of organisation in September 2024, just weeks before his father left office.

In his letter, Lopez Beltran called the revocation “a ⁠⁠crude and perverse act”, saying US officials target Mexican politicians by falsely labelling them as “communists”, “threats to US security” or “narco-terrorists”.

Sheinbaum reacts to letter

On Friday, Sheinbaum said she was unaware of any investigations by Mexican prosecutors into Lopez Beltran.

“This amounts to interference ⁠⁠in Mexican politics,” Sheinbaum said at her morning news briefing. “I see no other reason for it.”

Sheinbaum has also walked a careful line in responding to the Trump administration’s hardline approach to cartels and cross-border crime, pledging to cooperate.

But she has also said she would protect Mexico’s sovereignty from any foreign interference, and while she has welcomed collaboration with US intelligence, she has reportedly declined Trump’s offers of US military action on Mexican soil.

Last month, she also rejected a statement by the head of the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that her government has ties to organised crime, a frequent Trump talking point.

In April, she decried the US’s decision to charge Sinaloa Governor Ruben Rocha, another Morena party official, with drug trafficking and weapons-related offences.

She has argued that the indictment lacks evidence and that such investigations should be left to Mexican prosecutors.

The Trump administration has accused Rocha’s campaign of having worked with the powerful Sinaloa Cartel, the criminal organisation it considers a “foreign terrorist organisation”.

Rocha announced in May that he would take a temporary leave of absence from his position as governor to defend himself from the charges.

The pay gap between executives and their employees has widened from 2024 to 2025, with chief executives making 312 times what their median worker earned, according to the AFL-CIO, the largest coalition of labour unions in the United States.

That’s up from the previous rate of 285 times the median worker salary for executives working in the companies listed on the S&P 500 index.

The figures were released on Thursday as part of the AFL-CIO’s annual Paywatch report, which tracks the growing gulf in wages.

The labour federation warned that the divide in pay risks having broader effects for the global marketplace. If CEOs are focused on increasing their paycheques, the AFL-CIO warned that they may be less concerned about the stability of their companies — or of the economy overall.

“Excessive CEO compensation contributes to growing economic inequality,” the AFL-CIO wrote. “It creates the risk that CEOs will make short-term decisions to maximize their pay, even if it hurts the company’s long-term health.”

In determining the executive-to-worker pay ratio, the AFL-CIO explained it had to exclude one outlier: the world’s richest man, Elon Musk.

In 2025, Musk made $158bn as CEO of the electric vehicle company Tesla — 2.5 million times more than the company’s average employee. His salary even dwarfed the company’s revenue for the year, which was $94bn.

That same year, the carmaker reported a 3 percent decline in revenue. Sales dropped by roughly 9 percent, as some consumers boycotted the company over Musk’s participation in President Donald Trump’s second administration.

Tesla also faced 11 vehicle recalls last year, accounting for 745,000 of its cars.

For the first half of 2025, Musk served as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an office Trump established to oversee cuts to the federal workforce and spending.

He also oversees multiple business interests beyond Tesla, including the social media platform X and the rocket company SpaceX.

In June, the initial public offering (IPO) for SpaceX’s stock briefly ballooned Musk’s net worth, and he was listed for a short time as the world’s first trillionaire.

Including Musk, on average, the pay for a chief executive in an S&P 500 company jumped 1,700 percent last year to reach $3.1bn.

Excluding Musk, the increase was slightly more modest. Whereas in 2024 the average CEO pay was roughly $19m, in 2025 the figure increased by 21 percent to $22.8m.

That sum is nearly double the average compensation package for chief executives a decade ago.

Uneven distribution across industries

Different industries, however, saw varying ratios in executive-to-worker income.

The biggest pay disparity was in the manufacturing sector, with the average CEO making $696m and the average worker in the industry making slightly more than $93,000.

That amounted to a more-than-11,000 percent difference in their salaries. Tesla marks the biggest disparity in the sector, helping to drive the pay ratio higher.

The industry with the second-highest pay ratio was the arts, entertainment and recreation sector, where executives make an average of $24.6m, compared to an average of around $25,000 for median workers. The difference was a ratio of 1,057 to one.

One of the most stark examples of a pay divide was the coffee chain Starbucks, where the average worker made $17,279 — only $1,629 higher than the federal poverty line in 2025.

