Explainer

The United Kingdom’s Prince Andrew on Friday announced that he would give up the title of the Duke of York days before the publication of a posthumous memoir by Virginia Giuffre, who had accused him of raping her after being trafficked by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Effective immediately, Prince Andrew will no longer sign off as the “Duke of York” or append “KG” – denoting Knight of the Garter – after his name. And the other titles will become inactive as well, like the His Royal Highness (HRH) honorific.

Giuffre, who died by suicide in April at the age of 41, had accused Andrew of forcing her to have sex on three occasions, including when she was underage. Though the disgraced UK prince denied Giuffre’s claims, he paid millions of dollars to settle a civil sexual assault case with her in 2022.

The 65-year-old was stripped of most of his titles and removed from royal duties in 2022 due to his connections to Epstein, who died by suicide in a United States prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. His title decision came as he hit the headlines again in the wake of new revelations about his links to Epstein.

So, why has he “given up” his titles? What does it mean for the UK’s Royal Family? And what are his ties with US child sex offender Epstein?

What has the disgraced prince said?

“I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life,” Andrew added in the statement.

“With His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me,” he said, adding that the continued accusations against him “distracted” the royal family.

He also used the statement, released via the Royal Family’s channels, to “vigorously deny the accusations” against him, as he has maintained.

What difference does it make to him?

Andrew had moved back to a largely private life in recent years, even though he remains part of the family, even if ceremonially, as brother of King Charles and uncle to Prince William and Prince Harry.

He has been shunned from using other titles given to him on his wedding day – the Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh. Theoretically, Andrew will retain the dukedom – that can only be removed by an act of parliament – but he will not use it.

Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York and Andrew’s ex-wife, would also not use her title. The titles of their two daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, will remain unaffected.

The couple will continue to live in the 30-room Royal Lodge mansion in Windsor, a Grade II-listed property.

However, the property has been leased from the Crown Estate, meaning he cannot sell it – as he did with Sunninghill Park home in 2007 for 15 million pounds ($20m) to Timor Kulibayev, the son-in-law of the then-president of Kazakhstan.

The 12-bedroom house near Windsor Castle was given to the disgraced prince as a wedding present from Queen Elizabeth.

What to know about Andrew?

Prince Andrew, earlier the Duke of York, is the second son and third child of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip – making him the younger brother of King Charles III.

Born in 1960, he was once one of the more popular members of the British royal family, known for his military service as a Royal Navy helicopter pilot during the Falklands War in 1982.

But in recent years, Andrew has largely withdrawn from public life following intense scrutiny over frequent scandals. His ties to the convicted sex offender Epstein – which pushed him to step down from his royal duties in 2019 – has resurfaced after the release of new Epstein files in September.

Andrew was stripped of his military titles and royal patronages in 2022 after a US judge allowed a civil sexual abuse case against him to move to trial. He was also stripped of his role as the Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, one of the oldest regiments in the British army, by the queen.

Widely believed to be the late queen’s “favourite” child, other titles held by the disgraced royal will be rendered dormant – leaving “prince” as his only remaining title, one that cannot be stripped since he was born the son of a queen.

What are the accusations against Andrew?

In 2021, Giuffre, one of the most prominent accusers of Epstein, filed a civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew in a US court, alleging that he had sexually abused her on multiple occasions, including when she was 17 years old – a minor under US law.

She claimed she was trafficked by Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite, and forced to have sex with the prince in London, New York, and the US Virgin Islands.

Prince Andrew has denied all allegations – even insisting that a now-infamous photograph that appeared to show them together was doctored.

The case was settled out of court in early 2022, with Andrew reportedly paying about 12 million pounds ($16m) – then causing widespread backlash over whether UK taxpayers’ money was used for the payout.

In April this year, Giuffre was found dead at her home near Perth, Australia. Her family confirmed the death as a suicide, attributing it to the emotional toll of her past abuse and ongoing personal struggles.

Last Friday, the US House Oversight Committee also released documents from Epstein’s estate showing “Prince Andrew” listed as a passenger on the convicted sex offender’s private jet, the Lolita Express, from Luton to Edinburgh in 2006.

What does Giuffre’s posthumous memoir say?

On Tuesday, Giuffre’s posthumous memoir goes on sale, where she details her time with the prince and Epstein. In the excerpts published by several media organisations, Giuffre wrote that Andrew believed sex with her was his “birthright”.

In the book, Nobody’s Girl, Giuffre describes her meetings with the prince – and also recounts what unfolded in London during their meet-up.

“Back at the house, [Ghislaine] Maxwell and Epstein said goodnight and headed upstairs, signalling it was time that I take care of the prince. In the years since, I’ve thought a lot about how he behaved. He was friendly enough, but still entitled – as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright.

“He seemed in a rush to have intercourse. Afterward, he said thank you in his clipped British accent. In my memory, the whole thing lasted less than half an hour,” she writes in her memoir.

“The next morning, Maxwell told me: ‘You did well. The prince had fun.’ Epstein would give me $15,000 for servicing the man the tabloids called ‘Randy Andy’.”

Giuffre’s family has lauded the decision of Andrew being forced to relinquish his titles as “vindication for Virginia”.

“We, the family of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, believe that Prince Andrew’s decision to give up his titles is vindication for our sister and survivors everywhere,” they said in a statement.

“Further, we believe it is appropriate for King Charles to remove the title of Prince.”

What were Andrew’s ties with US sex offender Epstein?

Prince Andrew is reported to have had a longstanding association with Epstein, a convicted child sex offender and financier from the US.

The relationship reportedly began in the 1990s, with Andrew socialising with Epstein in elite social circles in both the UK and the US. He is reported to have stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, his private Caribbean island, and flown on Epstein’s private jet on multiple occasions. Andrew was also listed on another flight to West Palm Beach, Florida, in 2000.

Epstein’s close associate, British socialite Maxwell, facilitated introductions between Andrew and other prominent figures, drawing him further into Epstein’s network. Maxwell is serving 20 years in prison for sex trafficking.

The association came to public scrutiny after Giuffre in 2021 accused Andrew of sexual abuse.

In an infamous 2019 interview with BBC Newsnight, Andrew said he broke off his friendship with Epstein in December 2010.

But the release of new documents last month shows Andrew reportedly sent a mail three months after the interview. In the email, Andrew appeared to tell Epstein “we are in this together” after the two men were photographed together strolling in New York.

In 2008, Epstein had pleaded guilty to charges of solicitation of prostitution and of solicitation of prostitution with a minor, for which he served 13 months in jail.

Epstein was found dead in his cell at a federal jail in Manhattan in August 2019, awaiting a trial on sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide.

Has the prince been part of other scandals?

Andrew has been mired in a number of other scandals, including an instance of his “close confidant” being banned from the UK over allegations he was a Chinese spy.

Andrew reportedly held meetings in 2018 and 2019 with Cai Qi, a member of China’s ruling political bureau.

Cai was suspected by the UK government of being the recipient of sensitive information allegedly passed to China by two British nationals accused of spying for Beijing.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is set to visit Hungary in the very near future, where he will meet United States counterpart Donald Trump for a second summit on ending the war in Ukraine. The first – in Alaska in August – failed to result in any agreement.

But, with an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant issued in 2023 for Putin’s arrest over the alleged illegal deportation of Ukrainian children during Russia’s war with Ukraine, how will the fugitive from justice make it to the negotiating table?

Signatories of the 1998 Rome Statute, which established the Hague-based court in 2002, are required to arrest those subject to warrants as soon as they enter their territory – which theoretically includes airspace, which is also considered sovereign territory under international law.

Hungary, which recently stated its intention to withdraw from the agreement – making it a safe space for Putin – is surrounded by countries which would be bound by this.

However, the ICC, which has 125 member states, has no police force and hence no means of enforcing arrests.

So what awaits Putin on his upcoming jaunt?

Isn’t Hungary technically an ICC member, too?

On paper, yes. But it’s on the way out.

In April, right-wing populist Prime Minister Viktor Orban announced the country would be ditching the ICC’s founding document when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu paid a visit. Netanyahu is also on the ICC’s most-wanted list for Gaza war crimes – his arrest warrant was issued earlier this year.

The Hungarian parliament approved a bill back in May to trigger the withdrawal process, which becomes official one year after the United Nations Secretary-General receives a written notification of the decision.

Given Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto’s comments on Friday on the “sovereign” country’s intent to host the president with “respect”, ensuring he has “successful negotiations, and then returns home”, Putin seems safe from any arrest on Hungarian soil.

What about airspace? Could he be intercepted mid-air?

As Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday, “many questions” need to be resolved before Putin sets off on his journey. One of those questions is likely to regard the president’s flight path.

Putin will probably want to avoid the Baltic states after recent violations of Estonia’s airspace by Russian jets, which have put the region on high alert for a potential overspill from the Ukraine war. The Baltics could well force a hard landing.

Friendly Belarus might provide a convenient corridor between the Baltics and Ukraine further south, but this would set the president on course for Poland, which has historically strained relations with the Kremlin and recently warned Europe to prepare for a “deep” Russian strike on its territory. Russian drones have also recently breached Polish airspace.

Slovakia, which is led by Moscow-leaning populist Robert Fico, is still guzzling Russian energy in defiance of Trump’s orders to European countries to stop oil and gas imports, and may be more accommodating. Indeed, Fico is on a collision course with fellow EU members over sanctions against Moscow. But Putin would still need to cross Poland before reaching Slovakia.

Putin’s direct route to Budapest, therefore, appears littered with obstacles.

What about a more circuitous route?

Putin may be inspired by fellow ICC fugitive Netanyahu, wanted for crimes including using starvation as a weapon of war against Palestinian civilians in war-ravaged Gaza, who avoided several European countries on his way to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York last month.

The Israeli Prime Minister’s Wing of Zion plane briefly flew over Greek and Italian territory, but then ducked south, entirely avoiding French and Spanish airspace before heading over the Atlantic, according to FlightRadar24.

Flying south could be an option for Putin as well. Georgia, whose Georgian Dream governing party suspended Tbilisi’s bid to join the European Union, is a signatory to the Rome Statute but could potentially be relied on to turn a blind eye.

And Turkiye, which is not a party to the Rome Statute, but which has long walked a tightrope between Russia and NATO and hosted previous attempts between Russian and Ukrainian negotiators on ending the war, could be amenable to allowing the Russian president to pass.

From there, the main obstacle would be Greece, providing a route through the Balkan states to Orban’s respectful welcome.

Has Putin made other trips since becoming an internationally wanted war criminal?

Putin has clearly limited his travels since the ICC warrant was issued.

Last year, he hopped over the border to ICC member Mongolia, where he was treated to a lavish ceremony featuring soldiers on horseback by Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh.

Mongolia has very friendly relations with Russia, on which it depends for fuel and electricity. The country has refrained from condemning Russia’s offensive in Ukraine and has abstained during votes on the conflict at the UN, so it was little surprise to see the red carpet being rolled out.

Flying to Alaska for a bilateral with Trump last August was easy since the president could completely avoid hostile countries, flying over his country’s huge land mass over the Bering Strait to the US, which is not a signatory to the Rome Statute.

Similarly, this year’s visit to “old friend” and neighbour Xi Jinping for a huge military parade and a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation posed no problems since China is not a party to the ICC.

This month, the Russian president met Central Asian leaders with whom he is eager to bolster ties in Tajikistan, which has signed up to the Rome Statute.

Will Putin ever be arrested?

The arrest warrants mark the first step towards an eventual trial, although the capture of Russia’s president is almost inconceivable.

Only a few national leaders have ended up in The Hague.

The former Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte, surrendered to The Hague earlier this year to face charges of crimes against humanity. The charges pertain to extrajudicial killings committed during his widely condemned “war on drugs”, which killed thousands of people.

The former Liberian president and warlord, Charles Taylor, was convicted in 2012 by the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, which held proceedings in The Hague. He was found guilty of 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Would a future Russian leader decide to forcibly hand Putin over, as was the case with Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic, extradited to The Hague after his removal in 2000, for atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia wars?

That would necessitate a seismic shift in the Kremlin’s power dynamic, which seems unlikely for the time being.

Muslims are protesting across India against arrests, raids and home demolitions over the phrase ‘I love Muhammad’. Al Jazeera’s Yashraj Sharma explains what happened and why religious expression is increasingly under threat under Prime Minister Modi’s government.

Recent battlefield gains by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) may turn the tide in Kordofan, analysts have told Al Jazeera.

Sudan’s devastating war between the SAF and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has raged for two and a half years, resulting in massive displacement and the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, according to the United Nations.

Yet SAF’s capture in September of the strategic city of Bara, which the RSF was using for logistics, supplies, and as a muster point for reinforcements, is seen as a sign that SAF may have swung the pendulum in its favour.

Why is Bara important?

Bara lies about 350km (217 miles) southwest of the capital Khartoum along the “Export Road” used to truck goods from Khartoum to el-Obeid, capital of North Kordofan State.

It also exports its own agricultural products and livestock to the rest of Sudan.

The Khartoum-el-Obeid connection is vital because from el-Obeid, roads lead outwards to South Sudan and Sudan’s east and Darfur in the west.

From Khartoum, roads lead northeast to Port Sudan on the Red Sea, where the wartime government was until recently. Roads also lead north to Egypt and east to Eritrea and Ethiopia.

SAF took el-Obeid in February, after a two-year RSF siege, and took Khartoum in March, so taking Bara gave it solid control over the Export Road to use as a supply route, independent Sudanese military and political analyst Akram Ali told Al Jazeera.

Bara and el-Obeid lie near the westernmost reaches of SAF control, well to the east of el-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur and the last city SAF holds in the vast western region. Between the two is a stretch of RSF control – and siege on el-Fasher – that SAF has to breach.

For the RSF, keeping Bara and a foothold in Kordofan was important because it allowed it to put pressure on SAF, which holds territory to the north, and to link the areas it controls in Kordofan and Darfur to South Sudan, links it uses to move weapons and fighters.

How did SAF take Bara?

The army launched an offensive on Bara from the south on September 11, while RSF defences were concentrated on the eastern side, analyst Abdul Majeed Abdul Hamid said.

SAF sent continuous drone strikes against RSF targets, then launched the Darfur Track Armed Struggle Movement, an assault force known for mobility and speed, from el-Obeid.

The force successfully engaged and defeated the RSF unit defending Bara, then entered the city with heavy firepower, according to a military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The officer said the operation relied on speed and keeping the RSF occupied on several fronts to prevent it from sending reinforcements.

Most of Bara’s civilians supported SAF, according to Abdul Hamid, and the RSF quickly retreated.

The operation cut off RSF supply and military support lines, he added, isolating their remaining positions in areas such as al-Khuwei to the west and al-Nahud to the east.

For the RSF, keeping Bara and a foothold in Kordofan was important because it allowed it to put pressure on SAF, which holds territory to the north, and to link the areas it controls in Kordofan and Darfur to South Sudan, links it uses to move weapons and fighters.

