Government

At least six people were killed after heavy rain flooded tents and collapsed homes sheltering displaced families in Gaza. Footage shows the storm’s aftermath, including crumpled tents lying in muddy water and a collapsed wall.

Jan. 13 (UPI) — Bolivia’s government and major labor and farm groups reached an agreement to end weeks of protests and road blockades that paralyzed the country, easing a standoff triggered by a disputed economic decree.

The administration of President Rodrigo Paz signed the accord with the Central Obrera Boliviana, known as the COB, the country’s largest labor federation, along with peasant unions and other social groups.

The agreement calls for repealing the decree and creating a commission to draft a new measure that would keep fuel subsidies and review other provisions challenged by protesters.

Six cabinet ministers signed the document alongside representatives of the social organizations. Talks took place over the weekend in El Alto, a city neighboring La Paz that was among the areas hardest hit by road closures, according to Bolivian news outlet Erbol.

Protests began in early January after the government issued a decree declaring an economic emergency and moving to eliminate state fuel subsidies. The measure led to gasoline and diesel price hikes of up to 160%, driving up transportation costs and the price of basic goods.

The core of the agreement is the full repeal of Supreme Decree 5503, which sparked public anger for its economic changes, including the end of fuel subsidies.

The draft framework for a new decree also includes plans to reschedule bank loans, improve social benefit payments and reorganize wage policy, according to the signed text.

In the days before the deal, Bolivia experienced one of its most severe traffic disruptions in years.

The Bolivian Road Administration reported at least 52 blockade points on key highways, especially in the La Paz region. Thousands of passengers and truck drivers were stranded and supplies of food and fuel began to tighten.

The protests, led by the COB and peasant federations, intensified after the government insisted on keeping the decree despite widespread opposition. Union leaders called on “all Bolivian people” to mobilize for its repeal, warning the measure would bring “hunger” to future generations.

While the agreement reopened most roads, some isolated protests continued, particularly in parts of Cochabamba, where groups maintained blockades, arguing their demands have not been fully addressed. Unions said they will remain on alert until the new decree is formally issued, according to Visión 360.

Paz initially defended ending the subsidy in a post on X, saying, “For each day without the subsidy, we saved $10 million, which means public works and jobs. For each day of blockades, we lost $20 million in public works, jobs and production.”

Analysts said the government now faces the challenge of balancing economic goals with social demands.

Claudia Edith Serrano. a specialist in Latin American studies at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and a professor at the Faculty of Higher Studies Aragon, told Reporte Indigo that any renewed attempt to fully remove subsidies could reignite protests, urging the administration to proceed cautiously and prioritize dialogue with grassroots groups.

A US district judge ruled that Trump’s decision singled out states that voted for Democrats in the 2024 elections.

A United States judge has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump acted illegally when it cancelled the payment of $7.6bn in clean energy grants to states that voted for Democrat Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

In a decision on Monday, US District Judge Amit Mehta said the administration’s actions violated the Constitution’s equal protection requirements.

“Defendants freely admit that they made grant-termination decisions primarily – if not exclusively – based on whether the awardee resided in a state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2024,” Mehta wrote in a summary of the case.

The grants were intended to support hundreds of clean energy projects across 16 states, including California, Colorado, New Jersey and Washington state. The projects included initiatives to create battery plants and hydrogen technology.

But projects in those states were cancelled in October, as the Trump administration sought to ratchet up pressure on Democratic-led states during a heated government shutdown.

At the time, Trump told the network One America News (OAN) that he would take aim at projects closely associated with the Democratic Party.

“We could cut projects that they wanted, favourite projects, and they’d be permanently cut,” he told the network.

Russell Vought, the Trump-appointed director for the Office of Management and Budget, posted on social media that month that “funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda” had been “cancelled”.

The cuts included up to $1.2bn for a hub in California aimed at accelerating hydrogen technology, and up to $1bn for a hydrogen project in the Pacific Northwest.

St Paul, Minnesota, was among the jurisdictions affected by the grant cuts. The city and a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit to contest the Trump administration’s decision.

Second legal setback

A spokesperson for the US Department of Energy, however, said the Trump administration disagrees with the judge’s ruling.

Officials “stand by our review process, which evaluated these awards individually and determined they did not meet the standards necessary to justify the continued spending of taxpayer dollars”, spokesman Ben Dietderich said.

The Trump administration has repeatedly pledged to cut back on what it considers wasteful government spending.

Monday’s ruling was the second legal setback in just a matter of hours for Trump’s efforts to roll back the clean energy programmes in the US.

A separate federal judge ruled on Monday that work on a major offshore wind farm for Rhode Island and Connecticut can resume, handing the industry at least a temporary victory as Trump seeks to shut it down.

The US president campaigned for the White House on a promise to end the offshore wind industry, saying electric wind turbines – sometimes called windmills – are too expensive and hurt whales and birds.