With CEO Brian Niccol earning north of $30m last year, experts estimate the pay ratio in the company is 1,794 to one.

The AFL-CIO’s report also showed that Amazon, Dollar Tree, FedEx, McDonald’s and Walmart workers are the largest recipients of social assistance programmes.

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy made 51 times more than the company’s average employee, while McDonald’s CEO Chris Kempczinski made 1,082 times more than the average worker at the Chicago, Illinois-based fast-food giant.

Trump posts surge in earnings

Thursday’s report also examined Trump’s income during the first year of his second term in office.

Trump’s campaigns for public office have largely hinged on his record as a businessman, and he has pitched himself to voters as uniquely qualified to address the country’s economic needs.

But critics have accused him of profiting from the presidency, whether through trademarks or policies favourable to his business interests, including cryptocurrency.

The AFL-CIO report found that Trump’s income surged 254 percent last year, over what he made in 2024, before his return to the White House.

The $2.2bn worth of income he earned in 2025 stemmed largely from World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s cryptocurrency venture, and the sale of meme coins.

Those earnings are roughly 43,154 times what the median US worker made last year, according to the AFL-CIO. Approximately 37 percent of US adults cannot cover a $400 emergency expense.

This comes as US consumer sentiment slipped 8 percent, with consumers growing more wary of business conditions and the strength of their personal finances, according to a report from the University of Michigan released on Friday.

The labour market is also experiencing a downturn, with the US economy shedding 23,000 jobs in July, according to a monthly report from the US Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The Conference Board, a nonprofit think tank focused on the economy, also found last month that confidence in the state of the US economy is trending downward for the third consecutive month.

Israeli settlers have marauded across the occupied West Bank for months, attacking Palestinian towns and villages with impunity.

Events in Qusra, a village south of Nablus, where Israeli settlers have laid siege to three Palestinian households since Sunday, have even led to a rare condemnation of settler behaviour by the Israeli government, with spokesperson David Mercer calling the settlers’ actions “deplorable” and “unacceptable”, and promising that Israeli authorities would investigate and arrest those responsible.

Analysts, campaigners, and Israeli parliamentarians who spoke to Al Jazeera have reacted to that with disbelief and incredulity, pointing to the inability of the Israeli military to stop the siege, in which the settlers have cut off water and electricity to Qusra. Israeli soldiers were initially even seen mingling and even praying with settlers in Qusra.

Complicity

“Government attempts to distance themselves from the violence are ridiculous,” Aida Touma-Sliman, a member of the Israeli parliament representing the left-wing Hadash party, told Al Jazeera. “They can say what they want, but they’re complicit.”

“If you look at the West Bank, you can no longer differentiate between the army and the settlers,” she said, adding that many of the settlers had been allowed to carry out their military service protecting the same illegal settlements they had come from. “The government is supplying them, protecting and arming them. It isn’t opposed to them. Supporting them is policy,” she added.

“There is nothing new in what’s happening in Qusra,” Yair Dvir of the Israeli rights organisation B’Tselem said. “We’ve been seeing this for decades. When there’s international criticism of the violence, the government condemns it, the settlers withdraw, and then return as soon as attention shifts.”

“Let’s be clear, settler violence is state violence,” Dvir added. “They both have the same aim: to displace Palestinians and to take their land.”

The speed and brutality of the Israeli government’s encroachment upon Palestinian land, in defiance of both international law and the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that it should stop its illegal settlement of Palestinian territory, has increased in recent months. United Nations Office for Humanitarian Affairs monitoring shows settler violence to be increasing with every week that Israel’s October election – and the potential end of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government – draws nearer.

“We’re definitely seeking an escalation of violence across the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and in other areas, such as Gaza, in the build-up to the election,” saidNeve Gordon, a professor of International Law at Queen Mary University, London, and the author of “Israel’s Occupation”.

“The vote is like a rallying cry for that entire [settler] constituency that they have to do as much as they can, while they can,” he said of fears among settlers and the radical Israeli right that they might lose what many regard as their allies in Netanyahu’s coalition.

Settlement unchained

The Israeli government has done little to distance itself from the actions of the settlers. Instead, prominent members of Netanyhu’s Likud party have attended prominent settlement conferences, including those explicitly focused on ethnically cleansing Gaza. Netanyahu himself responded to recent violence in the Palestinian village of Tal – which prompted the United Nations to warn that the entire West Bank was at “breaking point” – by promising to recognise even more illegal settlements.

