Explainer

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has released thousands more documents relating to the prosecution of the late sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein, including photographs of prominent figures he spent time with. But campaigners behind the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which compelled the Justice Department on Friday to release all files still sealed, say far too much information in them has been redacted.

Furthermore, according to US media, at least 16 of the files – which they said were disclosed late – have since “disappeared” from the website where they were released. The deleted files included a photograph showing President Donald Trump.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Trump signed into law after it passed through Congress in November, required the government to release all remaining unclassified material in its possession relating to Epstein’s and his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex trafficking cases. Maxwell is currently serving 20 years in prison for her part in the scandal.

Despite heavy redaction of many of the documents, which has angered Democrats and some Republicans alike, there is some new information about the powerful people who associated with the disgraced late financier.

The Justice Department said it will release more documents in the coming weeks.

Here’s what we know about what’s been released so far:

What’s new in this tranche of Epstein files?

This is just the latest release of documents relating to the prosecution of Epstein, who died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019. The first tranche of about 950 pages of court documents was made public in early 2024.

One document released this time around confirms that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was tipped off about the convicted sex offender’s crimes nearly a decade before he was first arrested.

In September 1996, Epstein survivor Maria Farmer complained to the FBI that the late financier was involved in child sex abuse. Farmer said officials failed to take steps to investigate.

While the name of the complainant is redacted in the document relating to this complaint to the FBI, Farmer has confirmed it was made by her.

Now in her 50s, Farmer said in a statement via her lawyers after the release on Friday that she feels “redeemed” and this was “one of the best days of my life”.

“I want everyone to know that I am shedding tears of joy for myself but also tears of sorrow for all the other victims that the FBI failed,” she said.

Newly released transcripts of grand jury proceedings also include testimony from FBI agents who described interviews that they conducted with girls and young women describing their experiences of being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein. The youngest interviewee was 14, according to local media.

One woman, then aged 21, told a grand jury that Epstein had hired her when she was 16 to perform a sexual massage and that she had gone on to recruit other girls to do the same.

“For every girl that I brought to the table, he would give me $200,” she said.

They were mostly people she knew from high school, she said, adding that she told them that if they were under age, “just lie about it and tell him that you are 18.”

Much of the material published had already been circulating in the public domain after years of court action and investigations.

However, many of the new photos – some of them heavily blacked out – feature well-known public figures.

Who features in the newly released photos?

Among the documents released on Friday are photographs in a folder labelled “DOJ Disclosures”. Most of the photographs were seized by the FBI during various searches of Epstein’s homes in New York City and the US Virgin Islands.

New photos show the musicians Mick Jagger, Michael Jackson and Diana Ross in photographs with Epstein and at times with other people whose faces have been blacked out.

In one image, Jagger can be seen sitting between Epstein and former US President Bill Clinton. Popstar Jackson is also pictured standing next to Clinton and posing for a photo with Epstein in front of a painting in another.

Other famous men featured in the newly released photos include the actor Kevin Spacey, comedian Chris Tucker, billionaire Richard Branson, former UK ambassador to the US Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor – formerly known as Britain’s Prince Andrew – and his former wife, Sarah Ferguson.

In one black and white image, Andrew can be seen lying across the laps of five people whose faces have all been blacked out while Maxwell stands behind them.

The Justice Department did not include any details about the contents or context of the photos.

Virginia Giuffre, who was one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers and who died by suicide in April aged 41, accused Mountbatten-Windsor of sexual abuse when she was 17. He settled a lawsuit with her in 2022 but continued to deny the allegation.

Another prominent figure among the photos is Clinton. One photo shows him in a swimming pool with Maxwell and another person whose face has been blacked out. Another photo shows the former US president in a hot tub with a woman whose face is also redacted.

While Clinton has never been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein’s crimes, his spokesperson said the White House was using him as a scapegoat.

“This is about shielding themselves from what comes next, or from what they’ll try and hide forever. So they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Clinton in the past has said he cut ties with Epstein before the late financier pleaded guilty to solicitation of a minor in Florida.

Does Trump appear in the Epstein files?

Trump hardly appears in the files at all. The few photos that do feature him are ones that have been circulating in the public domain for decades.

According to one court document released on Friday, Epstein was alleged to have taken a 14-year-old girl to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and to have introduced her to the president.

While introducing her, Epstein elbowed Trump, asking him – referring to the teenager: “This is a good one, right?” Trump smiled and nodded in agreement, said the document from a case against Epstein’s estate and Maxwell in 2020.