Instead, Trump has pushed for the US to ramp up fossil fuel production, considered the primary contributor to climate change. The US president has repeatedly defied scientific consensus on climate change and referred to it as a “hoax”.

United States Senator Mark Kelly has sued the Department of Defense and its secretary, Pete Hegseth, over allegations they trampled his rights to free speech by embarking on a campaign of “punitive retribution”.

The complaint was filed on Monday in the US district court in Washington, DC. It also names the Department of the Navy and its secretary, John Phelan, as defendants.

“I filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of Defense because there are few things as important as standing up for the rights of the very Americans who fought to defend our freedoms,” Kelly, a veteran, wrote in a statement on social media.

Kelly’s lawsuit is the latest escalation in a feud that first erupted in November, when a group of six Democratic lawmakers – all veterans of the US armed services or its intelligence community – published a video online reminding military members of their responsibility to “refuse illegal orders”.

Democrats framed the video as a simple reiteration of government policy: Courts have repeatedly ruled that service members do indeed have a duty to reject orders they know to violate US law or the Constitution.

But Republican President Donald Trump and his allies have denounced the video as “seditious behaviour” and called for the lawmakers to face punishment.

A focus on Kelly

Kelly, in particular, has faced a series of actions that critics describe as an unconstitutional attack on his First Amendment right to free speech.

A senator from the pivotal swing state of Arizona, Kelly is one of the highest-profile lawmakers featured in November’s video.

He is also considered a rising star in the Democratic Party and is widely speculated to be a candidate for president or vice president in the 2028 elections.

But before his career in politics, Kelly was a pilot in the US Navy who flew missions during the Gulf War. He retired at the rank of captain. Kelly was also selected to be an astronaut, along with his twin Scott Kelly, and they served as part of the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

His entry into politics came after his wife, former Representative Gabby Giffords, was shot in the head during a 2011 assassination attempt. On Monday, Kelly described the Senate as “a place I never expected to find myself in”.

“My wife Gabby was always the elected official in our family,” he told his Senate colleagues. “If she had never been shot in the head, she would be here in this chamber and not me. But I love this country, and I felt that I had an obligation to continue my public service in a way that I never expected.”

Kelly’s participation in the November video has placed him prominently within the Trump administration’s crosshairs, and officials close to the president have taken actions to condemn his statements.

Shortly after the video came out, for instance, the Defense Department announced it had opened an investigation into Kelly. It warned that the senator could face a court-martial depending on the results of the probe.

The pressure on Kelly continued this month, when Hegseth revealed on social media that he had submitted a formal letter of censure against the senator.

That letter accused Kelly of “conduct unbecoming of an office” and alleged he had “undermined the chain of command” through his video.

Hegseth explained that the letter sought to demote Kelly from the rank he reached at his retirement, as well as reduce his retirement pay.

“Senator Mark Kelly — and five other members of Congress — released a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline,” Hegseth wrote on the platform X.

“As a retired Navy Captain who is still receiving a military pension, Captain Kelly knows he is still accountable to military justice. And the Department of War — and the American people — expect justice.”

Attacking political speech

Kelly responded to that claim by alleging that Hegseth had embarked on a campaign of politically motivated retribution, designed to silence any future criticism from US military veterans.

“Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator,” Kelly wrote on social media on Monday.

“His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.”

Kelly also took to the floor of the Senate on Monday to defend his decision to sue officials from the Trump administration.

“Every service member knows that military rank is earned. It’s not given. It’s earned through the risks you take,” Kelly told his fellow senators.

“After my 25 years of service, I earned my rank as a captain in the United States Navy. Now, Pete Hegseth wants even our longest-serving military veterans to live with the constant threat that they could be deprived of their rank and retirement pay years or even decades after they leave the military, just because he or another secretary of defence or a president doesn’t like what they’ve said.”

His lawsuit calls for the federal court system to halt the proceedings against him and declare Hegseth’s letter of censure unlawful.

The court filing makes a twofold argument: that the efforts to discipline Kelly not only violate his free speech rights but also constitute an attack on legislative independence, since they allegedly seek to intimidate a member of Congress.

“It appears that never in our nation’s history has the Executive Branch imposed military sanctions on a Member of Congress for engaging in disfavored political speech,” the lawsuit asserts.

The complaint also accuses the Trump administration of violating Kelly’s right to due process, given the high-profile calls from within the government to punish the senator.

It pointed to social media posts Trump made, including one that signalled he felt Kelly’s behaviour amounted to “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOUR, punishable by DEATH”.

The lawsuit also argues that Hegseth’s letter of censure appeared to draw conclusions about Kelly’s alleged wrongdoing, only to then request that the Navy review his military rank and retirement benefits.

Such a review, the lawsuit contends, can therefore not be considered a fair assessment of the facts.

“The Constitution does not permit the government to announce the verdict in advance and then subject Senator Kelly or anyone else to a nominal process designed only to fulfill it,” the lawsuit said.