Losing Bara also meant that the RSF could no longer keep the city of el-Obeid under siege.

Will the RSF lose the Kordofans?

The RSF announced in February this year that it had entered an alliance with the Southern People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N). South Kordofan includes the Abyei region, disputed between Sudan and South Sudan. The SPLM-N controls the vast, isolated Nuba Mountains region in South Kordofan, right up against the border with South Sudan.

However, despite that new stronghold, analysts told Al Jazeera that losing control over the Export Road spells a serious deterioration in the RSF’s power in the Kordofans.

“The army’s entry into el-Obeid marked the beginning of their actual collapse,” said Ali.

An army unit called “Al-Sayyad” – named after a commander killed in the early days of the war – had moved from Rabak, capital of White Nile State, in a campaign that eventually reached el-Obeid.

Political analyst Ahmed Shamukh said liberating Bara opens the door to reactivating the SAF air base in el-Obeid, the largest in Kordofan, after two years of inactivity, “significantly [enhancing] the logistical and combat capabilities of the Sudanese army” and helping SAF’s campaign to expel RSF from the Kordofans.

Taking back all of Kordofan would allow SAF to work towards liberating Darfur, Abdul Hamid said.

“The army has combat experience and personnel capable of liberating Kordofan with the same capabilities it used to retake the cities of central Sudan and the capital,” Abdul Hamid continued.

The war has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced more than 10 million in what has become the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.

According to the UN, a total of 24.6 million people face acute food insecurity, while 19 million people lack access to safe water and sanitation.

New Delhi, India – For the last month, Indian police have raided multiple markets and homes, arresting Muslim men in states governed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist party. Some of their homes have been bulldozed.

The genesis of their alleged crime is common: writing, “I Love Muhammad”, a reference to Prophet Muhammad, on posters, t-shirts, or in social media posts. The authorities say the expression is threatening “public order”.

So far, at least 22 cases have been registered against more than 2,500 Muslims. At least 40 people have been arrested across multiple states governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), according to the nonprofit Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR).

So, what is happening? How and where did this start? And is it illegal to say ‘I Love Muhammad’ in India?

What’s happening?

On September 4, Muslims living in Kanpur city of the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh were observing Eid al-Milad al-Nabi, the celebration of the birth of Prophet Muhammad, when a neighbourhood put up an illuminated board saying, “I love Muhammad”.

But the board, mimicking the popular “I Love New York” signage that has been copied all over the world, drew criticism from some local Hindus. Initially, their complaint alleged that the illuminated board was a new introduction to traditional festivities on the occasion, when Uttar Pradesh’s laws bar new additions to public religious celebrations. About 20 percent of Kanpur’s population is Muslim.

However, based on complaints, the police filed a case against two dozen people on much more serious charges: promoting enmity on the grounds of religion. The charge carries a punishment of up to five years in jail if the accused individual is convicted.

The Kanpur episode drew widespread criticism from Muslim political leaders, and protests against the police action spread to other states, including Telangana in southern India, Gujarat and Maharashtra in the west, and in Uttarakhand and Jammu and Kashmir in the north. The  “I love Muhammad” hoardings and writings came up across the country – from people’s social media handles to t-shirts.

Nearly 270km (168 miles) away from Kanpur, in Uttar Pradesh’s Bareilly, a group of people participating in a demonstration called by a local imam against the Kanpur arrests, violently clashed with the police on September 26.

The police hit back with a crackdown, arresting 75 people, including the imam, Tauqeer Raza, his relatives and his aides. At least four buildings belonging to the accused individuals have been bulldozed by the local authorities.

In recent years, hundreds of Indian Muslims have lost their homes to such demolitions, which are often carried out without any notice issued by authorities, or any court order. India’s Supreme Court has observed that demolitions cannot be used as a form of extra-legal punishment, warning that state authorities must give prior notice before razing any property. Yet, on the ground, that order is often not followed, say activists.

Meanwhile, dozens of other Muslims have been arrested in different states – including some in Modi’s home state of Gujarat – for social media posts and videos carrying the “I love Muhammad” slogan.

Is it illegal?

India’s constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and the right to express it. Article 25 protects every individual’s freedom to practise their religion. Citizens are also protected under Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, unless it directly incites violence or hatred.

In the cases of people arrested as part of the “I Love Muhammad” crackdown, the police have mostly charged them under legal provisions that bar large gatherings aimed at committing “mischief”, or for acts that allegedly provoke religious tensions. However, these provisions have been applied against those arrested for social media posts, or wearing t-shirts with “I Love Muhammad” emblazoned on them.

Nadeem Khan, the national coordinator of APCR, the nonprofit that has been tracking these cases, has fought previous lawsuits against government officials for similarly targeting Muslims for social media expressions, or when their homes have been bulldozed.

Khan told Al Jazeera that authorities were carefully using legal provisions that focus not on the “I Love Muhammad” expression itself, but on alleged offences carried out by those who used the expression or protested against related police crackdowns.

“They know that there is no law that criminalises just the mere expression of ‘I Love Muhammad’,” Khan said.

Khan noted that across India, images of Hindu gods wielding their traditional weapons have long been commonplace. “These images are at every corner of the country; should it also offend or threaten all Muslims then?” he asked. “Everyone should understand that the government cannot criminalise a religion like this,” he added, referring to Islam.

Since 2014, when Modi took over the power in New Delhi, India has consistently slid in a range of international democratic indices.

Criminalising people’s right to freedom of expression and religious belief sets a deeply troubling precedent, said Aakar Patel, the chair of Amnesty International India’s board.

“Targeting people for slogans such as ‘I Love Muhammad’, which is peaceful and devoid of any incitement or threat, does not meet the threshold for criminal restriction under either Indian constitutional law or international human rights law,” Patel told Al Jazeera.

“Public order concerns must be addressed proportionately and cannot justify the blanket suppression of religious identity or expression,” he added.

“The role of the state is to safeguard rights equally, not to police expressions of belief,” said Amnesty’s Patel. “Upholding constitutional and international commitments is not optional; it is a legal obligation.”

Is there a pattern?

Critics say that the crackdown is only the latest instance of Indian Muslims facing marginalisation, violence or the targeted brunt of the law since Modi came to power in 2014.

In the past 11 years, the incidents of hate speech targeting religious minorities have skyrocketed. Documented instances of hate speech jumped from 668 in 2023 to 1,165 last year, a rise of about 74 percent. A significant majority of these incidents happened in BJP-governed states, or places where elections were upcoming.

Increasingly, local Hindu-Muslim disputes now rapidly transform into national issues, said Asim Ali, a political analyst based in Delhi.

“There is an entire ecosystem in place, from pliant media to social media organisation, to spread this hate rapidly,” said Ali. “And the law is read in such a way that any expression of religious identity, especially of Muslims, can be seen as inciting religious hatred,” he added.

After the “I Love Muhammad” episode in Kanpur, BJP leaders in Modi’s own constituency, Varanasi, put up posters saying, “I Love Bulldozer” at major intersections of the city, in a reference to the bulldozing of houses of the accused.

How does it affect young Muslims?

Rasheed Kidwai, a political analyst, said that the row over “I Love Muhammad” is “overtly very political, and not religious”.

And in India, there is growing frustration among Muslims, especially youth, where they see that one set of rules is not applied for all, when it comes to matters of cultural identity and eating habits, said Kidwai.

Several of the accused, or arrested, as part of the “I Love Muhammad” crackdown, include young adult Muslims, according to data from APCR, including those who were arrested for social media posts.

The crackdown on “I Love Muhammad” expression risks alienating young Muslim adults even more, said Ali. “In theory, everyone is already guilty and can face action for just being,” he told Al Jazeera.

“It is getting difficult to imagine what the future may hold now,” he said. “The tempo of hate is increasing day by day.”

China has accused the United States of “double standards” after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose an additional 100 percent tariff on Chinese goods in response to Beijing’s curbs on exports of rare earth minerals.

China says its export control measures announced last week were in response to the US restrictions on its entities and targeting of Beijing’s maritime, logistics and shipbuilding industries.

Trump’s tariff threats, which come weeks ahead of the likely meeting between the US president and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, have the potential to reignite a trade war months after Washington lowered the China tariffs from 125 to 30 percent.

The actions by the world’s two largest economies threaten to ignite a new trade war, adding further uncertainty to global trade. So what’s the recent history of US trade measures against China, and will the two countries be able to resolve their differences?

Why did China tighten export controls on rare earths?

On October 9, China expanded export controls to cover 12 out of 17 rare-earth metals and certain refining equipment, effective December 1, after accusing Washington of harming China’s interests and undermining “the atmosphere of bilateral economic and trade talks”.

China also placed restrictions on the export of specialist technological equipment used to refine rare-earth metals on Thursday.

Beijing justified its measures, accusing Washington of imposing a series of trade curbs on Chinese entities despite the two sides being engaged in trade talks, with the last one taking place in Madrid, Spain last month.

Foreign companies now need Beijing’s approval to export products containing Chinese rare earths, and must disclose their intended use. China said the heightened restrictions come as a result of national security interests.

China has a near monopoly over rare earths, critical for the manufacture of technology such as electric cars, smartphones, semiconductors and weapons.

The US is a major consumer of Chinese rare earths, which are crucial for the US defence industry.

At the end of this month, Trump and Xi are expected to meet in South Korea, and experts speculate that Beijing’s move was to gain bargaining advantage in trade negotiations with Washington.

China’s tightening of restrictions on rare earths is “pre-meeting choreography” before Trump’s meeting with Xi, Kristin Vekasi, the Mansfield chair of Japan and Indo-Pacific Affairs at the University of Montana, told Al Jazeera.

How did Trump respond?

On October 10, Trump announced the imposition of a 100 percent tariff on China, effective from November 1.

“Based on the fact that China has taken this unprecedented position … the United States of America will impose a Tariff of 100 percent on China, over and above any Tariff that they are currently paying,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform.

He added that this would come into effect on November 1 or before that. Trump added that the US would also impose export controls on “any and all critical software”.

Earlier on October 10, Trump accused China of “trade hostility” and even said he might scrap his meeting with Xi. It is unclear at this point whether the meeting will take place.

“What the United States has is we have a lot of leverage, and my hope, and I know the president’s hope, is that we don’t have to use that leverage,” US Vice President JD Vance told Fox News on Sunday.

How did China respond to that?

China deemed the US retaliation a “double standard”, according to remarks by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce spokesperson on Sunday.

China said that Washington had “overstretched the concept of national security, abused export control measures” and “adopted discriminatory practices against China”.

“We are living in an era of deeper intertwining of security and economic policies. Both the US and China have expanded their conceptions of national security, encompassing a range of economic activities,” Manoj Kewalramani, chairperson of the Indo-Pacific Studies Programme at the Takshashila Institution in Bangalore, India, told Al Jazeera.

“Both have also weaponised economic interdependence with each other and third parties. There are, in other words, no saints in this game.”

Kewalramani said that China started expanding the idea of “national security” much earlier than others, especially with its “comprehensive national security concept” introduced in 2014.

Through this, China began to include many different areas, such as economics, technology, and society, under the term “national security”. This shows that China was ahead of other countries in broadening what counts as a national security issue.

China threatened additional measures if Trump went ahead with his pledge.

“Willful threats of high tariffs are not the right way to get along with China. China’s position on the trade war is consistent: we do not want it, but we are not afraid of it,” the Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesperson said in a statement.

“Should the US persist in its course, China will resolutely take corresponding measures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests,” the statement said.

What trade measures has the US taken against China in recent history?

2025: Trump unleashes tariff war

A month after taking office for his second term, Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10 percent tariff on all imports from China, citing a trade deficit in favour of China. In this order, he also imposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada. China levied countermeasures, imposing duties on US products in retaliation.

In March, the US president doubled the tariff on all Chinese products to 20 percent as of March 4. China imposed a 15 percent tariff on a range of US farm exports in retaliation; these took effect on March 10.

Trump announced his “reciprocal tariffs,” imposing a 34 percent tariff on Chinese products. China retaliated, also announcing a 34 percent tariff on US products. This was the first time China announced export controls on rare earths.

Hours after the reciprocal tariffs went into effect, Trump paused them for all his tariff targets except China. The US and China continued to hike tit-for-tat levies on each other.

Trump slapped 145 percent tariffs on Chinese imports, prompting China to hit back with 125 percent tariffs. Washington and Beijing later cut tariffs to 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively, in May, then agreed to a 90-day truce in August for trade talks. The truce has been extended twice.

December 2024: The microchip controls are tightened

In December 2024, Trump’s predecessor, former US President Joe Biden, tightened controls on the sale of microchips first introduced on October 2022.

Under the new controls, 140 companies from China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore were added to a list of restricted entities. The US also banned more advanced chip-making equipment to certain countries. Even products manufactured abroad with US technology were restricted.

April 2024: Biden signs the TikTok ban

Biden signed a bill into law that would ban TikTok unless it was sold to a non-Chinese buyer within a year. The US government alleged that TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance was linked to the Chinese government, making the app a threat to national security.

ByteDance sued the US federal government over this bill in May 2024.

In September this year, Trump announced that a deal was finalised to find a new owner of TikTok.

October 2023: Biden introduces more restrictions on chips

In October 2023, Biden restricted US exports of advanced computer chips, especially those made by Nvidia, to China and other countries.

The goal of this measure was to limit China’s access to “advanced semiconductors that could fuel breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and sophisticated computers that are critical to [Chinese] military applications,” Gina Raimondo, who was secretary of the US Department of Commerce during the Biden administration, told reporters.

Prior to this, Biden signed an executive order in August 2023, creating a programme that limits US investments in certain high-tech areas, including semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence, in countries deemed to be a security risk, like China.

October 2022: Biden restricts Chinese access to semiconductors

Biden restricted China’s access to US semiconductors in October 2022. The rules further expanded restrictions on chipmaking tools to include industries that support the semiconductor supply chain, blocking both access to American expertise and the essential components used in manufacturing the tools that produce microchips.

Semiconductors are used in the manufacturing of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The US government placed these restrictions back then to limit China’s ability to acquire the ability to produce semiconductors and advance in the technological race.

The restrictions made it compulsory for entities within China to apply for licences to acquire American semiconductors. Analysis by the US-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace described these licences as “hard to get” back then.

Recently, some US lawmakers are calling for even more restrictions, warning that China could quickly reverse-engineer advanced semiconductor technologies on its own, outpace the US in the sector, and gain a military edge.

May 2020: Trump cracks down on Huawei

In May 2020, the US Bureau of Industry and Security intensified rules to stop Huawei, the Chinese tech giant, from using American technology and software to design and make semiconductors in other countries.

The new rules said that semiconductors are designed for Huawei using US technology or equipment, anywhere in the world, would need US government approval before being sent to Huawei.