In the court filing, the unnamed plaintiff herself makes no specific accusation against Trump.

In response to media requests for comment about this court document, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the Trump administration was “the most transparent in history” and by “recently calling for further investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends, the Trump Administration has done more for the victims than Democrats ever have,” she added.

Have some of the files disappeared since they were published on Friday?

Apparently, yes. One image, originally labelled File 468, which showed the inside of a desk drawer, included a photograph of Trump alongside Epstein, US first lady Melania Trump and Maxwell.

Other missing photos were images of paintings depicting nude women and one showing a series of photographs on a cupboard and in drawers.

On Saturday, The Associated Press news agency reported that at least 16 files published on Friday had disappeared from the Justice Department’s webpage.

The department has not provided any explanation or statement to the public about this but said in a post on X that “photos and other materials will continue being reviewed and redacted consistent with the law in an abundance of caution as we receive additional information.”

Democrats on the Oversight Committee in the US House of Representatives also released 68 photos, drawn from the 95,000 photos and files the Oversight Committee has so far received from the Epstein estate.

Democrats in the committee said the images, which they released on Thursday, “were selected to provide the public with transparency into a representative sample of the photos” and “to provide insights into Epstein’s network and his extremely disturbing activities”.

Following the Justice Department’s release on Friday, the committee’s Democratic members questioned in a post on X why the image featuring a photo of Trump, a Republican, was missing, stating: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”

Why has so much been redacted?

Among the thousands of documents published on Friday, at least 550 pages were reportedly fully redacted.

One 119-page document labelled “Grand Jury-NY” is completely redacted as is a set of three consecutive documents totalling 255 pages. Each page is fully blacked out.

Campaigners behind the Epstein Files Transparency Act said they had hoped to obtain more information about how the sex offender had been able to avoid serious federal charges for so many years.

However, many crucial FBI interviews with Epstein’s accusers and internal Justice Department memos on charging decisions are unreadable.

Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, sent a six-page letter to members of Congress laying out the redaction process, noting that the law mandates that the department omit or redact any references to victims and files that could jeopardise pending investigations or litigation.

Blanche explained that he had, therefore, instructed attorneys to redact or withhold material that contained personally identifiable information about victims; depicted or contained child sexual abuse materials; would jeopardise an active investigation or prosecution; or contained classified national defence or foreign policy information.

Without specifying which, Blanche added that in some instances, the department had withheld or redacted information covered by deliberative-process privilege, work-product privilege and attorney-client privilege.

When will the remaining files be released?

The Justice Department has said the publication of thousands more documents concerning investigations into Epstein will be released in the coming days as the year-end holidays approach.

The department missed its original Friday deadline to release all the information it had on Epstein in violation of the law signed by Trump in November ordering a complete release within 30 days.

After the drop on Friday, the department published two much smaller tranches on Saturday, which went beyond the initial redactions and featured identities of prosecutors, FBI case agents and other law enforcement personnel who appeared before two federal grand juries in New York state.

Several US lawmakers expressed anger about the White House’s failure to produce all the documents required under the law within the time limit.

Representatives Ro Khanna, a Democrat, and Thomas Massie, a Republican – the duo who introduced the petition that eventually led to the passing of the Epstein Files Transparency Act – strongly criticised the partial release on social media.

Massie wrote that it “grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law”.

Khanna called the release so far “disappointing” and added: “We’re going to push for the actual documents.”

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer accused the Trump administration of being “hell-bent on hiding the truth” and reiterated that the failure to release all the Epstein documents by Friday’s deadline amounts to “breaking the law”.

Meanwhile, officials from the Trump administration have been publicising the photographs featuring former Democratic President Clinton and hailing the current government as “the most transparent in history”.

Can campaigners take further steps to obtain more of the documents?

In a statement, Schumer said Senate Democrats are working “closely with attorneys for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and with outside legal experts to assess what documents are being withheld and what is being covered up by [US Attorney General] Pam Bondi”.

Representatives Robert Garcia and Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrats on the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, said they are examining “all legal options” after “the Department of Justice is now making clear it intends to defy Congress itself.”

“Donald Trump and the Department of Justice are now violating federal law as they continue covering up the facts and the evidence about Jeffrey Epstein’s decades-long, billion-dollar, international sex trafficking ring,” Garcia and Raskin said in a statement.