These are the key developments from day 1,419 of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Here is where things stand on Tuesday, January 13:

Fighting

• At least two people have been killed and three others injured as Russia launched attacks on Ukraine’s northeastern city of Kharkiv, according to Regional Governor Oleh Syniehubov.

• Russia also initiated a separate missile attack on the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, and air defence units have been deployed to repel it, Mayor Vitali Klitschko said on Telegram. Tymur Tkachenko, the head of Kyiv’s military administration, warned residents to take cover. There were no immediate reports on casualties or damage to properties and infrastructure in the attack.

• Russian drones struck two foreign-flagged vessels, Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Kuleba said, the second such attack in four days on Black Sea shipping. Kuleba said the vessels were sailing under the flags of Panama and San Marino, and that one person was injured.

• Russia attacked energy infrastructure in Ukraine’s southern Odesa region, causing blackouts that affected at least 33,500 families, Ukraine’s largest private energy firm DTEK said, describing the damage as “significant”.

• Emergency crews are struggling to restore heat and power to beleaguered Kyiv residents, more than three days after Russian strikes on energy infrastructure.

• Kuleba said on Telegram that 90 percent of Kyiv’s apartment buildings have had their heating restored, leaving fewer than 500 dwellings still to be connected. But Mayor Klitschko put the number with no heating at 800, with most living on the west bank of the Dnipro River.

• Last year was the deadliest for civilians in Ukraine since 2022, a record driven by intensified hostilities along the front line and the expanded use of long-range weapons, the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine said. Conflict-related violence in Ukraine killed 2,514 civilians and injured 12,142 in 2025, a 31 percent rise in the number of victims from 2024, the monitor said in its monthly update.

• Russia’s Ministry of Defence said the target it hit last week with a hypersonic Oreshnik ballistic missile was a Ukrainian aircraft repair plant in Lviv. The Lviv State Aviation Repair Plant is located near the Polish border. Russia described the target as disabled.

• At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, the United States decried Russia’s use of the nuclear-capable Oreshnik missile, calling it an “inexplicable escalation”.
• Russia’s Defence Ministry said its forces had captured the village of Novoboykivske in the Zaporizhia region of Ukraine.

Politics and diplomacy

• In his regular nightly address, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that the world has to help Iranian protesters free themselves from the oppressive government that “has brought so much evil to Ukraine and to other countries”. Iran’s government is a close ally of Russia.
• German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said he and his US counterpart Marco Rubio had agreed on the importance of a transatlantic alliance to secure a lasting peace in Ukraine.
• Wadephul added that Germany and the US were committed to Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which commits member states to rise to each other’s defence, should one state come under attack.
• The German foreign minister added that, at a time of “uncertainty and crises”, unity within NATO “is a clear signal to Russia that it should not try to threaten” the alliance.

• Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard has called for greater pressure on Moscow. She suggested the European Union should ban companies from providing any support to Moscow’s oil and gas shipping fleet, introduce sanctions against Russian fertilisers and stop the export of luxury goods to Russia.

• Norway has announced that it is providing 340 million euros ($397m) in emergency funding to support Ukraine’s energy sector and help the government maintain critical services, as part of its aid in 2026.

• Finnish police said they lifted the seizure of a Russia-linked ship, which had been held on suspicion of sabotaging an undersea telecommunications cable running across the Gulf of Finland, from Helsinki to Estonia.

• The investigation into the Russia-linked ship will nevertheless continue. Some of the ship’s crew remain under a travel ban, according to the head of the investigation at Finland’s National Bureau of Investigation, Risto Lohi.

Economy

• A US-linked investor group won the rights to develop Ukraine’s Dobra lithium deposit in the central Kirovohrad region, Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko announced on Telegram. The deal is seen as a test case for drawing Western capital into a front-line economy, while trying to deepen ties with Washington.

MINNEAPOLIS — Minnesota and its two largest cities sued the Trump administration Monday to try to stop an immigration enforcement surge that has led to the fatal shooting of a Minneapolis woman by a federal officer and evoked outrage and protests the country.

The state, joined by Minneapolis and St. Paul, said the Department of Homeland Security is violating the First Amendment and other constitutional protections. The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order to halt the enforcement action or limit the operation.

“This is, in essence, a federal invasion of the Twin Cities in Minnesota, and it must stop,” Attorney General Keith Ellison said at a news conference. “These poorly trained, aggressive and armed agents of the federal state have terrorized Minnesota with widespread unlawful conduct.”

Homeland Security is pledging to put more than 2,000 immigration officers into Minnesota and says it has made more than 2,000 arrests since December. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has called the surge its largest enforcement operation ever.

The lawsuit accuses the Republican Trump administration of violating free speech rights by targeting Democratic-friendly Minnesota over politics.

Hours earlier, federal officers fired tear gas to break up a crowd of whistle-blowing bystanders in Minneapolis who showed up to see the aftermath of a car crash involving immigration agents, just a few blocks from where Renee Good was fatally shot.