May 2019: Trump bans Huawei

Trump signed an executive order blocking Chinese telecommunications companies like Huawei from selling equipment in the US. The Shenzhen-based Huawei is the world’s largest provider of 5G networks, according to analysis by the New York City-based think tank the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Under this order, Huawei and 114 related entities were added to a list that requires US companies to get special permission (a licence) before selling certain technologies to them.

The rationale behind this order was the allegation that Huawei threatened US national security, had stolen intellectual property and could commit cyber espionage. Some US lawmakers alleged that the Chinese government was using Huawei to spy on Americans. The US did not publicise any evidence to back these allegations.

Other Western countries had also cooperated with the US.

March 2018: Trump imposes tariffs on China

During his first administration, Trump imposed sweeping 25 percent tariffs on Chinese goods worth as much as $60bn. In June of 2018, Trump announced more tariffs.

China retaliated by imposing tariffs on US products. Beijing deemed Trump’s trade policies “trade bullyism practices”, according to an official white paper, as reported by Xinhua news agency.

In September 2018, Trump issued another round of 10 percent tariffs on Chinese products, which were hiked to 25 percent in May 2019.

During the Obama administration (2009-2017)

In 2011, during US President Barack Obama’s tenure, the US-China trade deficit reached an all-time high of $295.5bn, up from $273.1bn in the previous year.

In March 2012, the US, European Union, and Japan formally complained to China at the World Trade Organization (WTO) about China’s limits on selling rare earth metals to other countries. This move was deemed “rash and unfair” by China.

In its ruling, the world trade body said China’s export restraints were breaching the WTO rules.

In 2014, the US indicted five Chinese nationals with alleged ties to China’s People’s Liberation Army. They were charged with stealing trade technology from American companies.

What’s next for the US-China trade war?

Trump and Xi are expected to meet in South Korea on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), which is set to begin on October 31.

But the latest trade dispute has clouded the Xi-Trump meeting.

On Sunday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, downplaying the threat: “Don’t worry about China, it will all be fine! Highly respected President Xi just had a bad moment. He doesn’t want Depression for his country, and neither do I. The U.S.A. wants to help China, not hurt it!!!”

In an interview with Fox Business Network on Monday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, “President Trump said that the tariffs would not go into effect until November 1. He will be meeting with [Communist] Party Chair Xi in [South] Korea. I believe that meeting will still be on.”

When it comes to which of the two players is more affected by the trade war, Kewalramani said that he thinks “what matters is who is willing to bear greater pain, endure greater cost”.

“This is the crucial question. I would wager that Beijing is probably better placed because Washington has alienated allies and partners with its policies since January. But then, China’s growing export controls are not simply aimed at the US. They impact every country. So Beijing has not also endeared itself to anyone,” Kewalramani said, pointing out how Trump’s tariffs and China’s rare earth restrictions target multiple countries.

“The ones affected the most are countries caught in the midst of great power competition.”

On Sunday, US VP Vance told Fox News about China: “If they respond in a highly aggressive manner, I guarantee you, the president of the United States has far more cards than the People’s Republic of China.”

Kewalramani said that so far, Beijing has been more organised, prepared and strategic than the US in its policies.

“That said, it has overreached with the latest round of export controls. US policy, meanwhile, has lacked strategic coherence. The US still is the dominant global power and has several cards to play. What matters, however, is whether it can get its house in order.”

Madagascar’s presidency says “an attempt to seize power illegally and by force” is under way, a day after soldiers from an elite military unit joined a youth-led protest against the government.

“In view of the extreme gravity of this situation, the President of the Republic … strongly condemns this attempt at destabilization and calls upon all forces of the nation to unite in defence of constitutional order and national sovereignty,” President Andry Rajoelina’s office said in a statement on Sunday.

The statement did not identify who was behind what it identified as an attempted coup, but members of the elite CAPSAT military unit, which once installed Rajoelina in power, said it has taken over control of the armed forces after three weeks of deadly Gen Z protests.

“From now on, all orders of the Malagasy army – whether land, air or [naval] – will originate from CAPSAT headquarters,” officers from CAPSAT’s administrative and technical contingent said in a video message on Saturday.

It was not clear whether other units of the army would follow the order.

In the face of snowballing protests, Rajoelina faces the gravest political crisis of his rule of the African nation.

So what’s happening in Madagascar? Is this the end for Rajoelina? And what do the Gen Z protesters want?

What’s the latest?

The protests by a group calling itself Gen Z Madagascar have spilled onto the streets for a third week. Saturday witnessed one of the largest protests since the unrest began last month over a range of issues, including a cost of living crisis and corruption.

Addressing crowds of protesters from an armoured vehicle, Colonel Michael Randrianirina of the CAPSAT unit, said on Saturday: “Do we call this a coup? I don’t know yet.”

The CAPSAT officers said they had named General Demosthene Pikulas as the head of the army, a post that has been vacant since its former occupant was appointed minister of the armed forces last week, the AFP news agency reported. However, it was not clear if the posting could be considered official.

There was no immediate response from other units or the existing military command.

On Saturday, a group of soldiers clashed with gendarmes at a barracks before driving into the city to join the Gen Z protesters calling for Rajoelina to step down.

Why are antigovernment protests happening in Madagascar?

On September 25, young protesters started demonstrations against water and electricity shortages, inspired by a wave of Gen Z-led protest movements in countries including Kenya, Indonesia, Morocco, Nepal and Bangladesh.

They soon escalated and snowballed into calling for the end of Rajoelina’s rule, dismantling the Senate and ending privileges for business owners perceived to be close to the president. They also want Rajoelina to apologise for the violence, in which at least 22 people have been killed and more than 100 injured, according to the United Nations.

Madagascar – an island nation off the east coast of Africa with a population of more than 31 million people, 80 percent of whom are affected by severe poverty – has a history of political crises. Several leaders have been forced out in uprisings since it gained independence from France in 1960.

The Gen Z protesters are demanding “radical change to build a free, egalitarian and united society”.

Among the issues they aim to address are systemic corruption, embezzlement of public funds, nepotism, failures in access to basic services and education, and a vibrant democracy.

Rajoelina, 51, first rose to prominence in 2009 after leading protests against the government as the mayor of the capital, Antananarivo, which resulted in a military-backed overthrow of President Marc Ravalomanana.

A military council took power and handed it over to Rajoelina as transitional leader. Later, in 2018, he was elected as president and then again in 2023 when the vote was boycotted by opposition parties.

What’s Gen Z Madagascar?

Gen Z Madagascar’s logo is a pirate skull and crossbones. The image from the Japanese comic series One Piece has become central to the global wave of Gen Z protests and is worn by generally black-clothed demonstrators in Madagascar.

From Kenya to Nepal, this image from the series, which follows the adventures of a young pirate and his crew against an authoritarian government, has come to symbolise the Gen Z movements.

In Madagascar, the image has been personalised by adding a traditional Madagascan hat on the skull.

The group has its own website, a presence on social media platforms and a GoFundMe page to raise money. Their website header reads: “Political movement of young people, by young people, for Madagascar”.

“They didn’t want to hear us in the streets,” the website says. “Today, thanks to digital technology and the voice of Generation Z, we will make our voices heard at the table of power on the opposition side. To put an end to 16 years of inaction, let’s demand transparency, accountability and deep reforms.”

Responding to Rajoelina’s offer for talks, the protesters said in a statement: “We do not reach out to a regime that every day crushes those who stand up for justice. This government talks about dialogue but rules with weapons.”

The Madagascan protesters are being compared to youth-led protest movements in Bangladesh, Nepal and Kenya, which have forced political change. In Nepal, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli was forced to resign after mass protests last month while Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was forced to flee to neighbouring India after a student-led uprising in August 2024.

Across the world, Gen Z, or people below 30, are leading a new wave of protests. Unlike traditional movements, these demonstrations are often organised online, using platforms like TikTok and Discord to spread messages, plan actions and connect with other young people.

From Africa to Asia and Latin America, Gen Z protesters are demonstrating against corruption, economic hardships, climate inaction and social inequality, calling for an overhaul of the system.

What has the government said?

Prime Minister Ruphin Fortunat Zafisambo, speaking on the state-run TVM channel late on Saturday, said the government was “fully ready to listen and engage in dialogue with all factions – youth, unions or the military”.

Zafisambo was appointed by Rajoelina after he dissolved the previous government last week in response to the protests. However, the move failed to assuage public anger.

The army’s chief of staff, General Jocelyn Rakotoson, later made a statement broadcast on local media urging citizens to “assist the security forces in restoring order through dialogue”.

Heavy fighting has broken out between Pakistani and Afghan forces at multiple locations on their border, and the rival sides claim to have captured and destroyed border posts in one of the worst border clashes in recent years.

The Taliban administration’s spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, said at least 58 Pakistani soldiers were killed in “retaliatory” attacks on Saturday night, two days after blasts were reported in the capital, Kabul, and the southeastern province of Paktika.

The Pakistani military admitted 23 of its soldiers were ‘martyred’ while claiming to kill 200 Taliban and affiliated “terrorists”. Earlier, Pakistan’s interior minister called the Afghan attacks “unprovoked firing”.

The Taliban government has accused Pakistan of carrying out the recent bombings. Pakistan has neither confirmed nor denied the allegations.

Pakistan is said to have backed Taliban fighters during their rebellion against the United States-led occupation of Afghanistan and was one of only three countries that recognised the first Taliban government from 1996 to 2001.

But the rise of attacks inside Pakistan since the return of the Taliban to power in 2021 has strained their ties as Islamabad has accused the Taliban administration of providing safe haven to fighters from the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), or Pakistan Taliban. Kabul has denied the allegations.

So what’s the latest on the fighting? What triggered the clashes? And is the situation expected to escalate further?

What’s the latest?

The Taliban attack on Pakistan border areas began about 10pm (17:00 GMT) on Saturday, and the exchange of fire took place at multiple locations.

Pakistani officials and state-run radio noted that those locations included Angoor Adda, Bajaur, Kurram, Dir and Chitral – all in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province – and Bahram Chah in Balochistan.

Mujahid said Afghan forces killed 58 Pakistani soldiers, captured 25 army posts and wounded 30 soldiers in their attacks.

“The situation on all official borders and de facto lines of Afghanistan is under complete control, and illegal activities have been largely prevented,” Mujahid said at a news conference in Kabul.

Afghanistan’s TOLOnews channel reported on Sunday that the Ministry of Defence is deploying tanks and heavy weapons in several areas of Kunar province on the 2,640km (1,640-mile) border, also referred to as the colonial-era Durand Line.

The Pakistani military on Sunday condemned what it called “the cowardly action” aimed at destabilising the border areas to facilitate terrorism”.

“Exercising the right of self-defence, the alert Armed Forces of Pakistan repelled the assault decisively,” the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the military’s media wing, said in a statement.

“Last night’s episode vindicates Pakistan’s long-standing position that the Taliban government is actively facilitating the terrorists,” ISPR said.

At least 29 soldiers were injured during the overnight skirmishes, it added.

The Pakistani military claimed that multiple Taliban locations were destroyed along the border and “21 hostile positions on the Afghan side of border were also briefly physically captured and multiple terrorist training camps, used to plan and facilitate attacks against Pakistan, were rendered inoperative”.

While the exchange of fire is mostly over, residents of Pakistan’s Kurram area reported intermittent gunfire.

What triggered the clashes?

On Thursday, Kabul was rocked by the sound of two explosions, and another took place in a civilian market in the border province of Paktika, the Taliban Defence Ministry said on Friday.

The Taliban government accused Pakistan of violating Afghanistan’s “sovereign territory”. Islamabad did not outright deny the blasts but asked the Taliban to curb the activities of the Pakistan Taliban.

A Pakistani security official told the Reuters news agency air strikes were carried out and their intended target in Kabul was the leader of the TTP, who was travelling in a vehicle.

Al Jazeera could not independently verify if the leader, Noor Wali Mehsud, had survived.

Pakistan and the Taliban, once allies over shared security interests, have grown increasingly hostile over Islamabad’s claim that the Taliban is giving refuge to the TTP, an armed group accused of carrying out years of attacks inside Pakistan.

At least 2,414 fatalities have been recorded in the first three quarters of this year, according to the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS), an Islamabad-based think tank.

In its latest report issued last month, CRSS said that if the current trend continues, 2025 could be one of the deadliest years in Pakistan. Last year, at least 2,546 people were killed in attacks.

The armed attacks have risen following the ouster of former Prime Minister Imran Khan in April 2022. Khan’s government had involved the Taliban to get the TTP to agree to ceasefire deal. Though the ceasefire deal unraveled during Khan’s tenure, the frequency of attacks remained lower.

Ties have deteriorated as Islamabad has increased its use of air strikes inside Afghanistan to target hideouts it says are used by TTP fighters.

Relations have also soured over Pakistan’s decision to deport tens of thousands of Afghan refugees. At least 3 million Afghan refugees have taken shelter in Pakistan after fleeing decades of conflict.

What have both sides said?

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned the Afghan attacks late on Saturday, adding that the country’s army “not only gave a befitting reply to Afghanistan’s provocations but also destroyed several of their posts, forcing them to retreat”.

Mohsin Naqvi, the interior minister, said the Afghan attacks were “unprovoked” and civilians were fired at. Strongly condemning the Taliban’s attacks, he said: “The firing by Afghan forces on civilian populations is a blatant violation of international laws.”

“Afghanistan is playing a game of fire and blood,” he said in a post on X.

Enayatullah Khowarazmi, spokesperson for Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defence, said its attacks on the Pakistan border posts were a retaliatory operation, adding that they concluded at midnight.

“If the opposing side again violates Afghanistan’s airspace, our armed forces are prepared to defend their airspace and will deliver a strong response,” Khowarazmi said.

What has been the international response to the clashes?

The escalating tensions have prompted regional concern as they come amid rapidly changing security dynamics and relations in South Asia.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called on his country’s two neighbours “to exercise restraint”.

“Our position is that both sides must exercise restraint,” Araghchi said during a live interview with state television, adding that “stability” between the countries “contributes to regional stability”.

Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also urged “both sides to prioritise dialogue and diplomacy, exercise restraint, and work to contain the disputes in a way that helps reduce tension, avoids escalation, and contributes to regional peace and stability”.

Expressing concern, the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: “The kingdom calls for restraint, avoiding escalation, and embracing dialogue and wisdom to contribute to reducing tensions and maintaining security and stability in the region.”

“The kingdom affirms its support for all regional and international efforts aimed at promoting peace and stability and its continued commitment to ensuring security, which will achieve stability and prosperity for the brotherly Pakistani and Afghan peoples,” it added.

India, which is currently hosting Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi on his first visit there, has yet to comment on the border clashes. Islamabad has viewed New Delhi’s engagement with the Taliban with suspicion.

Could these clashes escalate?

Asif Durrani, a former Pakistani ambassador and special representative to Afghanistan, told Al Jazeera he believes “the chances of this clash [spilling over] to something bigger and more serious [are] minimal.”