Senator Ron Wyden, another top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee who investigated Epstein’s financial ties, said on social media that the failure to release all the files was “a continuation of this administration’s coverup on behalf of a bunch of pedophiles and sex traffickers”.

The Associated Press reported that if Democratic lawmakers so choose, they could go to court to force the Justice Department to comply with the law. However, that would likely be a lengthy process.

Separately, the House Oversight Committee has issued a subpoena for the Epstein files, which could give Congress another avenue to force the release of more information to the committee. But that would require Republicans to join them in contempt-of-Congress proceedings against a Republican administration.

Singapore has reported a growing number of “rogue” or “shadow fleet” tankers operating off its shores in and around one of the world’s busiest maritime corridors.

According to Lloyd’s List Intelligence data cited by international maritime authorities, at least 27 such ships transited the Singapore Strait in early December, with another 130 clustered nearby around Indonesia’s Riau Archipelago.

While traffic through the strait remains dense and appears outwardly routine – more than 80,000 vessels pass through it each year – ship-spotters and analysts say the profile of some of the ships using these waters has recently changed.

Why are so many ‘rogue’ tankers appearing near Singapore?

Conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East has sparked a surge in Western sanctions on oil exports from countries such as Russia and Iran. The European Commission and the United States Trump administration have both recently renewed or extended sanctions against Venezuelan oil, as well.

As a result, a parallel, unofficial maritime network has emerged to keep sanctioned oil moving.

The Singapore Strait is a vital artery for global maritime trade, carrying about one-third of the world’s traded goods at some point along their journeys. For tankers at sea, it is almost unavoidable – the strait is a natural gateway between the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, also a busy trade artery.

The Maritime and Port Authority monitors vessel movements within Singaporean waters. But international law limits what action it can take once ships move into the high seas – in effect, international waters – allowing shadow fleets to thrive in regulatory grey zones.

In recent weeks, suspect shipping activity has been noted just beyond Singapore’s territorial waters – roughly 22.2 kilometres from its coast – in international waters, just outside of the city state’s law enforcement reach.

What are ‘shadow fleets’ and how do they avoid sanctions?

As a result of record sanctions by Western governments in recent years over Russia’s war in Ukraine, Iran’s nuclear programme and, most recently, United States President Donald Trump’s campaign against Venezuela, the number of falsely flagged ships globally has more than doubled this year to more than 450, most of them tankers, according to the International Maritime Organization database.

All vessels at sea are required to fly a flag showing the legal jurisdiction governing their operations in international waters. The body which grants ship nationalities is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

A shadow ship, or “ghost” ship, is typically an ageing vessel with obscure ownership. These vessels frequently change flags – for instance, when the US seized the tanker, Skipper, off the coast of Venezuela earlier this month, the government of Guyana, Venezuela’s neighbour, said it was “falsely flying the Guyana flag”, and clarified that it was not registered in the country.

Operators of shadow ships also falsify registration details, broadcast false geo-location codes, or even switch off tracking systems altogether to evade detection and skirt UNCLOS laws.

These vessels typically carry sanctioned oil and other restricted goods such as military equipment. They often conduct risky ship-to-ship transfers of cargo under the cover of night to avoid detection. This can create serious safety and environmental risks.

Additionally, most of the tankers are owned by shell companies in jurisdictions such as Dubai, where rapid buying and selling by anonymous or newly formed firms can take place, making it even harder to trace their origins.

Jennifer Parker, a specialist in maritime law at Australia’s University of New South Wales, said the increasing number of shadow fleets presents a “real challenge”.

Parker told Al Jazeera that “finding out who owns them and who insures them has been incredibly difficult because of the [murky] paper trail around them”.

She added that “often they would do what is called bunkering, which is the process of transferring fuel at sea between ships. So that makes it hard to track where that ship has actually come from and where that oil has come from.”

She added: “Sometimes, what they do is actually mix oil, so you will have a legitimate ship that will do a ship-to-ship transfer at sea with a shadow fleet and they will mix the oil so it becomes hard to really trace where that oil has come from … to avoid sanctions.”

What sort of problems do these tankers cause?

When ageing, uninsured vessels are involved in accidents, it can lead to environmental disasters like oil spills.

According to Bunkerspot, a specialist maritime publication, a shadow tanker spill, which can cause enormous damage to water, wildlife and local coastlines, can cost up to $1.6bn in response and cleanup alone.

Last December, Russian authorities scrambled to contain an oil spill in the Kerch Strait caused by two 50-year-old tankers which had been damaged during a heavy weekend storm. The scale of the environmental damage and the associated cleanup costs remain unclear.