A crowd emerged to witness a man being questioned by agents who had rear-ended his car. Agents used tear gas to try to break up the group, then drove off as people screamed, “cowards!”

It was another tense scene following the death of Good on Jan. 7 and a weekend of more immigration enforcement sweeps in the Minneapolis area. There were dozens of protests or vigils across the U.S. to honor Good and passionately criticize the Trump administration’s tactics.

Gov. Tim Walz and his wife Gwen visited the memorial to Good, 37, on the street where she was shot in the head and killed while driving her SUV.

Trump administration officials have repeatedly defended the immigration agent who shot her, saying Good and her vehicle presented a threat. But that explanation has been widely panned by Walz and others based on videos of the confrontation.

Christian Molina, a U.S. citizen who lives in Coon Rapids, said he was driving to a mechanic Monday when agents in another vehicle followed him, even turning on a siren.

Molina said his rear bumper was hit as he turned a corner. He refused to produce identification for the agents, saying he would wait for local police.

“I’m glad they didn’t shoot me or something,” Molina told reporters.

Standing near the mangled fender, he wondered aloud: “Who’s going to pay for my car?”

Meanwhile, in Portland, Oregon, federal authorities filed charges against a Venezuelan national who was one of two people shot there by U.S. Border Patrol on Thursday. The U.S. Justice Department said the man used his pickup truck to strike a Border Patrol vehicle and escape the scene with a woman.

They were shot and eventually arrested. Their wounds were not life-threatening. The FBI said there was no video of the incident, unlike the Good shooting.

Santana and Vancleave write for the Associated Press.

The internationally recognised government of Yemen says its forces have taken full control of the south from the separatist Southern Transitional Council (STC), which was aligned with the Saudi-backed government until recently.

“As the president of the country and the high commander of the armed forces, I want to assure you of the recapture of Hadramout and al-Mahra,” Rashad al-Alimi, the head of the Presidential Leadership Council (PLC), said on Saturday.

Last month, Saudi Arabia intervened militarily in support of the PLC after the STC captured the two border provinces, which Riyadh said was a threat to its national security. The STC along with the PLC fought against the Houthis, who control northwest of Yemen, including the capital Sanaa.

On Friday, the STC was dissolved, and its leader, Aidarous al-Zubaidi, fled the country after forces loyal to the PLC took control of most of the south and eastern Yemen.

The future of the STC, which is backed by the United Arab Emirates, remains uncertain amid internal divisions and the exile of its leader.

Saudi Arabia is now planning to host a conference of the main political factions from the south to shape the future of Yemen.

So what’s the latest political and security situation in Yemen, and what are the challenges in uniting Yemen?

What did the PLC chief al-Alimi say?

In his televised address on Saturday, al-Alimi called on all parties to unite ranks to restore state institutions.

He announced the formation of a Supreme Military Committee, which has been tasked with preparing military forces for the next phase of the conflict and readying them if the Houthis reject peaceful solutions.

The Yemeni leader warned armed groups to surrender their weapons and rejoin the ranks of the state, underlining “the importance of strengthening security, protecting social peace and working closely with the [governing] coalition and the international community to combat terrorism”.

He accused the Houthis of refusing to engage in dialogue and blamed the Iran-linked group for prolonging Yemen’s suffering because of their “coup against constitutional legitimacy”.

“South Yemen has for the first time in 10 years one political and military authority. No more military factions, no more divisions over ethnic and sectarian lines for the time being. There is going to be one Supreme Military Committee under the control of President Al-Alimi,” Al Jazeera’s Hashem Ahelbarra said, reporting from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

“Rashad al-Alimi has told the Houthis that they have two options: negotiate a settlement or face repercussions, including the potential for a military offensive,” he said.

Al-Alimi is a successor of Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi, the leader of a United Nations-backed government who was evicted by the Houthis in 2014. The Houthis insist they are the legitimate authority across Yemen and do not recognise the PLC, which was formed in 2022.

“Now the PLC, backed by Saudi Arabia, is reforming institutions, disbanding STC institutions, and they are saying that their focus in the near future would be confrontation with the Houthis,” Ahelbarra said.

The president said the issue of self-determination in southern Yemen would remain a top priority, backing a southern dialogue conference under Saudi Arabia’s sponsorship.

What’s the status of the STC?

As the Saudi-backed military campaign against STC forces intensified in Hadramout and al-Mahra provinces, the southern separatist movement announced plans to hold a referendum on independence from the north on January 2.

But days later, the southern separatist force suffered major territorial losses at the hands of the PLC forces, who expanded their control over most of southern Yemen, where the STC had sway for more than a decade. The group’s now-exiled leader remains defiant, but some of its other leaders have switched loyalties.

On Friday, STC Secretary-General Abdulrahman Jalal al-Subaihi said in a broadcast on Yemeni television that the dissolution of the group was taken to preserve peace and security in the south and in neighbouring countries.

He praised “the measures taken by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the solutions it has provided that meet the needs of the people of the South”.