“Afghanistan does not have any conventional military capacity when compared to Pakistan,” Durrani said, adding, “Guerrilla warfare is not the same as conventional warfare, which is a whole different beast and something where Pakistan is considerably ahead of Afghanistan.”

Underlining that “diplomacy should always be given a chance, regardless of how dire the situation is,” Durrani noted that the TTP remains the central issue in the countries’ fraught relations.

“The Afghan government refuses to acknowledge their [the TTP’s] existence on their soil, and as long as that irritant remains present, the situation will remain tense,” he added.

Abid Hussain reported from Islamabad

The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize is scheduled to be announced on Friday, October 10, at 11:00 am local time in Oslo, Norway (09:00 GMT).

The announcement comes from the Norwegian Nobel Institute on behalf of the all-Norwegian, five-member Nobel Committee, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament and responsible for selecting and presenting the laureates.

Nominations for this year’s award closed on January 31, and the selection process remains shrouded in secrecy.

A brief history of the Nobel Prize

The Nobel Prizes are named after Alfred Nobel (1833–1896), a Swedish chemist, engineer and industrialist best known for inventing dynamite, an explosive that transformed the modern world through advances in construction and mining, but which was also responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people in wars.

Motivated by a desire to shape his legacy, Nobel left a multimillion-dollar fortune to fund annual prizes, awarded to those who “have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind” in the preceding year.

The first Nobel Prizes were awarded in 1901 for outstanding achievement in the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and peace.

In 1968, Sweden’s central bank, Sveriges Riksbank, established the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, expanding the categories to six.

So far this year, four Nobel Prizes have been announced. After the Peace Prize on October 10, the final award for economics will be revealed on October 13.

Who can be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?

The Nobel Peace Prize is meant to recognise individuals and organisations that have made exceptional efforts to promote peace, resolve conflicts and advance human rights.

The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize has 338 nominees, including 244 individuals and 94 organisations, up from 286 candidates in 2024.

Nominations are kept confidential, and committee members are prohibited from discussing their decisions for 50 years. Only the nominators themselves may choose to disclose their submissions.

While a person cannot nominate themselves, they may be nominated multiple times by others.

This year, United States President Donald Trump has become a focus of Nobel Peace Prize nominations. Trump, who has said, “Everyone says I should get the Nobel Peace Prize,” has received several endorsements: Israel, Cambodia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan, even as many have questioned his credentials.

While many well-known figures have been nominated in the past but never received the Nobel Peace Prize, the names most frequently searched in the Nobel nomination database are Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi and Joseph Stalin.

These individuals represent vastly different legacies: Hitler was nominated in 1939 as a satirical gesture, Gandhi was nominated multiple times between 1937 and 1948 but never awarded, and Stalin was nominated in 1945 and 1948 for his role in ending World War II.

Who has received the Nobel Peace Prize?

As of 2024, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded 105 times to 142 laureates – 111 individuals and 31 organisations.

Among the individual recipients, 92 are men and 19 are women.

The youngest laureate to date is Malala Yousafzai, who received the award at the age of 17 in 2014, while the oldest is Joseph Rotblat, honoured at 86 for his work against nuclear weapons.

The International Committee of the Red Cross holds the record for the most Peace Prizes, having been recognised three times, followed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which has won twice.

Geographically, Europe accounts for the largest share of laureates at 45 percent, followed by North America (20 percent), Asia (16 percent), Africa (9 percent) and South America (3 percent).

In addition, United Nations organisations represent about 7 percent of all Nobel Peace Prize recipients.

When was the Peace Prize not awarded?

The Nobel Peace Prize has not been awarded every year.

It was skipped on 19 occasions, specifically in 1914–1916, 1918, 1923, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1939–1943, 1948, 1955–1956, 1966–1967, and 1972, usually due to war or the absence of a suitable candidate.

According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, if none of the candidates’ work is deemed significant enough, the prize may be withheld and the prize money carried forward to the next year. If it still cannot be awarded, the amount is transferred to the Foundation’s restricted funds.

One notable instance came in 1948, the year Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated. Gandhi had been nominated several times – in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947, and again in 1948 – for his nonviolent leadership of India’s freedom movement. In 1948, the Nobel Committee chose not to award the prize, citing “no suitable living candidate”, widely seen as an implicit tribute to him.

Has anyone refused the award?

The Nobel Peace Prize has only been refused on one occasion.

In 1973, Vietnamese politician Le Duc Tho and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were awarded the prize for their efforts to end the Vietnam War.

Tho declined the award, citing the ongoing conflict in Vietnam.

The Vietnam War lasted from the late 1950s to 1975, ending with the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, and killed millions of people.

Has the award ever been shared?

Yes, very often. Out of the 105 awards presented so far:

• 71 prizes were given to a single laureate,
• 31 prizes were shared between two laureates, and
• 3 prizes were shared among three laureates.

According to the Nobel Foundation’s statutes, a prize can be divided equally between two recipients or shared among up to three if their work is considered to merit the award jointly. The prize cannot be divided among more than three people.

Who are all the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize?

The table below lists all Nobel Peace Prize laureates from 1901 to 2024, along with their country of origin.

EXPLAINER

In the first phase of the ceasefire plan, Israel will remain in control of nearly 60 percent of the Gaza Strip.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning in Gaza, United States President Donald Trump announced that Hamas and Israel had agreed on the first phase of his ceasefire and captive-exchange plan.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump stated : “ALL the hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their troops to an agreed upon line.”

The “agreed upon line” refers to a vague map shared by Trump on October 4, showing an initial Israeli withdrawal zone marked in yellow, later dubbed the “yellow line” by Trump officials.

After negotiations, Israel has agreed to the initial withdrawal line, which we have shown to, and shared with, Hamas. When Hamas confirms, the Ceasefire will be IMMEDIATELY effective, the Hostages and Prisoner Exchange will begin, and we will create the conditions for the next… pic.twitter.com/0VfaMSOqQ1

— Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) October 4, 2025

By Sunday or Monday, Hamas is expected to release about 20 living captives, along with the bodies of about 25 others, while Israel will free some 2,000 Palestinians detained in Israeli prisons. Final details have yet to be confirmed.

Where is the initial withdrawal ‘yellow line’?

Israel currently controls more than 80 percent of Gaza’s 365sq km (141sq miles) area, including areas under forced evacuation orders or designated by Israel as military zones.

Once the deal is signed, fighting would be expected to end immediately, and Israeli forces would withdraw to the line marked in yellow.

The final map has not yet been published following negotiations in Egypt, but based on the October 4 map, the area inside the yellow line represents approximately 155sq km (60sq miles), leaving about 210sq km (81sq miles), or 58 percent of Gaza, under Israeli control, as verified by Al Jazeera’s Sanad team.

Most notably, Israeli forces will remain in several previously populous Palestinian neighbourhoods, including:

• Beit Lahiya
• Beit Hanoon
• Parts of Gaza City’s Shujayea, Tuffah and Zeitoun
• More than half of the Khan Younis governorate
• Nearly all of the Rafah governorate

In addition, Israel will continue to control all crossings in and out of Gaza, including the Rafah crossing with Egypt.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been displaced multiple times throughout two years of war and are desperate to return to their homes, but the continued Israeli presence in these areas makes that unlikely in the near term.

What is supposed to happen next?

According to the 20-point plan announced by Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on September 29 – developed without any Palestinian input – Israel is to withdraw its forces in three phases, as shown on an accompanying crude map, with each phase marked in a different colour:

• Initial withdrawal (yellow line): In the first phase, Hamas is expected to release all remaining Israeli captives, both living and deceased, while Israeli forces pull back to the line designated in yellow on the map.
• Second withdrawal (red line): During the second phase, an International Stabilization Force (ISF) will be mobilised to oversee security and support Palestinian policing, while Israeli forces retreat further to the line marked in red, reducing their direct presence in Gaza.
• Third withdrawal (security buffer zone): In the final phase, Israeli forces are to pull back to a designated “security buffer zone”, leaving a limited portion of Gaza under Israeli military control, while an international administrative body supervises governance and a transitional period.

Even after the third withdrawal phase, Palestinians will be confined to an area which is smaller than before the war, continuing a pattern of Israel’s control over Gaza and its people.

Many questions remain about how the plan will be implemented, the exact boundaries of Palestinian territory, the timing and scope of Israeli withdrawals, the role of the International Stabilization Force, and the long-term implications for Palestinians across both Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

The European Union’s plan to hike tariffs on steel imported over and above its annual threshold could tip the United Kingdom’s steel industry into its worst crisis in history, industry leaders have warned.

On Tuesday, the European Commission proposed that the 27-member bloc would slash its tariff-free steel import quota by 47 percent to 18.3 million tonnes and would impose a tariff of 50 percent on any steel imported in excess of this amount.

This represents a sharp hike: The EU’s current annual steel import quota stands at 33 million tonnes, and imports above this limit are subject to a 25 percent tariff.

The announcement has rattled the British steel industry, which exports nearly 80 percent of its steel to the EU.

“This is perhaps the biggest crisis the UK steel industry has ever faced,” Gareth Stace, director general of the lobby group UK Steel, said on Tuesday. He described the move as a “disaster” for British steel.

Community, a trade union representing UK steelworkers, said the EU’s proposal represents an “existential threat” to the UK steel industry.

Here’s what we know about the EU’s new levies and why the UK is worried:

Why has the EU announced a tariff hike for steel imports?

The new tariff is expected to come into effect from June 2026, as long as EU countries and the European Parliament approve it.

The EU says it has no choice but to bring in the new tariff as it seeks to protect its own markets from a flood of subsidised Asian steel, which has been diverted by US President Donald Trump’s latest 50 percent tariff on all steel imports to the US.

The EU also wants to protect its steel sector from the challenge of global overcapacity.

In a speech at the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday, the European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Maros Sefcovic, defended the bloc’s steel tariffs proposal as a move to “protect the bloc’s vital sector” whose steel trade balance has “deteriorated dramatically”.

Sefcovic added that more than 30,000 jobs have been lost since 2018 in the EU’s steel industry, which employs about 300,000 people overall.

While the industry is ailing, he said, other countries have begun imposing tariffs and other safeguards to ensure their own domestic steel industries expand. The Commission’s proposal, therefore, seeks to “restore balance to the EU steel market”.

More succinctly, a senior EU official told The Times newspaper: “My dear UK friends, you have to understand that we have no choice but to limit the total volumes of imports that come into the EU, so this is the logic that we apply clearly. Not acting could result in potentially fatal effects for us.”

The EC’s proposal comes as the bloc’s steel sector faces stiff competition from countries like China, where steel production is heavily subsidised.

China produced more than a billion metric tonnes of steel last year, followed by India, at 149 million metric tonnes, and Japan, at 84 million metric tonnes, according to the World Steel Association, a nonprofit organisation with headquarters in Brussels.

By comparison, said Sefcovic, the EU produces 126 million tonnes per year but only requires 67 percent of this for its own use – “well below the healthy 80 percent benchmark and below profitable levels”.

Moreover, steel production within the EU has declined by 65 million tonnes per year since 2007 – with nearly half of that lost since 2018.

“A strong, decarbonised steel sector is vital for the European Union’s competitiveness, economic security and strategic autonomy. Global overcapacity is damaging our industry,” EC President Ursula von der Leyen said.

The Commission’s industry chief, Stephane Sejourne, told reporters in Strasbourg that “the European steel industry was on the verge of collapse” and said that through the tariffs plan, the Commission is “protecting it [EU’s steel industry] so that it can invest, decarbonise and become competitive again”.

Sejourne added that the Commission’s plan is “in line with our [EU] values and international law”.

Why would the UK bear the brunt of EU steel tariffs?

The EU is the UK’s largest market for steel exports by far. In 2024, the UK exported 1.9 million metric tonnes of steel, worth about 3 billion pounds ($4.02bn) and representing 78 percent of its home-made steel products to the EU.

While the EC’s steel tariffs proposal does not apply to members of the European Economic Area, namely Norway and Iceland, it will apply to the UK and Switzerland. Ukraine will also be exempt from the tariff quota since it is facing “an exceptional and immediate security situation”, according to the EC.

The EU says it is open to negotiations with the UK once it has formally notified the World Trade Organization (WTO) of the new levy. For now, however, uncertainty looms.

Compounding this, the UK also fears being flooded by cheaper, subsidised steel from Asia as both the EU and US markets close their doors to it.

In a statement, UK Steel added: “The potential for millions of tonnes that will be barred from the EU market, to be redirected towards the UK is another existential threat.”

Nicolai von Ondarza, an associate fellow at Chatham House, the London-based policy institute, told Al Jazeera that cheap steel diverted by the EU’s planned tariffs will mostly come from countries like China, “putting additional pressure on its industry”.

The British steel sector is also shouldering Trump’s 25 percent tariff on British steel imports, a global supply glut, and higher energy prices, and has been embattled by job losses in some of its biggest steelworks due to green transition initiatives.

Can the UK negotiate its way out of this?

That is currently its best hope, according to industry leaders.

“We would urge the UK and EU to begin urgent negotiations and do everything possible to prevent the crushing impact these proposals would have on our steel industry,” he added.

Chatham House’s Ondarza told Al Jazeera: “For the UK, the first route is to try to negotiate a carve-out of these EU tariffs. Both the EC and the UK have already signalled willingness to talk. These negotiations are likely to be tricky, but not unlikely that they come to an agreement.”

On his way for a two-day business trip to India, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer told reporters that his country is “in discussions with the EU” about the proposal.

“I’ll be able to tell you more in due course, but we are in discussions, as you’d expect,” he said.

Meanwhile, Chris McDonald, the UK industry minister, has suggested that retaliatory measures may not be completely off the table.

“We continue to explore stronger trade measures to protect UK steel producers from unfair behaviours,” he told reporters.

If the US caused this, can it help to solve it?

While the EU’s tariffs proposal has led to an outcry in the UK, it is also a measure which seeks to bring the US to the negotiating table, the EC says.

In August, the EU and US agreed a trade deal under which Washington will levy 15 percent tariffs on 70 percent of Europe’s exports to the country. Brussels and Washington have yet to discuss how tariffs would apply to European steel, which still faces a 50 percent tariff under Trump’s new trade regime.

Sefcovic told reporters the Commission’s steel tariffs proposal would be a good foundation to engage with the US and also fight the challenge of overcapacity as “like-minded partners”.

French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu has plunged France further into a political deadlock after he resigned just hours after forming a cabinet as Paris struggles to plug its mounting debt.

Lecornu – whose tenure, which ended on Monday, was the shortest in modern French history – blamed opposition politicians for refusing to cooperate after a key coalition partner pulled support for his cabinet. He joins a growing list of French prime ministers who since last year have taken the job only to resign a short time later.

Opposition parties in the divided French Parliament have increased pressure on President Emmanuel Macron to hold snap elections or even to resign – as have politicians and allies in his own camp. Analysts said Macron now appears to be caught on the back foot since Lecornu was widely seen as his “final bullet” to solve the protracted political crisis.