In addition to vessel collisions, they can cause environmental damage through chemical leaks and illegal waste dumping.

Who uses shadow fleets the most?

Russia is the primary beneficiary of ghost fleet trading. Moscow has largely maintained its oil exports despite Western sanctions, ensuring steady revenue for its war in Ukraine. Though not to the same extent, Iran and Venezuela also sell fossil fuels using ghost fleets.

China and India, currently the largest buyers of Russian crude, benefit from steep discounts, often purchasing oil well below the Western-imposed $60 per barrel price cap, which was imposed in December 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Tracking by S&P Global and Ukrainian intelligence shows that Russia relied heavily on its shadow tanker fleet in 2025. India has been the main destination, importing about 5.4 million tonnes (or 55 percent of Russian crude oil sales via shadow tankers) between January and September.

China has taken a smaller but still significant share of about 15 percent. Overall, most Russian seaborne crude now moves outside Group of Seven (G7)-compliant shipping, underscoring the shadow fleet’s central role in this trade.

What actions have governments taken against shadow fleets?

To avoid enforcement of sanctions, many shadow tankers have moved out of major shipping lanes. In part, this is down to European authorities now requiring physical inspections during ship-to-ship transfers, making it riskier for these vessels to operate on conventional routes.

For instance, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Finland and Estonia recently began carrying out insurance checks on tankers transiting the Gulf of Finland and the waters between Sweden and Denmark. This is aimed at ensuring compliance with 2022 sanctions on Russian oil.

Meanwhile, in July 2025, the United Kingdom imposed measures – such as restrictions on access to UK ports, insurance and financial services – on 135 shadow fleet vessels and two linked firms, aiming to reduce Russia’s shipping capacity and cut its energy earnings.

In the US, President Donald Trump has warned that comparable measures will follow if Russia refuses to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine, raising the prospect of closer transatlantic coordination with the UK and Europe against shadow fleets.

Hollywood filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Singer Reiner were found dead in their Los Angeles home on Sunday. The police and investigators believe the couple suffered fatal stab wounds.

On Monday, police arrested the legendary director’s 32-year-old son, Nick Reiner, in connection with the deaths.

Rob Reiner directed several United States movie classics, including When Harry Met Sally and The Princess Bride. He was also a devoted activist for liberal causes and a frequent critic of US President Donald Trump.

So, what do we know about Nick Reiner, and what was his alleged involvement in his parents’ killing?

Who killed Rob Reiner and his wife?

Nick was revealed to be in Los Angeles police custody on Monday after the bodies of his parents were discovered inside their home in the upscale Brentwood neighbourhood.

The Los Angeles Fire Department said it responded to a medical aid request shortly after 3:30pm on Sunday [02:30 GMT Monday], and found a man and woman dead inside.

Rob Reiner’s daughter was the first to find the bodies of her parents and called the authorities, according to multiple reports.

In a statement, the Los Angeles Police Department said it was treating the deaths as homicides. Police have not released a full official timeline of how the killings occurred or the motivation behind them.

Nick Reiner remains in custody without bail. On Monday, Los Angeles Police chief Jim McDonnell said Nick Reiner was “booked for murder”.

Prosecutors will receive the case on Tuesday as they weigh whether to file formal charges against him.

Who is Nick Reiner?

Nick Reiner is the middle child of Rob and Michele Singer Reiner. They have two other children, Jake and Romy.

Nick’s struggles with substance abuse were longstanding, about which he had publicly spoken.

Rob Reiner, in a 2016 interview, said his son’s heroin addiction began about age 15, leading him into a cycle of dependency that persisted for years.

He underwent multiple rehabilitation stays, at least 17, by some accounts, and experienced periods of homelessness as a result of his addiction and the difficulties he faced in recovery.

His addiction issues inspired the 2015 semi-autobiographical movie Being Charlie, co-written by the father and son duo, and directed by Rob Reiner, about the struggles of a famous father and an addicted son.

The film was seen as an attempt to explore and heal aspects of their relationship, reflecting how deeply addiction had affected their family.

“It forced us to understand ourselves better than we had,” Rob Reiner told the AP news agency in 2016. During a YouTube interview series when the film was released, Nick Reiner reflected on his upbringing with his father, stating, “We didn’t bond a lot,” and acknowledged that collaborating on the film helped them “feel closer”.

Who was Rob Reiner?