However, STC spokesman Anwar al-Tamimi, who is in Abu Dhabi, rejected the announcement coming out of Saudi Arabia, calling it “ridiculous news”.

On Saturday, thousands of STC supporters poured onto the streets of Aden, the capital of anti-Houthi forces in southern Yemen.

“The STC members who joined Riyadh say they are waiting to see what happens next when it comes to details of the Riyadh conference,” Ahelbarra said, referring to talks between the PLC and STC in the Saudi capital.

“I think the consensus is that everybody is willing to talk about federal system, some sort of autonomy. But the very notion of separatism is over.

“Will people in the south willing to accept the notion of autonomy or federalism, that remains to be seen,” he said.

The disenfranchisement of southern Yemen after the region was merged with the north to form a united Yemen in 1990 has also been one of the grievances.

“Al-Alimi said these are genuine concerns which are going to be taken into account at the conference. Whether he will be able to address some of those concerns remains to be seen,” the Al Jazeera correspondent said. The date of the conference is yet to be announced.

Since its formation in 2017, the STC’s goal has been separation from the rest of Yemen. Two years later, it took control of Aden and other areas in the south from the Yemeni government.

Al-Zubaidi later joined the PLC as vice president, but he continued to nurse the ambition for a “two-state solution” as STC fighters continued to expand their control in the south, weakening the fight against the Houthis.

The current conflict was triggered after the STC forces captured Hadramout and al-Mahra, drawing the Saudi intervention.

Al-Zubaidi has since been removed from his post as a PLC member, stripped of his immunity, and charged with “high treason” and “inciting internal strife”.

The Saudi military said in a statement on Thursday that al-Zubaidi fled by boat to Somalia and then flew to Abu Dhabi.

What happened in recent weeks?

In November, a Saudi-backed umbrella group of tribes from the Hadramout region seized the PetroMasila oil facility, seeking a bigger share of oil revenues and an improvement of services for Hadramout residents.

The STC used the seizure as a pretext for advancing in Hadramout and al-Mahra. These two regions hold nearly all of Yemen’s oil reserves.

Tensions soared after Saudi-backed forces attacked the Yemeni port city of Mukalla in the south, alleging incoming shipments of arms from the UAE for the STC.

The UAE said it had been surprised by the Saudi air strikes and the shipments in question did not contain weapons and were destined for Emirati forces, not the STC.

Less than two weeks later, Yemen’s Saudi-backed government had taken control of the south and east of the country from STC forces.

Hesham Alghannam, a Saudi scholar with the Malcolm H Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center, said the kingdom’s move “made it very clear” that it views Yemen’s eastern provinces, especially Hadramout, as a “core national security matter”.

Riyadh views the region as critical, Alghannam said, because of its geography and strategic oil and port assets. “From Riyadh’s view, losing influence there would be more than a local setback,” he told Al Jazeera. “It would create a major security gap. It would weaken energy resilience and open space for hostile or competing powers to position themselves directly south of the kingdom.”

The Saudi-backed governing coalition then asked the UAE to withdraw its forces from Yemen within 24 hours.

The UAE withdrew all its “counterterrorism” units from Yemen. The UAE’s Ministry of Defence said it carried out a “comprehensive assessment” of its role in Yemen and decided to end its mission there.

The episode has strained ties between Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

What next?

The STC will find it hard to bounce back without military support from the UAE while many of its leaders have shown a willingness to participate in the Saudi-led dialogue.

However, it is believed to still hold influence in the region.

Abdulaziz Alghashian, an adjunct professor at Naif Arab University, said the dissolution of the STC was inevitable.

“I think the legacy of the STC has now become just too poisonous. I think the recent developments have just illustrated the fact that there is probably no goodwill for the STC to be part of a genuine political process,” Alghashian told Al Jazeera.

“The dissolution of the STC suggests clearly there is a clear restructuring of the political process within Yemen. And the political framework that Saudi Arabia is trying to work with is also being redeveloped and restructured in a manner that creates a lot of confidence for Saudi to get involved in,” he said.

But some experts said the Saudi goal of a united Yemen would be difficult to achieve due to southern divisions and the Houthis’ control of northwest Yemen.

Yousef Mawry, a journalist based in Sanaa, said Yemen’s conflict will shift from the south to the north and a showdown is expected between PLC forces and the Houthis.

He added that both sides believe in a unified Yemeni state but each side believes they are the ones who should be ruling over the affairs of both the north and the south.

“The big question: Is there a common ground that al-Alimi’s government and the Houthis can agree on?” he said.

“The Houthis believe that al-Alimi’s government is nothing but a Saudi proxy that is working on behalf of the US and Saudi interests over Yemeni land. Al-Alimi has pointed fingers at the Houthis, accusing them of being an Iranian proxy,” he told Al Jazeera.