At the heart of government policy on settlements have been the polarising figures of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

Smotrich has proven to be one of the most consequential Israeli politicians in history in promoting the cause of illegal settlements.

As well as normalising political references to the annexation of the Palestinian territory, Smotrich made being granted partial administrative control over the occupied West Bank a key condition of his joining Netanyahu’s coalition. He has since overseen the expansion of illegal settlements at an unprecedented rate.

Smotrich has also boasted of making the two-state solution a practical impossibility with the announcement of the E1 settlement project, joining occupied East Jerusalem and the Maale Adumim settlement, in August of last year.

However, focusing on just two of the coalition’s more controversial figures was to miss the point, Gordon argued.

“It’s too easy to say it’s all the fault of these few people and if they were gone it would all be OK,” Gordon said. “It goes far wider.”

“The ethnic cleansing we’re seeing of the West Bank, as well as that being undertaken by the army in the territory’s refugee camps, such as Jenin, needs the complicity of the police, the attorney general, the military and, ultimately, the public,” the professor noted. “Without the umbrella they provide, none of this would be possible.”

Brazil has not yet decided whether it will proceed with retaliatory measures, but has committed to defending its position.

Brazil has opened consultations into potential retaliatory measures against the United States following the imposition of 25 percent tariffs on a range of Brazilian exports.

The new US tariffs are “unjustified and arbitrary”, and Brazil will “continue to defend its position in all appropriate forums”, the Brazilian government said in a statement on Thursday.

The step is the beginning of the reciprocity process that could eventually see Brazil introduce retaliatory measures, including tariffs, on imports from the US.

This early stage involves further diplomatic consultations with US trade authorities.

In July, the US imposed a surcharge of 25 percent on some Brazilian imports, including sugar, clothing, paper and steel, alleging unfair trade practices. The US also hit Brazil – and a host of other countries – with an additional 12.5 percent tariff linked to allegations of lax enforcement of forced labour bans.

While no decision has yet been made, Brazil’s retaliatory options include imposing taxes or fees, eliminating exemptions or reducing import tariffs, or even restricting imports of American goods or services.

A source told the Reuters news agency that further measures could go beyond tariffs, for example by suspending pharmaceutical and agricultural patents.

The US runs a trade surplus with Brazil, meaning it sells the country goods and services worth more than it imports from it. In 2026 so far, the US has exported $26.5bn worth to Brazil and imported $17bn, according to the US Census Bureau.

Multiple rounds of tariffs

Under President Donald Trump, the US has repeatedly sought to impose sweeping tariffs on imports into the US, lamenting the US’s trade deficit with countries around the world.

In April 2025, the White House announced the introduction of a minimum 10 percent tariff on nearly every country, in what Trump and his team dubbed the “Liberation Day” tariffs.

Those were struck down by US courts this year, but the latest round of tariffs is widely seen as a replacement for the failed Liberation Day tariffs, designed to survive challenges in the US court system.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Thursday announced tariffs on imports of drones and related components, saying that the U.S. was ‘too reliant’ on drones produced overseas.

According to a White House fact sheet, a 100% tariff will be levied on “certain capabilities that are particularly sensitive for national security purposes, docking stations of these drones, and certain critical components of these drones.”

The category includes drones that have a top takeoff weight of more than 25 kilograms and those with thermal imaging features, the proclamations says.

The U.S. “is too reliant on foreign sources of [unmanned aircraft systems] and UAS components,” a proclamation signed by U.S. President Donald Trump says.

Meanwhile, smaller drones that do not have certain features that do not affect national security will face a 25% tariff. Drones and components produced in the European Union, Japan, Liechtenstein, South Korea, Switzerland and Taiwan will see a 15% levy. UK-produced drones will be assessed 10%.

The percentage of the tariffs will depend if “substantially all hardware, software, and technology originates from within these countries and the United States,” the fact sheet says.

The White House said the tariffs take effect in 21 days, but tariffs on drone components “that are not particularly sensitive,” will take effect in 180 days

For products and components that the Department of Defense has approved an exemption from the Federal Communications Commission’s Covered List within 20 days after being signed by Trump, the tariffs will take effect 180 days after signing.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — The Kennedy Center board on Thursday voted to put U.S. President Donald Trump‘s name on the building and to close the complex’s main building for renovations.