Rob Reiner was a highly influential figure in US film and television. He was the son of comedy legend Carl Reiner, who died in 2020 at the age 98.

The Emmy-winning actor first gained fame as Michael “Meathead” Stivic in the 1970s TV sitcom, All in the Family. Rob Reiner went on to become a celebrated director, responsible for such classics as This Is Spinal Tap, Stand by Me, The Princess Bride, and A Few Good Men.

Legendary actress and Oscar winner Kathy Bates, who won the coveted award as the star of Rob Reiner’s 1990 film, Misery, said she “loved Rob”.

“He was brilliant and kind, a man who made films of every genre to challenge himself as an artist,” she said in a statement. “He changed the course of my life. Michele was a gifted photographer.”

Beyond filmmaking, Rob Reiner was an active political and social voice, often engaging in public debates on issues ranging from civil rights to public policy. He was a fierce critic of US President Trump.

During Trump’s first term, Reiner repeatedly described the president as “mentally unfit” and “unqualified” to serve in office.

What was Trump’s reaction?

On Monday, Trump made a social media post in which he described Reiner as “tortured and struggling” and claimed that both he and his wife had died, “reportedly due to the anger he caused” by opposing Trump during his presidency.

“He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump,” he wrote on Truth Social.

Trump, who is known for aggressively targeting critics and commending allies, did not present any proof that Rob Reiner’s political stance was linked to the couple’s deaths.

The post was met with sharp condemnation from politicians across the political spectrum, including both Democrats and Republicans.

New Delhi, India – A newly released Bollywood spy thriller is winning praise and raising eyebrows in equal measure in India and Pakistan, over its retelling of bitter tensions between the South Asian neighbours.

Sunk in a sepia tone, Dhurandhar, which was released in cinemas last week, is a 3.5-hour-long cross-border political spy drama that takes cinemagoers on a violent and bloody journey through a world of gangsters and intelligence agents set against the backdrop of India-Pakistan tensions. It comes just months after hostilities broke out between the two countries in May, following a rebel attack on a popular tourist spot in Pahalgam, in Indian-administered Kashmir, which India blamed Pakistan for. Islamabad has denied role in the attack.

Since the partition of India to create Pakistan in 1947, the nuclear-armed neighbours have fought four wars, three of them over the disputed region of Kashmir.

The film stars the popular actor Ranveer Singh, who plays an Indian spy who infiltrates networks of “gangsters and terrorists” in Karachi, Pakistan. Critics of the film argue that its storyline is laced with ultra-nationalist political tropes and that it misrepresents history, an emerging trend in Bollywood, they say.

What is the latest Bollywood blockbuster about?

Directed by Aditya Dhar, the film dramatises a covert chapter from the annals of Indian intelligence. The narrative centres on a high-stakes, cross-border mission carried out by India’s Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), and focuses on one operative who conducts operations on enemy soil to neutralise threats to Indian national security.

The film features a heavyweight ensemble cast led by Singh, who plays the gritty field agent tasked with dismantling a “terror” network from the inside. He is pitted against a formidable antagonist played by Sanjay Dutt, representing the Pakistani establishment, and gangsters such as one portrayed by Akshaye Khanna, while actors including R Madhavan portray key intelligence officers and strategists who orchestrate complex geopolitical manoeuvering from New Delhi.

Structurally, the screenplay follows a classic cat-and-mouse trajectory.

Beneath its high-octane set pieces, the film has sparked an angry debate among critics and audiences over the interpretation of historical events and some key figures.

Why is the film so controversial in Pakistan?

Despite the longstanding geopolitical tensions between the two countries, India’s Bollywood films remain popular in Pakistan.

Depicting Pakistan as the ultimate enemy of India has been a popular theme retold for years, in different ways, especially in Bollywood’s spy thrillers, however. In this case, the portrayal of Pakistan’s major coastal city, Karachi, and particularly one of its oldest and most densely populated neighbourhoods, Lyari, has drawn strong criticism.

“The representation in the film is completely based on fantasy. It doesn’t look like Karachi. 
It does not represent the city accurately at all,” Nida Kirmani, an associate professor of sociology at Lahore University of Management Sciences, told Al Jazeera.

Kirmani, who has produced a documentary on the impact of gang violence in Lyari of her own, said that like other megacities in the world, “Karachi had periods of violence that have been particularly intense.”

However, “reducing the city to violence is one of the major problems in the film, along with the fact the film gets everything about Karachi – from its infrastructure, culture, and language – wrong”, she added.