The Saudi-led military coalition, which included the UAE, intervened in support of Hadi’s UN-recognised government in 2015 but failed to defeat the Houthis. The war ended in a deadlock with the Houthis still in control of Sanaa and the regions around it.

Saudi Arabia and the Houthis agreed to release prisoners and pledged not to attack each other’s territory. But the larger political questions remain to be resolved.

“What we are seeing is that al-Alimi is taking over full control of the south. Once they have full control, whatever political framework that works in, the Houthis are not going to accept it,” Mawry said.

There is mistrust between the two sides with the Houthis accusing the PLC of catering to the interests of foreign powers while the PLC accuses the Houthis of running Iranian propaganda. Saudi Arabia has historically maintained influence in its southern neighbour – Arab region’s poorest country. Houthis challenged Riyadh’s traditional role in the country.

Mawry fears the conflict will likely grow as both sides have drawn red lines. “They want full control of Yemen,” he said.

WASHINGTON — After President Trump ordered strikes that led to the capture of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, celebrations erupted in Venezuelan communities across the U.S.

But for many of the hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants facing possible deportation, their relief and joy were cut by the fear about what comes next from an administration that has zeroed in on Venezuelans as a target.

“Many of us asked ourselves, ‘What’s going to happen with us now?’” said A.G., a 39-year-old in Tennessee who asked to be identified by her initials because she lacks legal status. Even so, Maduro’s ouster gave her a lot of hope for her mother country.

Venezuelans began fleeing in droves in 2014 as economic collapse led to widespread food and medicine shortages, as well as political repression. Nearly 8 million Venezuelans are now living outside the country — including 1.2 million in the U.S.

Venezuelans migrants walk toward Bucaramanga, Colombia, in 2019.

(Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times)

A.G. and her now-18-year-old son arrived at the southern border in 2019. Since then, she said, they have built a good life — they own a transport company with delivery trucks, pay taxes and follow the law.

Maduro’s fall left her with mixed feelings.

“He’s obviously a dictator, many people have died because of him and he refused to give up power, but the reason that they entered Venezuela, for me what President Trump did was illegal,” she said. “Innocent people died because of the bombs. I’m asking God that it all be for good reason.”

Dozens of Venezuelans and others were killed in the U.S. invasion — more than 100, a government official said — including civilians.

The Trump administration is framing its Venezuela operation as an opportunity for Venezuelans like A.G. “Now, they can return to the country they love and rebuild its future,” said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Matthew Tragesser.

Katie Blankenship, a Miami-based attorney with Sanctuary of the South who has represented many Venezuelans facing deportation, sees a less promising future.

“We’re going to see increased targeting of Venezuelans to force them to leave the U.S. into a political and socioeconomic environment that’s likely only more destabilized and subject to more abuse,” she said.

The Venezuelan community in the U.S. swelled, in part, because the Biden administration expanded pathways for them to enter the country.

Volunteer help a Venezuelan immigrant at the storage units from a volunteer-run program that distributes donations to recently arrived Venezuelan immigrants in need, in Miami, Fla., in 2023.

(Eva Marie Uzcategui / Los Angeles Times)

One of those programs allowed more than 117,000 Venezuelans to purchase flights directly to the U.S. and stay for two years if they had a U.S.-based financial sponsor and passed a background check. Other Venezuelans entered legally at land ports of entry after scheduling interviews with border officers.

By the end of the Biden administration, more than 600,000 Venezuelans had protection from deportation under Temporary Protected Status, a program used by both Republican and Democratic administrations for immigrants who cannot return home because of armed conflict, natural disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly referred to Venezuelan immigrants as criminals, singling them out more than any other nationality — in 64% of speeches, an Axios analysis showed. He has said repeatedly, without evidence that Venezuela emptied its prisons and mental institutions to flood the U.S. with immigrants.

One of Trump’s first acts as president was to designate the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization. Within two months, he invoked an 18th century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport 252 Venezuelan men accused of being Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador, where they were imprisoned and tortured despite many having no criminal histories in the U.S. or Latin America.

Later, the Trump administration stripped away protections for Venezuelans with financial sponsors and TPS, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem calling the latter “contrary to the national interest.”

In a September Federal Register Notice, Noem said that TPS for Venezuelans undercut the administration’s foreign policy objectives because one result of allowing Venezuelans in the U.S. was “relieving pressure on Maduro’s regime to enact domestic reforms and facilitate safe return conditions.” In other words, if Venezuelans returned home, that would pressure the government to enact reforms.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, along with U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, left, and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, right, participates in a news conference near Camp 57 at Angola prison, the Louisiana State Penitentiary and America’s largest maximum-security prison farm, to announce the opening of a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility that will house immigrants convicted of crimes in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, on Sept. 3, 2025.

(Matthew Hilton / AFP via Getty Images)

The administration has offered contrasting assessments of conditions in Venezuela. Noem wrote that although certain adverse conditions continue, “there are notable improvements in several areas such as the economy, public health, and crime.”