Here’s what to know about Lecornu’s resignation and why French politics are unstable:

What happened?

Lecornu and his ministers resigned on Monday morning after he had named a new government the previous day.

Lecornu took up his office on September 9 after his predecessor Francois Bayrou stepped down. His tenure lasted 27 days, the shortest since 1958 when France’s Fifth Republic began. He was France’s fifth prime minister since 2022 and its third since Macron called snap elections in June last year. He was formerly the minister of the armed forces from 2022 until last month.

In an emotional television address on Monday morning, Lecornu blamed political leaders from different ideological blocs for refusing to compromise to solve the crisis.

“The conditions were not fulfilled for me to carry out my function as prime minister,” the 39-year-old Macron ally said, adding that things could have worked if some had been “selfless”.

“One must always put one’s country before one’s party,” he said.

Macron, in what appeared to be a final attempt at stability, then asked Lecornu on Monday evening to stay on until Wednesday as the head of a caretaker government and to hold “final negotiations” with political parties in the interests of stability. It’s unclear what exactly these talks might entail or whether Lecornu might still emerge as prime minister at the end of them.

In a statement late on Monday on X, Lecornu said he accepted Macron’s proposal “to hold final discussions with the political forces for the stability of the country”. He added that he will report back to Macron by Wednesday evening and the president can then “draw his own conclusions”.

France expert Jacob Ross of the Hamburg-based German Council on Foreign Relations said the caretaker agreement was a “bizarre” one, even if legal, and underscored Macron’s desperation to project some form of control even as his options appear to be running out.

“For me, this really secures the narrative that Lecornu was Macron’s last bullet” to solve the current crisis, Ross said.

Why did Lecornu quit?

France has a deeply divided parliament that makes consensus difficult. Far-right and left-wing parties together hold more than 320 seats in the 577-seat lower house and abhor each other. Macron’s centrist and conservative bloc, which has tried to win conditional support from the left and right to rule, holds 210. No party has an overall majority.

After forming his government on Sunday, Lecornu immediately lost the support of the right-wing Republicans party (LR), which holds 50 seats, because of his choice for defence minister — former Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire.

LR President Bruno Retailleau, who was set to be interior minister in the government, announced on X on Sunday evening that his party was pulling out of the coalition because it did not “reflect the promised break” from pro-Macron ideologies initially assured by Lecornu. He said later on the broadcaster TF1 that Lecornu did not tell him Le Maire would be part of the government.

Le Maire is seen by many critics as representing Macron’s pro-privatisation economic policies and not the radical shifts that Lecornu promised in the three weeks of negotiations before forming a cabinet. Others, meanwhile, hold Le Maire responsible for overseeing the large public deficit during his term as finance minister from 2017 to 2024.

Lecornu’s exit affected the markets with stocks of prominent French companies dropping sharply by about 2 percent on the CAC 40, France’s benchmark stock index, although it has somewhat recovered since then.

Ministers who were supposed to form the government will now remain as caretakers until further notice. “I despair of this circus where everyone plays their role but no one takes responsibility,” Agnes Pannier-Runacher, who was set to be reappointed as ecology minister, said in a post on X.

Why has France’s politics become unstable?

The issues go back to the snap elections in June 2024, which produced a hung parliament consisting of Macron’s centrist bloc as well as left and far-right blocs. With Macron failing to achieve a majority and with parliament consisting of such an uncomfortable coalition, his government has faced hurdles in passing policies.

Added to the political impasse are Macron’s attempts to push through deeply unpopular austerity measures to close widening deficits that resulted from COVID-19-era spending.

Bayrou, who was prime minister from December to September, proposed budget cuts in July to ease what he called France’s “life-threatening” debt burden and cut public spending by 44 billion euros ($52bn) in 2026. His plans included a freeze on pensions, higher taxes for healthcare and scrapping two holidays to generate economic activity. However, they were met with widespread furore in parliament and on the streets and resulted in waves of protests across France. Parliament eventually rejected Bayrou’s proposals in September, ending his nine-month run.

Lecornu, meanwhile, had abandoned the holiday clause and promised to target lifelong privileges enjoyed by ministers. He had negotiated with each bloc for three weeks, hoping to avoid a vote of no confidence. By Monday, it was clear that his approach had not worked.

Public anger has increasingly also been directed at Macron since he first imposed higher fuel taxes in 2018 – and later scrapped them after large-scale protests. In April 2023, Macron again drew popular anger when he forced through pension reforms that raised the retirement age from 62 to 64. That policy was not reversed despite large protests led by trade unions. At present, the French president’s popularity in opinion polls has sunk to record lows.

“There is a numb anger in the voter base, a sense that politicians are playing around, and a huge part of the French electorate is disgusted,” Ross said. “My fear is that it is a potentially promising starting position to call for new elections but also a referendum on topics like migration and even France staying on in the European Union.”

What’s next for Macron?

Macron, due to be in office until April 2027, is increasingly under pressure. Opposition groups are capitalising on Lecornu’s resignation, and his own allies are publicly distancing themselves from him in a bid to boost their standing in the next elections, analysts said.

The anti-immigrant and anti-EU National Rally (RN) on Monday urged Macron to hold elections or resign. “This raises a question for the president of the republic: Can he continue to resist the legislature dissolution? We have reached the end of the road,” party leader Marine Le Pen told reporters on Monday. “There is no other solution. The only wise course of action in these circumstances is to return to the polls.” The RN is expected to gain more seats if elections are held.

Similar calls came from the left with members of the far-left France Unbowed party asking for Macron’s exit.

The president, who has not made a public statement but was spotted walking alone along the River Seine on Monday, according to the Reuters news agency, is also isolated within his own camp. Gabriel Attal, prime minister from January to September 2024 and head of Macron’s Renaissance party, said on the TF1 television channel that he no longer understood Macron’s decisions and it was “time to try something else”.

Edouard Phillipe, a key ally of Macron and prime minister from 2017 to 2020, also said Macron should appoint a caretaker prime minister and then call for an early presidential election while speaking on France’s RTL Radio. Phillipe, who is running in the 2027 elections under his centrist Horizons party, slammed what he said is a “distressing political game”.

France needs to “emerge in an orderly and dignified manner from a political crisis that is harming the country”, Philippe said. “Another 18 months of this is far too long.”

“People are seriously speculating that he might step down, and his allies are seeing him as political [dead] weight,” Ross said.

Macron, he added, has three options: elect yet another prime minister who might still struggle to gain parliamentary consensus, resign or more likely call for snap parliamentary elections – which could still fail to produce a majority government. All three options would come with their own challenges for the president, he noted. Macron has repeatedly ruled out stepping down.

The crisis, Ross said, is similarly affecting the president’s political standing on the international front as head of the EU’s second most populous economy.

The Nobel Prize 2025 officially kicks off with the first award, for physiology or medicine, to be announced on Monday, setting the stage for a week of global anticipation.

The full schedule, spanning from October 6 to 13, maps out a rapid succession of announcements: medicine, followed by physics, chemistry, literature, peace, and finally culminating with the economics prize next Monday.

Here are the complete details of the schedule – and what to expect from this year’s Nobel Prizes.

What is the Nobel Prize?

The Nobel Prize is a set of the most prestigious international awards established by the will of Alfred Nobel, a Swedish chemist, engineer, and industrialist best known for discovering dynamite.

In his 1895 will, Nobel left the bulk of his fortune to fund annual prizes recognising those who “have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind” in the preceding year.

The first Nobel Prizes were awarded in 1901 for outstanding achievement in the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and peace.

In 1968, Sweden’s central bank, Sveriges Riksbank, established the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, expanding the categories to six.

Who awards the Nobel Prizes, and how much is the prize money?

The prizes are awarded by different institutions: the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (for physics, chemistry, and economics), the Nobel Assembly at the Karolinska Institutet (for medicine), the Swedish Academy (for literature), and the Norwegian Nobel Committee (for peace).

Each laureate receives a gold medal, a diploma, and a cash award funded by the Nobel Foundation, which manages Nobel’s endowment. This year’s prize amounts to 11 million Swedish kronor ($1.2m), and a shot at overnight fame for the recipients.

The prizes are formally presented on December 10, the anniversary of Nobel’s death in 1896.

What is this year’s Nobel Prizes schedule?

The announcements will start on Monday, October 6, and will end a week later, on October 13.

Monday, October 6: Physiology or medicine

Announced by the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet, Wallenbergsalen, Nobel Forum, Solna, near Stockholm.

Tuesday, October 7: Physics

Announced by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm.

Wednesday, October 8: Chemistry

Announced by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm.

Thursday, October 9: Literature

Announced by the Swedish Academy, Stockholm.

Friday, October 10: Peace

Announced at the Norwegian Nobel Institute by the Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

Monday, October 13: The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel

Announced by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm.

What is expected to dominate this year’s prizes?

Research into hormones that regulate appetite is leading speculation for this year’s Nobel Prize in medicine.

With more than a billion people worldwide affected by obesity, scientists behind the discovery of the hormone glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) are seen as frontrunners. Their work paved the way for a new class of antiobesity and diabetes drugs, including Ozempic, Wegovy, and Mounjaro, which have transformed global treatment approaches.

Experts say the likely honourees could include Jens Juul Holst, Joel Habener, Daniel Drucker, and Svetlana Mojsov, who were central to GLP-1’s discovery and development in the 1980s. Others point to Japanese researchers Kenji Kangawa and Masayasu Kojima for their work on ghrelin, a hormone that stimulates appetite, potentially forming a scientific “bookend” to earlier breakthroughs like the discovery of leptin in 1994.

Beyond medicine, there are some popular physics contenders, with experts citing breakthroughs in metamaterials, including British physicist John Pendry’s work on the so-called “invisibility cloak”, a method for redirecting electromagnetic fields around objects.

Why is the Nobel Peace Prize being watched closely this year?

The world is fraught with conflict, including an ongoing genocide in Gaza and mounting humanitarian crises in Ukraine, with civil wars and political repression in several countries.

However, the headlines and debates about this year’s Nobel Peace Prize are rather outsized and focused on United States President Donald Trump, for his relentless self-promotion — at times, claiming to deserve it for “ending seven wars”.

At the United Nations, Trump told delegates that “everyone says that I should get the Nobel Peace Prize”. On September 30, Trump reiterated that he “deserved” to win the prize for the possibility of ending an eighth war, given that Israel ended its two-year-long war in Gaza.

However, experts have noted that his chances are slim. The Norwegian Nobel Committee typically focuses on the durability of peace, the promotion of international fraternity, and the quiet work of institutions that strengthen those goals, experts have argued.

This year’s nominations for Trump include Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Pakistan’s government, though both were made after the deadline for the 2025 award.

One of the Nobel awarding bodies has also warned that academic freedom is under threat from the political interference by the Trump administration.

Ylva Engstrom, vice president of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awards the prizes for chemistry, physics and economics, said the Trump administration’s changes were reckless. ‘PILLAR OF DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM’ “I think in both the short and long term, it can have devastating effects,” she told the Reuters news agency in an interview. “Academic freedom … is one of the pillars of the democratic system.”

However, Engstrom is not herself on any of the three committees that will award the prizes for chemistry, physics, or economics.

What happens at the Nobel Prize ceremony?

Annually, on December 10, the anniversary of Nobel’s death, the Nobel Prizes are formally awarded in twin ceremonies held in Stockholm and Oslo.

The Stockholm ceremony is attended by Sweden’s royal family, where laureates in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and economic sciences receive their medals and diplomas from the king of Sweden.

In Oslo, the Nobel Peace Prize is presented by the chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee at the Oslo City Hall, honouring Nobel’s wish that the peace prize be awarded in Norway.

Laureates are individually called to the stage, where they receive the Nobel medal, diploma, and the monetary award. The ceremony also features speeches by committee chairs highlighting the significance of their discoveries or contributions.

The event is broadcast worldwide and followed by a lavish Nobel Banquet at Stockholm’s City Hall for more than 1,000 guests, including royal members, diplomats, scientists, and past laureates.

Who won these prizes last year?

Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun were awarded the 2024 prize for medicine for discovering microRNAs – tiny RNA molecules that regulate gene expression after transcription.

In physics, John J Hopfield and Geoffrey E Hinton received the prize for pioneering research that laid the theoretical and computational foundations of modern machine learning and artificial neural networks. While Hopfield’s models in the 1980s linked neuroscience and computation, Hinton’s work revolutionised deep learning, enabling advances in image recognition, natural language processing, and artificial intelligence (AI) systems.

In chemistry, the prize was shared by David Baker, Demis Hassabis, and John M Jumper for breakthroughs in predicting and designing protein structures using computational models. Baker was honoured for developing algorithms that enable scientists to design new proteins with specific functions, while Hassabis and Jumper, from Google’s DeepMind, were recognised for creating AlphaFold, the AI system that predicted nearly all known protein structures with unprecedented accuracy.

In the literature category, the prize went to Han Kang, a South Korean novelist known for her haunting explorations of violence, identity, and collective memory. Best known internationally for novels The Vegetarian and Human Acts, Han was cited “for her intense poetic prose that confronts historical traumas and exposes the fragility of human life”.

In the peace category, the prize was awarded to Nihon Hidankyo, the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organisations, honouring its decades-long campaign to abolish nuclear weapons and preserve the testimony of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors.

In economic sciences, Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James A Robinson shared the prize for their analysis of how institutions shape long-term economic growth and inequality. Their collaborative research, including the seminal work Why Nations Fail, demonstrated that inclusive political and economic institutions, rather than geography or culture, determine prosperity.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has become the target of a sustained right-wing backlash after the US-based Jewish advocacy group included an organisation founded by slain right-wing figure Charlie Kirk in its online database on extremism.

The blowback escalated sharply on Wednesday after FBI Director Kash Patel announced that the bureau would sever ties with the ADL, accusing the prominent advocacy group of spying on Americans.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk’s post calling the ADL a “hate group” set off a firestorm of criticism online, forcing the group to scrap the “Glossary of Extremism and Hate”, which contained more than a thousand entries on groups and movements with connections to hateful ideologies.

But that has not subdued the backlash from conservatives – the base of the governing Republican Party.

So, what’s ADL’s online database, and why has it triggered MAGA (Make America Great Again) rage? And how has the nonprofit, which backed the crackdown on pro-Palestine campus protests by the administration of US President Donald Trump, ended up ruffling feathers across the political spectrum?

What is ADL?

The ADL is one of the oldest and most influential Jewish advocacy groups in the United States. It was founded in 1913 by members of the B’nai B’rith – Hebrew for “Sons of the Covenant”, a Jewish fraternal organisation – to counter anti-Semitism and prejudice against Jews.

The group, which calls itself “a global leader in combating antisemitism”, started with its original mission, “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all”.

Over time, the ADL grew into a national force with branches spread across the country. It works closely with law enforcement agencies to train officers on identifying bias-motivated violence. It also develops programmes and resources on anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, partnering with schools, universities and communities.