Meanwhile, a member of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has taken legal action in a Karachi court alleging the unauthorised use of images of the late former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in 2007, and protesting against the film’s portrayal of the party’s leaders as supporters of “terrorists”.

Critics, including Kirmani, say the film also bizarrely casts gangs from Lyari into geopolitical tensions with India, when they have only ever operated locally.

Kirmani said the makers of the movie have cherry-picked historical figures and used them completely out of context, “trying to frame them within this very Indian nationalistic narrative”.

Mayank Shekhar, a film critic based in Mumbai, pointed out that the film “has been performed, written, directed by those who haven’t ever stepped foot in Karachi, and perhaps never will”.

“So, never mind this dust bowl for a city that, by and large, seems wholly bereft of a single modern building, and looks mostly bombed-out, between multiple ghettos,” Shekhar said.

He added that this is also in line with how Hollywood “shows the brown Third World in action with a certain sepia tone, like with Extraction, set in Dhaka, Bangladesh”.

How has the film been received in India?

Dhurandhar has been a huge commercial success in India and among the Indian diaspora. However, it has not escaped criticism entirely.

The family of a decorated Indian Army officer, Major Mohit Sharma, filed a petition in Delhi High Court to stop the release of the film, which, they claim, has exploited his life and work without their consent.

The makers of the film deny this and claim it is entirely a work of fiction.

Nonetheless, the film’s storyline is accompanied by real-time intercepted audio recordings of attacks on Indian soil and news footage, film critics and analysts say.

Is this an emerging pattern in Bollywood films?

Shekhar told Al Jazeera that focusing on a deliberately loud, seemingly over-the-top, hyper-masculine hero’s journey is not a new genre in Bollywood. “There’s a tendency to intellectualise the trend, as we did with the ‘angry young man’ movies of the 1970s,” he said, referring to the formative years of Bollywood.

In recent years, mainstream production houses in India have, however, favoured storylines that portray minorities in negative light and align with the policies of the Hindu nationalist government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Kirmani told Al Jazeera that this frequently means “reducing Muslims across India’s borders and within as ‘terrorists’, which further marginalises Muslims in India culturally”.

“Unfortunately, people gravitate towards these kinds of hypernationalistic narratives, and the director is cashing in on this,” she told Al Jazeera.

Modi himself lavished praise on a recent film called Article 370, for what he said was its “correct information” about the removal of the constitutional provision that granted special autonomous status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019. Critics, however, called the film “propaganda” and said the film had distorted facts.

Another Bollywood film Kerala Story released in 2023 was accused of falsifying facts. Prime Minister Modi praised the film, but critics said it tried to vilify Muslims and demonise the southern Kerala state known for its progressive politics.

In the case of Dhurandhar, some critics have faced online harassment.

One review by The Hollywood Reporter’s India YouTube channel, by critic Anupama Chopra, was taken down after outrage from fans of the film.

Went looking for Anupama Chopra’s Dhurandhar review? It’s gone. The Hollywood Reporter India quietly made the video private.

For context, The Hollywood Reporter India was launched by RPSG Lifestyle Media, part of the RP-Sanjiv Goenka Group, which also owns Saregama –…

— newslaundry (@newslaundry) December 9, 2025

India’s Film Critics Guild has condemned “coordinated abuse, personal attacks on individual critics, and organised attempts to discredit their professional integrity”, in a statement.

“More concerningly, there have been attempts to tamper with existing reviews, influence editorial positions, and persuade publications to alter or dilute their stance,” the group noted.

In the last year, Israel averaged nearly two daily attacks on Syria and grabbed more land in the occupied Golan Heights.

It has been one year since a lightning offensive by allied rebel groups led to the fall of Damascus, ending the al-Assad dynasty’s 54-year reign.

Yet, as the regime collapsed, Israel seized on the instability by significantly escalating its military campaign in Syria, targeting much of its neighbour’s military infrastructure, including major airports, air defence systems, fighter jets, and other strategic facilities.

Over the past year, Israel has launched more than 600 air, drone or artillery attacks across Syria, averaging nearly two attacks a day, according to a tally by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED).

The map below shows the ACLED-recorded Israeli attacks between December 8, 2024 and November 28, 2025.

The bulk of the Israeli attacks have been concentrated in the southern Syrian governorates of Quneitra, Deraa, and Damascus, which account for nearly 80 percent of all recorded Israeli attacks.