Throughout the year, though, the State Department continued to reissue an “extreme danger” travel advisory for Venezuela, urging Americans to leave the country immediately.

Conditions for Venezuelans in the U.S. grew more complicated after a man from Afghanistan was accused of shooting two National Guard members in November; in response, the administration froze the immigration cases of people from 39 countries, including Venezuela, that the administration considers “high-risk.” That means anyone who applied for asylum, a visa, a green card or any other benefit remains in limbo indefinitely.

After a panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act in September, the Justice Department appealed. In a support brief filed in December, the Justice Department cited escalating tensions with Venezuela.

David Smilde, a Tulane University sociologist and expert on Venezuelan politics, said that invading Venezuela could justify renewed use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The law says the president can invoke the Alien Enemies Act not only in times of “declared war,” but also when a foreign government threatens or carries out an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” against the U.S.

“Now it will be difficult, I think, for the court to say, ‘No, you can’t use this,’” Smilde said.

With U.S. officials promising improved conditions in Venezuela and encouraging citizens to return, Smilde said, they could invoke the Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport undocumented immigrants who don’t leave willingly.

“There’s several layers to this,” he said, “and none of it looks very good for Venezuelan immigrants.”

This couple from Venezuela shared their story of why they left their three children back in their home country and spoke of the the experiences of their travel to the United States at the Parkside Community Church in Sacramento on June 16, 2023.

(Jose Luis Villegas / For The Times)

Jose, a 28-year-old Venezuelan living east of Los Angeles, fled Venezuela in 2015 after being imprisoned and beaten for criticizing the government. He lived in Colombia and Peru before illegally crossing the U.S. border in 2022, and now has a pending asylum application. Jose asked to be identified by his middle name out of fear of retaliation by the U.S. government.

The news this week that an ICE agent had shot and killed a woman in Minnesota heightened his anxiety.

“You come here because supposedly this is a country with freedom of expression, and there is more safety, but with this government, now you’re afraid you’ll get killed,” he said. “And that was a U.S. citizen. Imagine what they could do to me?”

People visit a memorial for Renee Nicole Good on Jan. 7 in Minneapolis.

(Scott Olson / Getty Images)

Jose qualifies for a work permit based on his pending asylum, but his application for one is frozen because of the executive order following the National Guard shooting.

The news of Maduro’s arrest was bittersweet, Jose said, because his mother and grandmother didn’t live to witness that day. He said his mother died last year of kidney failure due to lack of medical care, leaving him as the primary breadwinner for his two young sisters who remain in Venezuela with their father, who is disabled.

Still, he said he’s happy with what Trump has done in Venezuela.

“People are saying he’s stealing our petroleum,” he said, “but for 25 years, Cuba, China and Iran have been stealing the petroleum and it didn’t improve our lives.”

Many Venezuelans were encouraged by news that Venezuela would release a “significant number” of political prisoners as a peace gesture.

For Jose, that’s not enough. Venezuela’s government ordered police to search for anyone involved in promoting or supporting the attack by U.S. forces, leading to detentions of journalists and civilians.

“Venezuela remains the same,” he said. “The same disgrace, the same poverty and the same government repression.”

A.G. said she was heartened to hear Noem say Sunday on Fox News that every Venezeulan who had TPS “has the opportunity to apply for refugee status and that evaluation will go forward.” But the administration quickly backtracked and said that was not the case.

Instead, Noem and other administration officials have doubled down on the notion that Venezuelans without permanent lawful status should leave. Noem told Fox News that there are no plans to pause deportation flights despite the political uncertainty in Venezuela.

Tragesser, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman, said the agency’s posture hasn’t changed.

“USCIS encourages all Venezuelans unlawfully in the U.S. to use the CBP Home app for help with a safe and orderly return to their country,” he said.

BOSTON — A federal judge said Friday that she expects to temporarily block efforts by the Trump administration to end a program that offered temporary legal protections for more than 10,000 family members of citizens and green card holders.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani said at a hearing that she planned to issue a temporary restraining order but did not say when it would be issued. This case is part of a broader effort by the administration to end temporary legal protection for numerous groups and comes just over a week since another judge ruled that hundreds of people from South Sudan may live and work in the United States legally.

“The government, having invited people to apply, is now laying traps between those people and getting the green card,” said Justin Cox, an attorney who works with Justice Action Center and argued the case for the plaintiffs. “That is incredibly inequitable.”

This case involved a program called Family Reunification Parole, or FRP, and affects people from Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. Most of them are set to lose their legal protections, which were put in place during the Biden administration, by Wednesday. The Department of Homeland Security terminated protections late last year.

The case involves five plaintiffs, but lawyers are seeking to have any ruling cover everyone that is part of the program.

“Although in a temporary status, these parolees did not come temporarily; they came to get a jump-start on their new lives in the United States, typically bringing immediate family members with them,” plaintiffs wrote in their motion. “Since they arrived, FRP parolees have gotten employment authorization documents, jobs, and enrolled their kids in school.”