Its monitoring of right-wing racist and anti-LGBTQ+ extremism also allowed it space within the US’s liberal Jewish community.

Since its inception, the ADL has argued that anti-Zionism could lead to anti-Semitism. But in the past couple of decades, the nonprofit has been pushing to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which conflates some criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. The ADL has also backed a controversial resolution passed by the US Congress that defined anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.

The ADL is a well-resourced civil society group, with around $163m in revenue last year alone.

What caused the backlash against ADL?

The recent backlash was triggered after several influential right-wing social media accounts began posting screenshots of the ADL’s entry on Kirk’s organisation, Turning Point USA, in its “Glossary of Extremism”.

Kirk, who is credited with galvanising young voters for Trump, was assassinated last month.

Though Turning Point USA was not listed as an “extremist organization”, the nonprofit had documented incidents where its leadership and affiliated members had made “racist or bigoted comments”.

ADL’s entry on “Christian Identity” – which the nonprofit identified as an extremist theology that promotes white supremacy – also drew widespread criticism from right-wing influencers.

The ADL has long positioned itself as a nonpartisan watchdog. But conservatives have increasingly argued that it has become politically aligned with progressive causes, including the group’s partnerships with social media companies in moderating hate-speech policies.

Jonathan Greenblatt, the ADL’s CEO, has been accused of “weaponising anti-Semitism” to attack critics of liberal policies and of conflating right-wing populism with hate speech in the past.

In the weeks following Kirk’s assassination, the US has seen a wave of right-wing backlash against public figures who criticised him, with several commentators and journalists facing professional repercussions – including the brief suspension of a television show by comedian Jimmy Kimmel and the firing of Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah.

What was in ADL’s online database?

The ADL “Glossary of Extremism and Hate” was an online, searchable database launched in March 2022 by the organisation’s Center on Extremism. After the backlash from right-wing influencers, mostly from the MAGA camp, the ADL quietly moved to retire its database from the public.

The database contained more than 1,000 entries providing overviews and definitions of terms, symbols, slogans, tactics, publications, groups, and individuals associated with various extremist ideologies, hate movements, and related activities.

The resource covered a broad spectrum, including white supremacism, anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim bigotry, and extremism on the far right and far left. The glossary reportedly included groups like the Proud Boys, the Nation of Islam, the Oath Keepers, and others.

The ADL, in its statement, argued that “an increasing number of entries in the Glossary were outdated”, and “a number of entries [were] intentionally misrepresented and misused”.

The organisation further said that it wanted to focus on exploring “new strategies and creative approaches to deliver our data and present our research more effectively”.

The list is no longer publicly available on ADL’s site, and the original URL now redirects to the organisation’s home page.

How did Musk get into this?

The online smear campaign gained traction on Sunday night after billionaire Elon Musk started interacting with posts targeting the ADL.

Musk, who has more than 227 million followers on X, said, “The ADL hates Christians, therefore it is is [sic] a hate group.”

The ADL’s operations encourage murder, Musk said in another reply to a post on X, formerly Twitter, which he bought in 2022 after paying $44bn.

Musk’s attacks on the ADL still came as a shock to some. ADL’s Greenblatt has, in fact, praised Musk several times, including in 2023 for saying that X would block use of the pro-Palestinian slogan “from the river to the sea”.

That applause reportedly led to the resignation of a top ADL executive, Yael Eisenstat, who headed the nonprofit’s Center for Technology and Society, and the group lost several donors.

The ADL has also criticised Musk, saying X’s Grok chatbot promoted pro-Nazi ideology. The chatbot has praised Adolf Hitler, and called itself “MechaHitler”.

Former and current ADL employees have told Jewish Currents, a US-based progressive publication, that Greenblatt has repeatedly given a pass to Musk’s white nationalist sympathies if they help the ADL fight anti-Zionism – a pattern that reportedly escalated after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, followed by Israel’s now two-year-long war on Palestine, which has been dubbed genocide by an United Nations inquiry panel.

Then again, earlier this year, Greenblatt came to Musk’s defence after several Jewish lawmakers and civil society groups condemned Musk’s fascist-style salutes on stage during a speech after Trump’s re-election.

The ADL had posted: “It seems that Elon Musk made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute.”

Why did the FBI snap ties with ADL?

The FBI’s decision to cut ties with the ADL also marks a sharp rupture in a partnership that had lasted for decades, at least since the 1940s, rooted in joint efforts to train law enforcement officers and monitor extremist threats across the US.

The move was announced by FBI chief Patel just 24 hours after Musk joined the online campaign, accusing the ADL of having “become a political front masquerading as a watchdog”.

Patel also targeted James Comey, an American lawyer who served as the director of the FBI from 2013 to 2017, during the era of US President Barack Obama.

“James Comey wrote ‘love letters’ to the ADL and embedded FBI agents with them – a group that ran disgraceful ops spying on Americans,” Kash said in a post on X, without offering any more clarity on this.

“That era is OVER. This FBI won’t partner with political fronts masquerading as watchdogs,” he concluded.

Why is ADL accused of pro-Israel bias and of suppressing pro-Palestinian activism?

The ADL has also faced criticism from left-wing activists for exhibiting a pro-Israel bias and suppressing pro-Palestinian activism, particularly in the wake of widespread protests across US campuses over the Gaza war that has killed more than 67,000 Palestinians and turned the Palestinian enclave into ruins.

The advocacy group has dubbed grassroots protests against Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza as “pro-Hamas activism”, while its CEO Greenblatt has described the Jewish groups calling for a ceasefire as “the ugly core of anti-Zionism”.

The ADL also publicly campaigned against campus protests last year, describing some demonstrations as “antisemitic hate rallies”. The group urged university administrators and government officials to take action against protest organisers, and pressured institutions to censor or discipline dissenting voices.

ADL’s Greenblatt praised Trump for withholding $400m in grants to Columbia University after campus protests and complimented the arrest of Columbia pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil.

“We appreciate the Trump Administration’s broad, bold set of efforts to counter campus antisemitism – and this action further illustrates that resolve by holding alleged perpetrators responsible for their actions,” the ADL posted above a tweet about Khalil’s arrest.

The ADL’s collaboration with the US administration has dented its credibility, and several staff have resigned, citing the organisation’s overt emphasis on pro-Israel advocacy.

“The ADL has a pro-Israel bias and an agenda to suppress pro-Palestinian activism,” an ADL employee told The Guardian newspaper last year.

Japan’s governing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) will choose the country’s fifth leader in five years on Saturday following the resignation of Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba.

After governing Japan almost continuously since the 1950s, the conservative party has been in disarray following successive election defeats and a series of political scandals.

The LDP and its junior coalition partner Komeito lost their governing majority in lower house elections in October last year, a defeat followed by a drubbing in upper house polls in July.

After leading a badly damaged minority government for nearly a year, Ishiba announced on September 7 that he would step down.

Whoever takes over the LDP will face a public frustrated over the cost of living, an ascendant populism epitomised by the “Japan first” Sanseito party, and the headwinds of US President Donald Trump’s trade war.

LDP lawmakers and some one million rank-and-file party members will choose from five candidates, ranging from the son of a former prime minister to the protege of the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Their choice could determine whether Japan will enjoy a period of political stability or continue down the path of the “rotating prime ministership,” which marked Japanese politics in the late 1990s and early 2000s, said Jeffrey Hall, a lecturer at Japan’s Kanda University of International Studies.

“Even though it’s not historically abnormal for Japan to have a high turnover rate, this is a very bad time for Japan to not have stable political leadership,” Hall told Al Jazeera.

Here’s a look at the candidates:

Shinjiro Koizumi

Koizumi, 44, is the son of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and one of two frontrunners in the race.

Earlier this year, he stepped in as the minister of agriculture at a time when the price of rice – Japan’s beloved staple food – was rising sharply.

Koizumi’s work on Japan’s “rice crisis” won him a surge in public support, and he is also popular with a large swath of the LDP, said Kazuto Suzuki, a professor at the University of Tokyo’s Graduate School of Public Policy.

“Mr. Koizumi is supported by traditional LDP heavyweights and the centre of the party. He does not have a particular policy position, so he is flexible to meet demands from older LDP values,” Suzuki told Al Jazeera.

Viewed as a political moderate, Koizumi has pledged to work with opposition parties to reform the tax system while lowering the public debt ratio, and to pursue balanced policies geared towards economic growth with fiscal discipline.

His relatively young age and educational background could still keep him from winning the leadership despite his popularity, said Stephen Nagy, a visiting fellow with the Japan Institute for International Affairs.

Koizumi attended Kanto Gakuin University and later Columbia University, but three of his rivals – Toshimitsu Motegi, Yoshimasa Hayashi, and Takayuki Kobayashi – graduated from the more prestigious University of Tokyo and Harvard.

“Whether we like it or not, educational pedigrees bring respect in society and in the LDP,” Nagy told Al Jazeera.

Sanae Takaichi

Takaichi, 64, is the only woman in the race and the leading challenger to Koizumi.

A former economic security minister, Takaichi skews towards the right-wing flank of the LDP and has “strong conservative credentials” as Abe’s former protege, Nagy said.

All the candidates have focused on how to revive Japan’s economy after decades of stagnation, putting forward broadly similar expansionary policies, said Sota Kato, research director at the Tokyo Foundation.

Still, Takaichi is “closer in stance” to “Abenomics”, the three-pronged strategy of fiscal expansion, monetary easing and structural reform championed by her mentor, Kato told Al Jazeera.

Takaichi is known for conservative views on social issues, including immigration and same-sex marriage, and foreign affairs, including China-Japan relations.

While her views have earned her the support of the conservative wing of the LDP, they are at odds with more centrist members.

“Some believe she is exactly what the LDP needs to pull support away from the opposition parties, such as Sanseito … Others believe she will push more centrist voters away,” Nagy said.

Yoshimasa Hayashi

Hayashi, 64, is considered the “dark horse” of the election due to his experience and amenable personality, according to Kato of the Tokyo Foundation.

Currently serving as chief cabinet secretary, Hayashi previously held high-profile posts including defence chief and minister of foreign affairs, and is campaigning on an economic policy focused on fiscal discipline.

Like Koizumi, he is viewed as a political centrist.

“From the perspective of LDP lawmakers, Hayashi provides a sense of stability compared to figures like Koizumi or Takaichi,” Kato said.

“If Hayashi secures more votes than either Koizumi or Takaichi in the first round of voting and proceeds to the second round, his chances may improve.”

Hayashi cited his extensive ministerial experience while campaigning and argued that Japan should strengthen its cooperation with “like-minded” democratic countries to push back against China, Russia and North Korea.

Toshimitsu Motegi

Motegi, 69, is a former secretary-general of the LDP who also did stints as minister of foreign affairs and minister of economy, trade and industry.

His platform includes cuts to petrol and diesel prices, wage increases for nurses and childcare workers, and incentives to encourage investment.

His economic policies “fall somewhere in between” those of Takaichi and Koizumi, the latter of whom has placed greater emphasis on fiscal discipline than his more conservative rival, according to Kato of the Tokyo Foundation.

Motegi and Hayashi both have factional support within the LDP, but this may not translate into enough votes to win the leadership position, according to the University of Tokyo’s Suzuki.

“Mr Motegi and Mr Hayashi are very experienced politicians, but they represent the old-fashioned LDP. They have certain support within the party, but they are not popular among the public,” he said.

Takayuki Kobayashi

Takayuki Kobayashi, 50, is a former economic security minister and previously ran for leader of the LDP.

His platform has heavily focused on economic growth and assisting citizens with cost-of-living issues.

Kobayashi has the support of many younger LDP members, but his youth and experience are potential handicaps, according to Nagy.

“Kobayashi is seen as very accomplished, smart, internationally minded, but still too young to fight with the 80-year-old sharks in the LDP,” he said.

His view was echoed by the University of Tokyo’s Suzuki.

“Mr Kobayashi is a new generation politician who has been a rising star, but not yet popular enough,” Suzuki said.

“Motegi, Hayashi and Kobayashi are very competent in policies and their sharpness in discussion, but these qualities are not the issue for this party leadership contest. The most important issue is the popularity and reactivation of the LDP,” he added.

US President Donald Trump announced earlier this week that his administration would launch a new website, called TrumpRx, which will allow American consumers to buy prescription drugs from pharmaceutical companies at discounted prices.

Pfizer, the first United States pharmaceutical group to sign up to the website, said it would offer discounts of up to 85 percent on the cost of its medicines for those not using health insurance policies to pay and for those on the government’s low-cost insurance programme, Medicaid. Pfizer will also sell medicines to the Medicaid programme itself at lower prices.

The announcement prompted shares in the pharmaceuticals sector to lift sharply this week, signalling a favourable response from markets and the pharmaceuticals industry.

Here’s what we know about the new service, why it is being launched and how it will work.

What is TrumpRx and when is it being launched?

The new website will be launched in early 2026. It is a platform from which consumers will be able to buy prescription medicines directly from pharmaceutical companies without going through insurance.

On the site, consumers will be able to search for the prescription drug required and then be directed to the drug’s manufacturing company.

They will have access to discounted prices much closer to those typically paid by national health services in foreign countries at what are known as “most favoured nation” prices.

Beneficiaries of Medicaid – the federal government insurance programme for adults and children from lower-income backgrounds – will also be able to use the site.

“By taking this bold step, we’re ending the era of global price gouging at the expense of American families,” Trump told a news conference on Tuesday.

What are ‘most favoured nation’ prices?

“Most favoured nation” (MFN) prices are those that national health services in other countries, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Denmark, pay US pharmaceutical companies for prescription drugs.

As these countries buy medicines in bulk, they have much greater purchasing power to demand lower prices than ordinary consumers. This means pharmaceutical companies tend to sell their drugs at a much lower price to other countries than they do domestically.

The US cannot leverage this sort of purchasing power because it does not have a national health service, so the government cannot influence the price of drugs in the same way.

The Trump administration argues that this means US pharmaceutical companies are effectively subsidising foreign health services while artificially inflating prices for American consumers. In May this year, therefore, he signed an executive order aimed at reducing prescription drug prices in the US, stating: “The United States will no longer subsidise the health care of foreign countries.”

When a country grants MFN status, it commits to providing the recipient country with the same trade advantages it gives to any other country with MFN status, but not necessarily the same low prices – prices still vary from country to country. However, it is understood that companies will be expected to offer drugs at their lowest selling price in any other country.

What else has Trump done about the cost of medicines in the US?

The launch of the new website is just one part of Trump’s strategy to reduce prescription medicine prices in the US.

In July this year, he sent a letter to the CEOs of 17 pharmaceutical companies ordering them to reduce their prices.