• Quneitra, adjacent to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, was attacked at least 232 times.
• Deraa was the second most targeted governorate, with 167 recorded attacks focusing on former regime military sites and suspected arms convoys.
• Damascus governorate, which hosts key military highways and logistics hubs, was attacked at least 77 times. Damascus city, the capital, was attacked at least 20 times.

Why is Israel attacking Syria?

While Israel’s air attacks have escalated this past year, it has been attacking Syria for years, justifying its actions by claiming to eliminate Iranian military installations.

Since the fall of the al-Assad government, Israel claims it is trying to prevent weapons from landing in the hands of “extremists” – a term it has applied to a rotating list of actors, most recently including Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the primary Syrian opposition group that led the operation to overthrow al-Assad.

Just four days after the fall of al-Assad, Israel announced it had achieved total air superiority by destroying more than 80 percent of Syria’s air defence systems, in order to prevent the new Syrian state from posing any military threat.

Since taking power following the overthrow of al-Assad, President Ahmed al-Sharaa has consistently stated that his government seeks no conflict with Israel and will not permit Syria to be used by foreign actors to launch attacks.

Israel grabs more Syrian land

In the days following the fall of al-Assad, Israeli troops crossed into the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, which Israel has occupied since 1967, violating the 1974 UN-brokered ceasefire agreement with Syria.

The Israeli military has established several military outposts, including at Jabal al-Sheikh, in nearby villages, and within other areas of the United Nations-monitored demilitarised zone, where it has carried out frequent air raids and ground incursions.

Israel’s invasion of Syrian land has drawn widespread international criticism. The UN, along with several Arab nations, condemned Israel’s actions as breaches of international law and violations of Syria’s sovereignty.

Despite these condemnations, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said in February that Israeli forces would remain in the area indefinitely to “protect Israeli citizens” and “prevent hostile entities from gaining a foothold” near the border.

To visualise the scale, the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights spans 1,200sq km (463sq miles), an area roughly the size of New York City or Greater Manchester. The UN buffer zone covers another 235sq km (91sq miles), comparable to the size of the city of Baltimore. Additionally, Israel has seized an estimated 420sq km (162sq miles) of Syrian land beyond the buffer zone, a territory roughly the size of Denver.

The slider below details the areas Israel has occupied over the past year.

Fighting has re erupted between Thailand and Cambodia along their disputed border, with both nations blaming each other. Thailand has conducted air strikes on Cambodian military sites, marking a significant challenge to a ceasefire arranged by U. S. President Donald Trump in July. The conflict began early on a Monday, with clashes reported in five locations. Thailand’s army claimed it was attacked and accused Cambodia of using heavy weaponry against civilian areas. Meanwhile, Cambodia’s defense ministry stated they had not retaliated and were adhering to the ceasefire despite provocations.

The Thai air force launched strikes to deter further escalation and reduce Cambodia’s military strength. In response to the renewed conflict, both countries are relocating thousands of people to shelters. Malaysia’s Prime Minister, who helped negotiate the ceasefire, has called for restraint to maintain peace.

This recent fighting follows serious conflict in July that resulted in significant casualties and displacement before Trump’s intervention. While it’s unclear what triggered the latest violence, tensions have been high since a Thai soldier was injured by a landmine, which Thailand alleges was planted by Cambodia. Thailand has stated that it will not return to de-escalation measures until Cambodia issues an apology, a claim Cambodia disputes.

Militarily, Thailand possesses a much larger and better-funded armed force compared to Cambodia. Thailand has about 245,000 soldiers and a defense budget that is four times greater than Cambodia’s, which has around 75,000 troops. Thailand’s air force is also significantly stronger.

The long-standing border dispute can be traced back over a century. The border, initially mapped during French colonial rule in 1907, has been contested, especially regarding ownership of historical sites like the Preah Vihear temple. The International Court of Justice awarded the temple to Cambodia in 1962, but disputes over surrounding land continue. Nationalist sentiments have added to the tensions, particularly regarding a proposed joint exploration of energy resources, which conservative factions in Thailand warn could lead to territorial losses.

In recent months, skirmishes at the border and diplomatic mishaps have contributed to escalating hostilities, including the ousting of Thailand’s Prime Minister following a failed attempt to ease tensions after a leaked private conversation with a former Cambodian leader.

With information from Reuters

As the chapter closes on Yasser Abu Shabab, 32, the “Popular Forces” militia leader who appeared in Rafah during the war and was widely viewed as a collaborator with Israel, Ghassan al-Duhaini has been named his successor.