According to media reports, the building’s name will be changed to “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump.” Its physical location will be changed to “President Donald J. Trump Plaza.”

The plan, which was approved in a 20-3 vote, was greenlit two months after Trump’s name was removed from the facade after a federal judge ruled that the performing arts center name could not be changed because it was approved by Congress.

The three individuals who voted against the changes were the ex-officio members of congress, Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI.

Beatty was a plaintiff in a lawsuit that challenged the renaming of the center.

“This morning’s decision to close the Center and the surprise agenda item to put Donald Trump’s name back on the building was more of the same,” Beatty said in a statement. “This latest development is a transparent effort to circumvent the Court’s ruling, and flies in the face of the statutes that Congress passed. I will continue to fight for this treasured national monument.”

In a statement, White House spokesperson Liz Huston said, “Under President Trump’s bold leadership, the Kennedy Center is on its way to becoming the finest cultural institution anywhere in the world

Another federal judge last month temporarily blocked efforts to close the facility and requested that the board provide a financial plan to justify the closure.

Aug. 12 (UPI) — MyPillow founder Mike Lindell is refusing to concede defeat in the Minnesota governor’s Republican primary election, saying there were irregularities in the vote tallies.

Lindell lost by 11 points to Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth.

A reporter on his own network, LindellTV, asked him if he would concede if The Associated Press called it for Demuth, he answered: “Why would I listen to the AP?”

“There’s 265,000 votes left to count. I’m down by 18,000 now,” he said. “I’m not going to give up this race until the votes are counted. That’s nonsense.”

His own site shows Demuth as the winner by 11% with 99% of the votes counted as of 2 p.m. Wednesday.

Lindell, who was endorsed by President Donald Trump in his run for governor and has previously supported Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

Lindell was sued by Dominion Voting Systems for defamation against a former employee of the company, which makes voting machines. Lindell claimed that the employee, Eric Coomer, had helped rig the 2020 election. In 2025, Lindell was ordered to pay Coomer $2.3 million.

Lindell stepped down from MyPillow leadership on Aug. 5 to focus on his campaign for governor.

“Minnesota deserves my full attention, and that’s exactly what I’m giving it,” He said in a statement on X at the time. “I’m all in, and I can’t wait to earn your vote.”

Demuth said her win is a “major milestone,” but said there was still the November election to win.

“Tonight, Minnesotans made it clear they are ready for real change — at the top. It’s time to end the fraud, restore common sense to our state government and return Minnesota to a place that works for families, seniors, businesses and our next generation,” the post said.

“Let’s go win in November!”

Demuth will face Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., in November’s election.

Iran continues to deny claims by the United States that it controls the Strait of Hormuz as talks aimed at negotiating a peace deal between the two sides falter.

US President Donald Trump repeated his claim that the US is in “total control” of the critical waterway on Wednesday, but was met with angry denials from Iran, which has stated that it will not reopen the strait until demands regarding US aggression, reparations and sanctions are met.

“Claims and repeated posts by US officials that the Strait of Hormuz is no longer blocked do not change the reality,” Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) posted on X on Wednesday.

“The Strait of Hormuz remains blocked and will not be reopened until Iran’s conditions are accepted,” it added.

Here’s what we know about the latest developments in the strait, through which one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped during peacetime, and the prospects for ongoing talks.

What’s the latest on the US-Iran standoff?

Iranian forces are currently preventing ships that do not have its express approval from navigating through the narrow strait, which passes through territorial waters of Iran and Oman.

Despite Trump’s claim that the US has control over the strait, shipping traffic through the key waterway has dropped to a one-week low as a result of Iran’s blockade.

Meanwhile, the US is operating a naval blockade on Iranian ports both in and around the strait. On Tuesday, US forces targeted a Panama-flagged vessel they said was headed for an Iranian port, in the Gulf of Oman, and which they alleged had failed to respond to warnings.

On Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the US “has long miscalculated due to intelligence failures”, including when launching its war on Iran, which it did alongside Israel with strikes on Tehran on February 28.

In a post on X, Araghchi said Washington’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz were “an even bigger miscalculation”.

“Worse than fake news is fake intelligence,” he said.