In the letter, he laid out demands and promises:

• He called on manufacturers to provide MFN prices to every single Medicaid patient.
• He required manufacturers to stipulate that they will not offer other developed nations better prices for new drugs than prices offered in the United States.
• He promised to provide manufacturers with an avenue to cut out middlemen and sell medicines directly to patients, provided they do so at a price no higher than the best price available in developed nations.
• He promised to use trade policy to support manufacturers in raising prices internationally, provided that increased revenues abroad are reinvested directly into lowering prices for American patients and taxpayers.

The new TrumpRx website addresses the first of these promises.

To address the second promise, Trump has also announced new 100 percent tariffs on imported, branded pharmaceutical products. Companies which set up production facilities and operations in the US will be exempt from these.

He cited the cost of prescription drugs as one of the reasons for levying these tariffs.

How much more do medicines cost in the US than other countries?

According to a 2022 study commissioned by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, published on the US government website, standard insulin prices in the US are as much as 10 times higher than prices in 33 OECD countries.

“Average gross prices in the US were more than 10 times prices in France and the United Kingdom; nearly nine times prices in Italy; more than eight times prices in Japan; about seven times prices in Germany; and more than six times prices in Canada,” the study found.

Many people who take insulin already pay a “net price”, which is lower than the standard price via rebates that the manufacturer agrees with insurance companies. But the net price is still, on average, 2.33 times the price paid in other countries, the report found.

Who will benefit most from this platform?

Anyone who wants to buy prescription drugs direct from pharmaceutical companies, instead of via insurance coverage, at a discounted price can use the platform.

A 2024 report from the US Census Bureau showed that about 8 percent of the US population (26 million people) did not have health insurance in 2023 – so these people may be able to benefit.

The Medicaid programme is also likely to benefit from lower prices as its deal with Pfizer includes more favourable terms. However, details of how this part of the deal will work have not been fully explained.

Currently, most Americans use insurance policies to provide medical care, so initially, most will not use the website, experts said.

Stacie B Dusetzina, professor of health policy at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, told Al Jazeera: “There are a small number of people who may be better off purchasing their medicine this way, but the majority of Americans won’t benefit from this type of model.”

However, she added: “There are other components to the deal that could save the public Medicaid programme money, but without knowing more about how that deal is structured, we can’t say for sure that it would produce savings.”

Which drug companies will sell via the new website?

On Tuesday, Trump said pharma group Pfizer was the first to sign up for the new website.

In return for direct access to consumers, the US pharmaceuticals major has agreed to lower the cost of its prescription drugs for those buying direct via the site (and not using insurance to pay), as well as those on the Medicaid programme. Customers will pay prices closer to “most favoured nation” prices, Trump said.

In a news release, Pfizer said it had “voluntarily agreed to implement measures designed to ensure Americans receive comparable drug prices to those available in other developed countries” and said it will also price “newly launched medicines at parity with other key developed markets”.

“The large majority of the Company’s primary care treatments and some select specialty brands will be offered at savings that will range as high as 85 percent and on average, 50 percent,” the company said in a statement.

The White House and Pfizer gave some examples of primary-care Pfizer medicines which will be available on the TrumpRx website. This is not an exhaustive list:

• Eucrisa, a topical ointment for atopic dermatitis, which will be made available at an 80 percent discount for patients purchasing directly.
• Xeljanz, a widely used oral medication for types of arthritis which will be available at a 40 percent discount.
• Zavzpret, a drug used to treat migraines, which will be sold at a 50 percent discount.
• Duavee, used to treat menopause symptoms, which will be offered at around an 85 percent discount.
• Toviaz, a drug for for overactive bladder.
• Abrilada and Xeljanz, both autoimmune drugs which will be available at significant discounts.

Some of these drugs will remain very expensive even with the discounts. According to Pfizer’s website, Xeljanz, for example, costs around $6,000 per month at the standard price. A 40 percent discount brings this down to $3,600 per month.

Currently, Americans with health insurance can obtain the drug for up to $20 a month – in many cases, their insurance policy terms mean they pay nothing at all.

What else have Pfizer and Trump agreed to under this deal?

Pfizer has agreed to reduce drug prices in the US generally, putting prices in line with those paid in other developed countries, the company said.

The group has also committed to spending $70bn on domestic manufacturing facilities, which will be dedicated to “US research, development and capital projects in the next few years”.

In return, the company will be given a three-year grace period from Trump’s tariffs on branded pharmaceuticals made abroad.

“I think today we are turning the tide, and we are reversing an unfair situation,” Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla said at a news conference on Tuesday alongside Trump, referring to the difference in prices that people in the US pay for medicines compared with consumers overseas.

Will other drug companies follow suit?

Trump said on Tuesday that other pharmaceutical companies are expected to sign up for the new website, but there have been no new official announcements so far.

“It is clear that the deal that Pfizer struck is a friendly one to the industry,” said Dusetzina. “The companies that received letters requesting that they act are all likely to make agreements that I would expect to be similarly structured.

“If nothing else, these companies will want commitments that they can avoid any potential tariffs. That is worth a lot to them and to their shareholders. It will still be unclear, I think, whether the changes that they make have any tangible benefits for the average American.”

Overseas pharmaceutical companies may be able to sign up as well.

Swiss companies, including Novartis and Roche, said that they were eager to work with the Trump administration to make their drugs more affordable to US patients.

Stephan Mumenthaler, director general of scienceindustries – which represents about 250 Swiss chemical and pharmaceutical companies – told the Reuters news agency on Wednesday that he expected “mini deals” to come from Swiss and global pharmaceutical companies in the coming days.

“They are thinking in similar schemes … How can you omit the margins that middlemen are taking away so that you basically have a similar price than before, but the end consumer still gets a lower price,” he said.

Meanwhile, on Monday, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) announced the launch of its own website AmericasMedicines.com, which will enable consumers to directly buy drugs from manufacturers as well.

In a media release, Stephen J Ubl, president and CEO of PhRMA said: “We need policymakers to protect innovation, fix the broken insurance system that burdens patients with high out-of-pocket costs, and ensure foreign governments pay their fair share.”

How have markets reacted?

Pfizer’s share price rose 7 percent in the US on Tuesday and jumped 8 percent on the UK’s stock exchange on Wednesday.

The announcement of the new website also lifted the shares of European pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, Roche and AstraZeneca by about 5 percent.

Islamabad, Pakistan – An uneasy calm hangs over Pakistan-administered Kashmir as the region marked the fourth day of a complete shutdown on Thursday, with at least 15 people killed – including three police officers – during violent clashes between protesters and security forces.

Dozens more have been injured on both sides as the standoff continues.

The federal government has dispatched a negotiating committee that arrived on Thursday in Muzaffarabad, the territory’s capital, to hold crucial talks with the Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC), an umbrella organisation representing traders and civil society groups that has emerged as the voice of grassroots discontent across the region.

Led by activist Shaukat Nawaz Mir, the JAAC-organised lockdown commenced on September 29 and has brought several districts of Pakistan-administered Kashmir – locally known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) – to a grinding halt.

The government, on its part, has meanwhile imposed a complete communications blackout, with residents cut off from mobile telecommunications and internet access since September 28.

In Muzaffarabad, the usually bustling markets have remained shuttered, while street vendors and public transport have vanished from the roads. The paralysis has left the region’s roughly four million residents in a state of uncertainty.

The government said in a statement that authorities were working to restore order and urged the public not to be swayed by what officials described as propaganda and “fake news” circulating on social media as part of a “specific agenda”.

This JAAC-led protest – the third such major mobilisation in the past two years – erupted after the government failed to agree to the committee’s 38-point demands, according to the group’s leaders.

The current crisis marks the latest escalation in a two-year confrontation between Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s local government and a grassroots movement that has shown its street power on several occasions.

What sparked the protests?

The Kashmir valley is the picturesque yet deeply contentious Himalayan region over which Pakistan and India have fought multiple wars since both nations gained independence from British colonial rule in 1947. Both control parts of it, with China also administering two slivers of the region’s north. The region is claimed in its entirety by India, while Pakistan claims all of Kashmir except the parts held by China, its ally.

With a population exceeding four million, according to the 2017 census, Pakistan-administered Kashmir operates under a semi-autonomous system with its own prime minister and legislative assembly.

The current unrest has roots in May 2023, when residents first took to the streets to protest against what they said were skyrocketing electricity bills. Simultaneously, complaints emerged about widespread flour smuggling and acute shortages in subsidised wheat supplies.

By August 2023, these disparate grievances had coalesced into organised resistance. In September of that year, hundreds of activists gathered in Muzaffarabad to formally establish the JAAC, bringing together representatives from all districts of the region.

The movement reached its first major flashpoint in May 2024, when protesters launched a long march towards Muzaffarabad. Violent clashes ensued, resulting in the deaths of at least five people, including a police officer.

The violent protests were suspended only after Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif agreed to key demands to slash flour prices and reduce electricity tariffs, with the government allocating billions of rupees in subsidies to make flour affordable and support electricity price reductions.

However, the peace proved short-lived. In August of this year, the JAAC announced it would launch another lockdown, this time broadening its critique beyond economic grievances.

Why are protesters dissatisfied, and what are their demands?

The latest charter of demands presented by the JAAC consists of 38 distinct points. The demands range from providing free education and healthcare facilities and launching major infrastructure projects to changing the structure of the provincial legislature.

But topping the list is the abolition of what the JAAC characterises as “ruling elite privileges”, a demand that has featured prominently in previous sets of grievances as well.

The JAAC maintains that following the May 2024 protests, the government acknowledged that a judicial commission would be formed to review “privileges granted to high government officials”.

Some of the perks provided to senior government officials, such as ministers, include two government-provided vehicles, personal staff including bodyguards, as well as unlimited fuel for vehicles they use for government work.

A second key demand, incorporated into the JAAC’s list for the first time, involves ending the system of 12 reserved seats for refugees in the autonomous region’s legislative assembly.

According to the JAAC, refugees and their descendants, who migrated from Indian-administered Kashmir after the 1947 partition, now constitute a powerful political bloc that has monopolised development funds.

The charter also demands the withdrawal of legal cases filed against activists during the protests that erupted in 2023 and 2024.

Demands also include tax exemptions and improved employment opportunities, among others.

Infrastructure development features prominently in the JAAC’s vision. The committee has demanded new projects, including tunnels and bridges connecting the mountainous region with the rest of Pakistan, apart from an international airport.

Muzaffarabad currently has an airport that has remained nonoperational for years. However, in April of this year, Prime Minister Sharif formed a committee to work on reviving the project. He also issued instructions to examine the feasibility of the development of another airport in Mirpur, the second-largest city in the region.

How is the government responding?

The local administration has implemented a communications blackout and has ordered educational institutions shut indefinitely.

More controversially, it has called for paramilitary forces as well as additional police contingents from the rest of Pakistan.

The JAAC has objected to the deployment of paramilitary forces. Mir, the JAAC leader, told reporters earlier this week that with local police already present, “there was no need to order paramilitary from mainland Pakistan”.

Abdul Majid Khan, the finance minister of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, acknowledged that while there had already been a first round of negotiations, a new committee had now arrived in Muzaffarabad specifically tasked with addressing the protesters’ grievances.

“Initially, when they launched their protest last year, it was all about electricity and flour price, and we agreed on those. But they also must understand that things cannot happen overnight, and they take time,” Khan said, defending the government.

However, Khan acknowledged that while the government has agreed to most of the JAAC’s 38 points, negotiations have reached a deadlock on two particularly contentious issues – the elimination of the 12 reserved seats for refugees and what the JAAC calls ending “ruling elite perks”.

The minister challenged the logic behind eliminating seats reserved for refugees, pointing to what they lost at the time of the subcontinent’s partition.

“These are the people whose families migrated from India, where they were landowners and businesspeople, but moved to Pakistan in abject poverty, having left their wealth behind, but JAAC thinks it is unjust to give them a quota of seats. If we don’t give these people the rights, then why did they even go through the trouble of moving here?” Khan argued.

The minister himself belongs to the estimated 2.7 million people in the region whose families migrated from Indian-administered Kashmir.

Khan also questioned the logic of renewed protests, given that the JAAC’s previous demands had largely been met. He said that for many of the current issues, local authorities must seek funding from the federal government in Islamabad.

“There is barely any taxation on the people here, with already reduced electricity tariffs. Additionally, we have less than 5,000 tax filers in the entire region, which shows little revenue generation for the government,” he said.

What happens next?

Thursday’s negotiations between government representatives and JAAC members concluded without any resolution, with the next round of talks expected on Friday.

Both sides publicly profess their commitment to dialogue, but distrust runs deep after repeated cycles of promises and disappointments.

Despite the JAAC’s persistent protests, the government maintains it has met most demands and that constitutional and electoral reforms require legislative processes that cannot happen overnight.

Khan indicated that once there is meaningful progress in negotiations, the government will move quickly to restore internet and mobile services, which he said “had to be curtailed due to the situation on the ground”.

“With the negotiation team being present in Muzaffarabad, I am sure there will be a solution to this deadlock, and things will return to normalcy soon,” Khan said.

European Union leaders are considering a “reparations plan” that would use frozen Russian state assets to provide Ukraine with a $164bn loan to help fund its reconstruction after the war with Russia ends.

Leaders expressed a mixture of support and caution for the plan on Wednesday as they met in the Danish capital, Copenhagen, days after drones were spotted in Denmark’s airspace, prompting airport closures. While the drones in Denmark were not formally identified as Russian, other European countries, including Poland, Romania and Estonia, have accused Russia of drone incursions into their airspace in September.

“I strongly support the idea,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson also said he was “very much in favour” of the plan. Others said there could be legal complications, however.

Here is what we know about Europe’s “reparations plan”, how it may work and what the response from Russia is likely to be.

What is Europe’s ‘reparations plan’?

The reparations plan was first outlined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in mid-September, and backing for it has grown as United States financial support for Ukraine wanes.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, US President Donald Trump promised voters he would pull the US back from providing high levels of financial and military aid to Ukraine.

Since the beginning of his term in January, Trump has made it clear the US will take a back seat in terms of providing financial support and security guarantees to Ukraine, indicating Europe should fill the gap instead.

Europe’s plan would use Russian assets frozen in European banks as collateral for a 140-billion-euro ($164.4bn) loan to Ukraine. Repayments for the loan would be recouped via war reparations from Russia, but the loan would also be guaranteed either in the EU’s next long-term budget or by individual EU member states.

“We need a more structural solution for military support,” von der Leyen said on Tuesday. “This is why I have put forward the idea of a reparations loan that is based on the immobilised Russian assets.”

How much in frozen Russian assets does Europe hold?

About $300bn in Russian Central Bank assets have been frozen by the US and European countries since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Most of this – $246.9bn – is held in Europe, of which $217.5bn – the vast majority in cash – is held by Euroclear, a Belgium-based capital markets company.

On June 30, Euroclear reported the Russian sanctioned assets on its balance sheet generated $3.2bn in interest during the first half of 2025, a drop from the $4bn in interest earned over the same period last year.

What are the challenges to this plan?