Soon after Abu Shabab was killed last Thursday, reportedly during a family dispute mediation, al-Duhaini, who was said to be injured in the same altercation, appeared in a video online dressed in military fatigues and walking among masked fighters under his command.

But who is Ghassan al-Duhaini? Has he just appeared, or was he there all along? Here’s what we know:

Who is Ghassan al-Duhaini?

Palestinian media sources say al-Duhaini, 39, has long been the group’s de facto leader, despite being officially the second-in-command.

They argue that his experience and age made him the operational head, while Abu Shabab, the figure publicly recruited by Israel, served as the face of the militia.

Al-Duhaini was born on October 3, 1987, in Rafah, southern Gaza. He belongs to the Tarabin Bedouin tribe, one of the largest Palestinian tribes that extends regionally and to which Abu Shabab belonged.

He was a former officer in the Palestinian Authority security forces, where he held the rank of first lieutenant.

Then he later joined Jaysh al-Islam, a Gaza-based armed faction with ideological ties to ISIL (ISIS).

Did he really take over after Abu Shabab?

The militia announced al-Duhaini as its new commander on its official Facebook page on Friday.

Al-Duhaini pledged to continue the group’s operations against Hamas.

In an interview with Israel’s Channel 12, comments later reported by The Times of Israel on Saturday, al-Duhaini insisted he had no fear of Hamas.

“Why would I fear Hamas when I am fighting Hamas? I fight them, arrest their people, seize their equipment … in the name of the people and the free,” he said.

On Friday, the militia published a promotional video on an affiliated Facebook page showing al-Duhaini inspecting a formation of armed fighters.

He told Channel 12 that the footage was intended to demonstrate that the group “remains operational” despite the death of its leader.

“His absence is painful, but it will not stop the war on terrorism,” he declared.

Has he always been against Hamas?

Hamas lists al-Duhaini among its most wanted figures, accusing him of collaborating with Israel, looting aid, and gathering intelligence on tunnel routes and military sites.

Little information is available on why he left the security forces.

Al-Duhaini has been increasingly active on social media, recently appearing prominently in a video showing the militia capturing and interrogating several Hamas members from a tunnel in Rafah.

Abu Shabab’s group claimed the detentions were conducted “in accordance with the applicable security directive and in coordination with the international coalition”.

He also appeared in a social media post beside what appeared to be several bodies, the caption saying they were Hamas men who had been “eliminated” as part of the group’s “counterterrorism” operations.

Hamas has attempted to assassinate al-Duhaini twice, killing his brother in one operation and narrowly missing al-Duhaini in another, when a booby-trapped house east of Rafah was detonated.

A Hamas source said al-Duhaini survived the blast “by sheer luck”, while four members of the attacking unit were killed and others wounded.

What is the Popular Forces militia?

The Popular Forces militia first came to prominence in 2024 under the leadership of Abu Shabab. It has an estimated 100 to 300 fighters who operate only metres from Israeli military sites, moving with their weapons under direct Israeli oversight.

The militia is primarily based in eastern Rafah, near the Karem Abu Salem crossing, the only entry point through which Israel currently permits humanitarian aid into Gaza.

A second unit is in western Rafah, near the notorious US-Israeli GHF aid distribution point, where hundreds of Palestinians have been shot as they sought aid.

Security sources told Al Jazeera Arabic that the Israeli army oversaw the arming of Abu Shabab and that he leads “criminal gangs specialising in intercepting aid convoys coming from the [Karem Abu Salem] crossing in southern Gaza and firing on civilians”.

Israeli newspaper Maariv reported in June that Israel’s intelligence agency, Shin Bet, was behind the recruitment of Abu Shabab’s gang, its chief Ronen Bar advising Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to enlist and arm the group.

The so-called “pilot project” involved supplying the militia a limited and monitored number of rifles and handguns, the paper said.

Shin Bet’s idea, Maariv continued, was to use the gang to test whether it could impose a form of “alternative governance” to Hamas in a small, contained area of Rafah.

Still, some Israeli security officials, it added, do not view the group as a credible replacement for Hamas.

Abu Shabab’s name later appeared in an internal United Nations memo in late 2024 that identified him as a central figure behind the systematic and large-scale looting of humanitarian aid entering Gaza.

Reports about the group’s finances and operations suggest a pattern of systematic profiteering from Gaza’s humanitarian crisis.