Hojjatoleslam Hossein Taeb, the commander of the paramilitary Basij Organisation – an affiliate of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – reiterated that the strait is “under Iran’s control and management”.

“Today you see that the Strait of Hormuz is under the management and control of the Islamic Republic, and our country continues on its path in complete security,” Taeb said on Thursday, according to Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency.

“The Americans saw the power of the Islamic revolution,” he added.

What do we know about Iran-Oman talks?

Iran says it is not talking directly to the US about the strait. Instead, it says it is holding talks with Oman, which it proposes to share in the future management of the strait.

Following the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Iran and the US on June 17, under which Iran undertook to keep the strait open for 60 days, there were soon disagreements about control of the waterway and the routes that ships should take. Iran fired on some ships it said had not followed its permitted route, leading to a renewal of hostilities with the US.

Iran also disagreed with the US over whether it could charge fees to ships passing through the strait. As a result, the strait – which was fully and freely open to all shipping before the US launched its war on Iran – has become the main obstacle to the progression of wider peace talks.

Now, talks between Iran and Oman are aimed at ironing out these issues.

On Tuesday, Qatar said negotiations between Iran and Oman over the strait had reached “an advanced stage”.

“As mediators, we want the Strait of Hormuz reopened as soon as possible,” Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari said during a news conference.

Negotiators are trying to reach a compromise that would allow commercial shipping to resume while addressing the security concerns of both Iran and Oman.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman has said talks with Oman are focused on “establishing safe inbound and outbound shipping lanes” that “uphold sovereign rights while also addressing the national security considerations of both Iran and Oman”.

Last week, Iran said it had agreed on the coordinates for these shipping lanes with Oman.

What do we know about broader peace talks between Iran and the US?

Iran says it is not speaking directly to the US because it has violated the June 17 MoU by restarting strikes on Iran in July.

Now, Pakistan is making efforts to mediate peace talks. It said on Tuesday it was working to bring the US and Iran “to the negotiating table”, as Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi held talks with senior Iranian officials in Tehran.

In April, the US and Iran held face-to-face negotiations, with US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf attending talks in Islamabad. On June 17, the two sides remotely signed the MoU, which was supposed to kick-start a 60-day negotiation process. However, various disagreements prevented that process from getting off the ground, and talks have stalled since then.

Alan Eyre, a distinguished diplomatic fellow with the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC, told Al Jazeera earlier this month that the only important negotiations taking place right now are Iran-Oman talks over the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran says it is not worth talking directly because it “can’t count on anything the US says”, Eyre said.

Commenting on the possibility of future talks between the longtime foes, Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the US-based Center for International Policy, said the key question is whether the escalatory rhetoric from both sides is “opening negotiating positions or actual red lines”.

“If both sides are prepared to compromise, there is still a path towards ending the conflict and reopening the strait,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera on Wednesday.

“If they are not, Hormuz could remain restricted, and the confrontation risks becoming another prolonged, open-ended conflict in the Middle East.”

What are the latest demands from Iran and the US?

At the end of last week, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council set out new conditions it says the US must meet before the Strait of Hormuz can fully reopen.

The six conditions include an end to US threats against Iran and insults to what Zolghadr described as the country’s national and religious values; a permanent end to attacks against Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen and Iraq; the lifting of the US naval blockade and withdrawal of naval and air forces from around Iran; compensation for damage from what he called two “imposed wars”; the lifting of sanctions; and the unconditional release of frozen Iranian assets.

Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday that his administration was going to seek payment for “50 years” of damage caused by Iran, framing the move as a direct response to Tehran’s claims.

The payments, he said, would cover deaths among US forces in the region as well as civilian protesters in Iran, claiming that 52,000 people have been killed in Iran in the past four months. Tehran says some 3,117 people died in antigovernment protests that swept the country in January, prior to the launch of the US-Israel war. In February, the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) reported about 7,000 deaths, including 6,500 protesters.

On Thursday, Al Jazeera’s Tohid Assidi reported, citing observers, that Iran is focused on two primary issues.

“First was the security assurances Iran sought, ensuring that a reached deal could pave the way for a period of stability in the country,” Assidi said.

“Second were economic concerns, primarily articulated in demands for the US naval blockade to be removed and sanctions frozen, which represented the key demands coming from the Iranian side,” he added.