Under international law, a sovereign country’s assets cannot simply be confiscated. Hence, loaning this money to Ukraine would be an infringement of Moscow’s sovereign claim over its central bank assets.

Since most of the assets are held in Belgium, the country has asked for the plan to be fleshed out in case it is required to return the assets to Russia.

“I explained to my colleagues yesterday that I want their signature saying, ‘If we take Putin’s money, we use it, we’re all going to be responsible if it goes wrong,’” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever told reporters in Copenhagen on Thursday.

On Wednesday, von der Leyen said: “It’s absolutely clear that Belgium cannot be the one who is the only member state that is carrying the risk. The risk has to be put on broader shoulders.”

Are any European leaders hesitant about this plan?

Yes. Besides De Wever, other European leaders have expressed hesitation or have asked their fellow leaders to work out more details of the plan before they agree to it.

Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof said the proposal should be considered very carefully, given the legal and financial risks that could arise.

Others also signalled caution. “I think that’s a difficult legal question,” Luxembourg Prime Minister Luc Frieden told reporters. “You can’t just take over assets that belong to another state so easily.”

Frieden added: “There are now other proposals on the table, but these also raise a whole host of questions. I would like to have answers to these questions first. Among other things, how would such a loan be repaid? What would happen if Russia did not repay these reparations in a peace treaty?”

Is the plan likely to go ahead?

Experts said European leaders would likely have to find a way to make the plan viable as the prospects of further US aid for Ukraine dry up.

“It is going to happen because with the US walking away, Europe is left with $100bn-plus annual funding needs for Ukraine,” Timothy Ash, an associate fellow in the Russia and Eurasia programme at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera.

Ash explained that the bigger challenge for Europe would be to not go ahead with the plan if it means leaving Ukraine underfunded generally and placing it at higher risk of losing the war with Russia. “Risks to Europe would then be catastrophic,” he said, including the prospect of tens of millions of Ukrainians migrating west into Europe.

If a Ukrainian loss in the war becomes more likely, European nations would be forced to ramp up defence spending to 5 percent of their gross domestic products (GDPs) much faster than expected.

In June, members of NATO pledged to increase their defence spending to 5 percent of their GDPs by 2035.

Such an acceleration “would mean higher budget deficits, higher borrowing costs, more debt, less growth and a weaker Europe and euro”, Ash said.

How has Russia responded?

Moscow has rebuked the EU plan, calling it a “theft” of Russian money.

“We are talking about plans for the illegal seizure of Russian property. In Russia, we call that simply theft,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Wednesday.

Peskov said anyone involved in seizing Russian assets “will be prosecuted in one way or another. They will all be called to account.”

He added: “The boomerang will very seriously hit those who are the main depositories, countries that are interested in investment attractiveness.”

Ash said Russia could take legal action against European countries if the plan goes ahead. However, “it would have to lift its own sovereign immunity to be able to launch any such legal action. And a legal action by Russia would take years – decades to conclude.”

Russia is protected by sovereign immunity, which is a legal principle shielding foreign governments from being sued in courts outside their own country. If Russia wants to legally pursue this, it would need to waive this immunity, which, in turn, would mean Russia could also be sued or tried in a foreign country.

Ash added that another course of action Russia could take would be to seize Western assets under its jurisdiction, but this also does not come without challenges. “Russia has 10 times more assets in the West than vice versa,” Ash said. “It’s just more vulnerable through this channel.”

How much in Western assets does Russia hold?

Moscow said the value of all foreign assets it holds is comparable to the frozen Russian reserves held in the West. Citing data from January 2022, Russia’s state-run RIA news agency reported there were about $288bn of assets in Russia that could potentially be seized by Moscow.

However, Russian Central Bank records from 2022 show there were $289bn in “derivative and other foreign investments” in Russia. By the end of 2023, these foreign assets had dropped in value to $215bn.

Ash explained: “Those assets are all foreign assets – not just Western. [They include] Chinese, Indian, Middle East assets. And most of those assets are private – not state.”

In 2013, then-businessman and reality TV star Donald Trump shared his vision on Fox News about the role a United States president should play in a government shutdown: “You have to be nice and be angry and be wild and cajole and do all sorts of things, but you have to get a deal.”

Now, as president, Trump has taken a different approach. After failing to reach a bipartisan agreement, he mocked Democrats by posting an expletive-laced video generated by artificial intelligence and set to mariachi music, falsely showing US Representative Hakeem Jeffries wearing a sombrero and US Senator Chuck Schumer saying that “nobody likes Democrats any more”, so the party is seeking favour with “illegal aliens”.

Welcome to the 2025 US government shutdown.

At PolitiFact, we have fact-checked lawmakers’ and pundits’ statements about government shutdowns for more than a decade. When Congress can’t reach a funding agreement, both sides of the political aisle whip up talking points about what a shutdown means for the economy, immigration, worker paycheques, disaster response and services for low-income families. The blame is nearly always placed on the other party.

A reminder: Republicans control the presidency and both chambers of Congress. But passing legislation to extend government funding at current levels would require, under longstanding rules, more than half a dozen Democrats to side with Republicans in order to reach the 60-vote threshold to advance to a vote. This gives Democrats some negotiating leverage, which they are seeking to use in the spending fight.

Social services

Women, Infants, and Children programme will ‘not be funded’

House Speaker Mike Johnson, in September 29 remarks to reporters.

Johnson omits that enrollees will still likely get services, at least initially. But much depends on how long the shutdown lasts.

The Agriculture Department’s shutdown plan said its Women, Infants and Children nutrition programme, which provides food to low-income families, shall continue operations “subject to the availability of funding”. The WIC has 6.9 million participants.

WIC should be able to continue for at least one week, said Alison Hard, National WIC Association policy director. After that, operations will vary by state, depending on their funds.

During a shutdown, state WIC programmes have options to temporarily fill the funding gap, including various USDA sources, state money and requesting early rebate payments from their contracted infant formula manufacturers.

Past shutdowns

‘Back in 2013, Trump said it was the President’s job to negotiate and avoid a shutdown’

Senator Jeff Merkley, in a September 29 X post

That’s an accurate paraphrase of Trump’s remarks.

In an October 7, 2013, interview with then-Fox News host Greta Van Susteren, Trump criticised then-President Barack Obama for not being a dealmaker during the shutdown. In full, he said: “You have to get everybody in a room. You have to be a leader. The president has to lead. He has to get [the Speaker of the House] and everybody else in a room, and they have to make a deal. You have to be nice and be angry and be wild and cajole and do all sorts of things, but you have to get a deal.”

Trump made similar remarks in a September 2013 Fox & Friends phone interview: “Problems start from the top, and they have to get solved from the top, and the president’s the leader, and he’s got to get everybody in a room, and he’s got to lead.”

Healthcare

Republicans are spiking health insurance premiums by 75 percent for everyday Americans if they don’t extend enhanced ACA subsidies

Representative Katherine Clark, in a September 12 X post.

This is mostly true.

If the Republican-controlled Congress does not extend Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidies before they expire at the end of this year, enrollees will have to pay more.

A KFF analysis of federal data found that the average increase in out-of-pocket coverage cost for enrollees would be 79 percent, with state-by-state average increases ranging from 49 percent to 195 percent.

This cost increase would come from a combination of insurance premium increases and the disappearance of subsidies, rather than from “spiking health insurance premiums” alone.

More than two weeks after Clark’s statement – and after we published the fact check – KFF produced a revised figure for average increases based on new data: 114 percent.

‘Democrats so-called proposal is a partisan wish list with a $1.5 trillion spending increase tacked onto a four-week funding bill’

House Speaker Mike Johnson, in a September 29 news release.

The Republican talking point misses the context of the Democrats’ proposal.

The September 17 Democratic proposal latches government funding up until October 31, known as a “continuing resolution”, to some Democratic priorities, including healthcare assistance and limiting Trump’s ability to claw back funds previously approved by Congress.

The bill calls for permanently extending enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that were passed in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic and extended in 2022. Those are set to expire on December 31 this year. The Democratic bill would also reverse cuts to Medicaid and other health programmes that Republicans enacted in their signature tax and spending legislation.

The Democrats’ measure would restore funding for public broadcasting that Republicans nixed in July and includes at least $320m for security for lawmakers, the executive branch and the Supreme Court. (Republicans have proposed $88m in security funding in their resolution bill.)

The bill also contains mandates for how the Trump administration can spend money and would hinder the White House’s recent attempt to cancel almost $5bn in foreign aid.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group that’s hawkish on the deficit, said in a September 18 news release that Democrats’ proposal in its entirety would add $1.5 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

“The [continuing resolution] itself – the part that funds the government – would not add $1.5 trillion to the debt, but the bill that Democrats have proposed includes other provisions that would,” Chris Towner, the group’s policy director, wrote in an email. “The bill repeals the health spending cuts that were included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would cost about $1.1 trillion over a decade to repeal.”

Towner also said the Democrats’ provision to make the enhanced ACA subsidies permanent would cost about $350bn over a decade.

If enhanced subsidies are not extended, people with insurance through the Affordable Care Act will see their premiums rise ‘twice as much in the rural areas’

Senator Amy Klobuchar, in a September 28 interview on CBS’s Face the Nation

This is mostly true.

There are at least two ways to interpret Klobuchar’s statement: that she was comparing rural enrollees’ costs with people living elsewhere, or comparing their costs with what they paid before.

Klobuchar’s office told PolitiFact that the senator was referring to rural enrollees seeing increases that were double what they had paid before, and that interpretation aligns with what Klobuchar has said in other settings.

An analysis by the Century Foundation, a progressive think tank, found that out-of-pocket insurance costs would increase on average in rural counties from $713 to $1,473 – a 107 percent increase, or slightly more than a doubling.

Comparing rural enrollees’ cost increases with people elsewhere, it amounts to a disproportionately large increase for rural areas, but it’s not twice as much.

Enrollees in rural counties would see average out-of-pocket losses of $760 from expiring enhanced subsidies, compared with $624 for all counties and $593 for urban counties. That’s 22 percent more for rural enrollees compared with all others, and 28 percent more compared with urban enrollees.

Government workers

‘If the government shuts down, members of Congress still get paid. The janitors never get paid’

Daniel Koh, on The People’s Cabinet podcast episode, September 29.

This is mostly true.

Members of the House and Senate continue to get paid during a shutdown. Federal law says federal employees get back pay, but the law does not extend to contractors, a group that includes many janitors. Some private employers with federal contracts may find ways to pay their employees, but there is nothing in federal law that requires it.

‘FEMA won’t be funded’ during hurricane season because of the shutdown

House Speaker Mike Johnson, in September 29 remarks to reporters

Johnson was correct that Congress had not agreed on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding, but a Department of Homeland Security shutdown procedures plan estimates that 84 percent of FEMA employees will continue working. (The DHS oversees FEMA.)

“Bottom line: hurricanes don’t care about politics. FEMA will still respond. But recovery will stall if Congress can’t do its job,” said Craig Fugate, who led FEMA during President Barack Obama’s administration after leading Florida’s emergency management under then-Republican Governor Jeb Bush. “This isn’t new – both parties own the blame.”

The agency’s recovery efforts are most at risk, Fugate said, because they depend on how much money remains in the Disaster Relief Fund. “Those dollars aren’t tied to the shutdown, but they usually run low this time of year. Normally, Congress passes a continuing resolution to add money. A shutdown means that doesn’t happen. That slows recovery projects, not the immediate response.”

The fund had about $2.3bn at the end of August, which is considered low.

The United States federal government shut down at 12:01am East Coast time (04:01 GMT) on Wednesday after Congress failed to pass a new spending bill, forcing operations considered inessential to close.

President Donald Trump has threatened to use the budget deadlock to push through mass layoffs of federal employees.

Democrats and Republicans remain divided over spending priorities as Democrats push to protect healthcare, social programmes and foreign aid while Republicans demand cuts.

This is not the first time Washington has faced such a standoff. The graphic below shows every US funding gap and government shutdown since 1976, including how long each lasted and under which administration it occurred.

What is a government shutdown?

A government shutdown happens when Congress does not agree on a budget, so parts of the federal government have to close until a spending plan is approved.

Shutdowns tend to happen in October because the government’s fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.

How many times has the government shut down?

The current budget process was established in 1976. Since then, the government has had 20 funding gaps, resulting in 10 shutdowns.

A funding gap occurs whenever Congress misses the deadline to pass a budget or a stopgap spending bill (also called a continuing resolution), leaving the government without legal authority to spend money.

• A single shutdown can involve multiple funding gaps if temporary funding measures expire before a long-term agreement is reached.
• A shutdown happens only if government operations actually stop because of that funding gap.

Before the 1980s, funding gaps did not usually lead to shutdowns, and agencies kept operating, assuming funding would be restored soon.

After 1980, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued legal opinions stating that, under federal law, agencies may not spend money without congressional approval. Only essential services – such as national security, air traffic control and law enforcement – could continue.

Since 1982, with this new legal basis in place, funding gaps have more often resulted in full or partial government shutdowns until Congress resolves the standoff.

When was the last government shutdown?

The last government shutdown occurred in December 2018 and January 2019 after President Donald Trump, then in his first term, and Democratic politicians hit an impasse over the president’s request for $5bn in funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border, a demand the Democrats opposed.

When was the longest shutdown?

The last shutdown was also the longest in US history, lasting 35 days from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019, when Trump announced he had reached a tentative deal with congressional leaders to reopen the government for three weeks while negotiations on the border wall continued.

What happens during a shutdown?

During a government shutdown, nonessential federal services are halted or reduced, and many government employees are furloughed, or placed on unpaid leave.

Meanwhile, essential personnel – such as military service members, law enforcement officers and air traffic controllers – are required to keep working, often without pay until funding is restored.

How are government shutdowns resolved?

Shutdowns are typically resolved when Congress passes a continuing resolution, which provides short-term funding while negotiations for a longer-term budget continue.

Since 1990, every shutdown has ended through the passage of a continuing resolution.

Which services are halted?

A shutdown primarily affects nonessential federal employees as well as people and businesses that rely on government services.

The federal government is the nation’s largest employer. As of November, it had a little more than 3 million workers – about 1.9 percent of the civilian workforce – according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data reported by the Pew Research Centre.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that if funding lapses in fiscal year 2026, about 750,000 federal employees could be furloughed each day, and their lost pay would add up to about $400m daily. The exact number of furloughed workers could change over time because some agencies might increase layoffs the longer a shutdown continues while others could bring some employees back.

Past shutdowns have affected numerous services and agencies, including:

• National parks and monuments
• Federal museums
• Federal research projects
• Processing of certain government benefits
• IRS taxpayer services

Which services are still in operation?

Even during a shutdown, many core government functions remain in operation. Some continue because they are classified as essential for public safety and welfare while others are funded separately from the annual budget process through mandatory or self-sustaining programmes. Examples include:

• Social Security and Medicare benefits
• The military and federal law enforcement
• US Postal Service
• Air traffic control
• US Passport Agency