Despite the rhetoric from Trump, analysts have told Al Jazeera that the US may have to concede to some of Iran’s demands as it faces growing pressure domestically to avoid another escalation.

The US media have reported that concerns over dwindling defensive munitions have contributed to Trump’s decision not to carry out his threatened large-scale strikes against Iran.

Published on
13/08/2026 – 12:28 GMT+2

The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation went to court in New York on Wednesday to shut down Truth API, a subscription launched this month by Trump Media and Technology Group, the Nasdaq-listed company behind Truth Social.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The subscription provides privileged access to US President Donald Trump’s social media posts straight to trading firms, sending them fractions of a second before they appear on the public timeline, which is enough time for high-frequency algorithms to execute thousands of orders before others process the information.

Contracts run from about $60,000 (€52,000) to $100,000 (€86,600) a month and cover the platform’s 10 most-followed accounts, among them US President Donald Trump, the White House itself, US Vice President JD Vance, FBI Director Kash Patel and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

More than 10 customers have signed up, mostly high-frequency trading firms, according to company executives.

Interim CEO Kevin McGurn told an earnings call on Monday that subscribers receive news “fractionally faster” than everyone else, having earlier pitched it as a real-time channel for the platform’s most market-moving posts.

US President Donald Trump holds roughly 41% of the company through a revocable trust overseen by his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., with the stake currently worth close to $1 billion (€866mn).

Official announcements, The Intercept and the Freedom of the Press Foundation argue, belong to the public rather than to whoever pays most for them.

Two constitutional claims

The complaint, which names US President Donald Trump alongside deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, executive assistant Natalie Harp and the Executive Office of the President, calls the arrangement “profoundly corrupt”.

It argues the service breaches the First Amendment by denying equal access to presidential announcements and the Fifth by conditioning that access on unreasonable sums, noting that many of the 9,000 to 11,000 posts Trump has published since January 2025 came with no White House statement.

“Trump is trying to enrich himself by privatizing government information,” said Ben Muessig, editor-in-chief of The Intercept.

A Trump Media spokesperson countered that critics show “a failure to grasp the distinction between public and nonpublic information”, adding that left-wing activists were weaponising the courts.

The White House has not commented on the lawsuit which follows a request last month from US Senators Elizabeth Warren and Adam Schiff for the Securities and Exchange Commission to examine whether the service undermines market integrity.

A pattern that predates the paywall

The service formalises an advantage that has drawn questions for months.

On several occasions this year, futures markets have registered unusual bursts of activity minutes before major Iran war announcements appeared on US President Donald Trump’s account.

No investigation has reached a conclusion.

The clearest case came on 23 March, when the S&P 500 and oil futures recorded isolated volume spikes at about 6:50am in New York. Fifteen minutes later Trump posted that talks with Iran had taken place and strikes on its energy infrastructure were paused.

Equity futures jumped more than 2.5% and West Texas Intermediate fell almost 6%.

According to one analysis of 1,341 posts between late January and early April, conducted by the Queensland University of Technology, there were 15 episodes that raised suspicions of insider trading.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — The Trump administration has filed fraud-related charges against a former Southern Poverty Law Center official who testified during the Jan. 6 insurrection investigation, as its crack down on the anti-hate group and President Donald Trump‘s perceived opponents.

The Justice Department originally charged SPLC in an 11-count indictment in April, alleging that the frequent target of right-wing criticism had defrauded donors by using their money to pay informants within hate groups they were monitoring. The Trump administration has framed the payments as paying the hate groups it was supposed to monitor, such as the KKK. SPLC vehemently denies the allegations.

On Wednesday, federal prosecutors unveiled a superseding indictment against Heidi Beirich, 59, a political extremism expert and former SPLC chief financial officer, and the SPLC, charing them with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to submit false statements to a federally insured bank.

Beirich, of Palm Springs, Calif., was arrested Wednesday morning, FBI Director Kash Patel said in a statement.

“The indictment unsealed today reflects the continued work of federal investigators and prosecutors in examining this alleged scheme,” U.S. Attorney Thomas Govan said in a statement.

“We look forward to presenting the evidence in court and allowing the judicial process to determine the facts and the defendants’ responsibility for the alleged crimes.”

The SPLC has long faced criticism from some Republicans and conservatives, who say the prominent anti-hate group has drifted from its mission of fighting extremism and White supremacy by labeling several right-wing organizations as hate groups.

Pressure from the White House has mounted on the group since Trump returned to the helm of the government. The Trump administration has brought a number of federal and civil prosecutions against the president’s perceived opponents, attracting criticism from judicial and civil rights advocates as well as Democrats who accuse it of weaponizing the Justice Department.

As an expert in far-right extremist political violence, Beirich, in her role as co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, testified before the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection attempt by Trump supporters, stating that there was substantial political and personal overlap between the Proud Boys and Trump’s movement.

In October, FBI Director Kash Patel severed ties with the SPLC, saying it had “long abandoned civil rights work and turned into a partisan smear machine.”

The April indictment alleges that between 2014 and 2023, SPLC paid some $3 million in donated funds to members of violent extremist groups. In the superseding indictment unveiled Wednesday, the Justice Department no contends that it paid more than $4 million between 2007 and 2023.

During an unrelated press conference on Wednesday, newly confirmed Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former personal lawyer of the president, said Beirich is believed to have been part of an effort “to open bank accounts in completely fictitious companies’ names to make payments to individuals for reasons that were not accurate as described.”

Michael Proctor, Beirich’s attorney, accused the Trump administration of using the justice system to silence its political opponents.

“Heidi Beirich has dedicated her life to fighting hate groups and extremist movements like the KKK, neo-Nazis and other White supremacists,” Proctor said in a statement, NBC News reported.

“She has combatted these hateful, ugly and un-American extremists and their repeated uses of violence and intimidation in order to promote a fairer, safer and more just America. Her decades-long record of success dismantling hate groups — and the resulting threats to her life — speak volumes. For this, she has been indicted.”

Heidi Beirich, an expert on far-right groups, has been charged over the alleged misuse of donor funds to pay informants.

A leading expert on far-right groups in the United States has been charged by the administration of President Donald Trump for her alleged role in the use of donor money to secretly pay confidential informants.

On Wednesday, the Justice Department served an arrest warrant to Heidi Beirich, 59, the former director of intelligence for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights nonprofit based in Montgomery, Alabama.

It also issued a superseding indictment to include Beirich in its ongoing prosecution of the SPLC, which the Trump administration has accused of deceiving donors. An initial indictment was made against the group in April.

Beirich has been charged with wire fraud, conspiracy to submit false statements to a bank, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, FBI Director Kash Patel said.

“Heidi Beirich was at the center of our ongoing investigation into SPLC and their previously alleged criminal activity,” Patel wrote on the social media platform X.

“SPLC knowingly misled donors, who believed their money was being used to dismantle violent extremist organizations – when in fact, part of those donations were instead being used to pay senior leadership within those extremist groups.”

But critics have questioned the Trump administration’s motivations for pursuing criminal charges against the SPLC, which has historically worked with the FBI to track alleged far-right hate groups.

The SPLC has been a frequent target of conservative critics who claim the nonprofit is politically biased.

The group’s stated mission is to fight white supremacy and create a multiracial democracy, and it has issued publications critical of conservative groups like Turning Point USA, which it characterised as a “case study of the hard right”.

Beirich’s lawyer, Michael Proctor, said his client is innocent of the charges and described the case as politically motivated. He accused prosecutors of trying to punish his client for her “decades-long record of success dismantling hate groups”.

“A free and fair society does not use the justice system to silence its political opponent,” he said.

The superseding indictment accuses the SPLC and Beirich of directing more than $4m in donations to “individuals associated with various violent extremist groups” between 2007 and 2023.

The practice, according to the Justice Department, amounted to fraud.

Beirich was part of the SPLC’s effort “to open bank accounts in completely fictitious companies’ names and make payments to individuals for reasons that were not accurate”, according to Attorney General Todd Blanche.

The SPLC has acknowledged that it used confidential informants in the past to gather intelligence on hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialist Party of America, but the group said it no longer does so.

The SPLC has also said that it shared information obtained from informants with local and federal law enforcement.

“Violent extremists have not stopped or intimidated Dr Beirich from her vital work during her time at the SPLC,” Proctor said. “Dr Beirich won’t be silenced or intimidated by the government’s false and politicized allegations now.”

President Trump again insists the US has ‘total control’ of the strait, while Tehran is resolute that Washington must meet its demands.