The government, in its brief and in court, argued that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has the authority to terminate any parole program and gave adequate notice by publishing the termination in the federal registry. It also argued that the program’s termination was necessary on national security grounds because the people had not been property vetted. It also said resources to maintain this program would be better used in other immigration programs.

“Parole can be terminated at any time,” Katie Rose Talley, a lawyer for the government told the court. “That is what is being done. There is nothing unlawful about that.”

Talwani conceded that the government can end the program but she took issue with the way it was done.

The government argued that just announcing in the federal registry it was ending the program was sufficient. But Talwani demanded the government show how it has alerted people through a written notice — a letter or email — that the program was ending.

“I understand why plaintiffs feel like they came here and made all these plans and were going to be here for a very long time,” Talwani said. “I have a group of people who are trying to follow the law. I am saying to you that, we as Americans, the United States needs to.”

Lower courts have largely supported keeping temporary protections for many groups. But in May, the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants for now, pushing the total number of people who could be newly exposed to deportation to nearly 1 million.

The justices lifted a lower-court order that kept humanitarian parole protections in place for more than 500,000 migrants from four countries: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The decision came after the court allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal status from about 350,000 Venezuelan migrants in another case.

The court did not explain its reasoning in the brief order, as is typical on its emergency docket. Two justices publicly dissented.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

Jan. 9 (UPI) — The government of Bolivia confirmed it will introduce changes to 35 articles of a decree that established a package of economic adjustments, including the end of fuel subsidies, as groups affiliated with the Central Obrera Boliviana continue blocking highways at 29 points across the country.

Deputy Minister of Autonomies Andrea Barrientos said the changes are procedural rather than substantive and are aimed at adding clarifications, such as respect for the Constitution and mechanisms for social oversight, according to local daily El Deber.

No date has been announced for the changes.

The government said the amendments will not affect eliminating fuel subsidies. The decree set new reference prices that imply increases ranging from 86% to more than 160% compared with subsidized levels.

Authorities argue the measure is necessary to restore public finances and correct fiscal distortions.

The labor confederation, which has led protests and road blockades for the past two weeks in La Paz, Cochabamba, Potosí, Oruro and Santa Cruz, is demanding the repeal of the decree and denied the existence of any pre-agreement with the government.

Government officials estimated Thursday that economic losses from the labor confederation’s road blockades could reach $100 million a day, when considering the overall impact on industry, commerce and transportation.

“Industrial groups are talking about $20 million to $40 million a day. In commerce, transportation …. Without a doubt, we are easily talking about around $100 million a day,” the official said.

In a new phase of the political confrontation with President Rodrigo Paz, Vice President Edmand Lara on Thursday introduced a bill seeking to nullify articles of the decree that ended fuel subsidies.

Since the elections, relations between Lara and Paz have deteriorated. The vice president says he was excluded from executive decision-making and has declared himself in “constructive opposition.”

Lara’s initiative targets provisions of the decree enacted in December that dismantled a subsidy system in place for more than two decades and sharply raised gasoline and diesel prices.

The vice president, who also presides over the Legislative Assembly, said several articles are “unconstitutional” because they encroach on congressional powers and alter key rules governing investments in natural resources.

Criticism has focused on a fast-track mechanism included in the decree to approve investment contracts involving natural resources.

Analysts, lawmakers and unions warn that the expedited process could weaken legislative oversight and bypass constitutional requirements, such as environmental licenses and prior consultations with affected communities.

Political tensions escalated further with a new decree allowing the president to perform his duties digitally during temporary absences from the country. Paz is expected to travel to the World Economic Forum in Switzerland later this month, a trip that would normally require transferring power to the vice president.

At the same time, constitutional challenges were filed with the Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional, whose ruling could be delayed due to a lack of quorum.

Opposition lawmakers, including members of the Libre alliance linked to former President Jorge Quiroga, also have objected to several articles of the decree.

New Delhi, India – On January 3, 2026, a single directive from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) quietly ended the Indian Premier League (IPL) season of Bangladesh’s only cricketer in the tournament, Mustafizur Rahman, before it could even begin.

The Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR), a professional Twenty20 franchise based in Kolkata that competes in the IPL and is owned by Red Chillies Entertainment, associated with Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan, were instructed by India’s cricket board to release the Bangladesh fast bowler.

Not because of injury, form, or contract disputes, but due to “developments all around” – an apparent reference to soaring tensions between India and Bangladesh that have been high since ousted former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina received exile in New Delhi in August 2024.

Within days, Mustafizur signed up for the Pakistan Super League (PSL), the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) protested sharply, the IPL broadcast was banned in Bangladesh, and the International Cricket Council (ICC) – the body that governs the sport globally – was pulled into a diplomatic standoff.

What should have been a routine player transaction instead became a symbol of how cricket in South Asia has shifted from a tool of diplomacy to an instrument of political pressure.

Cricket has long been the subcontinent’s soft-power language, a shared obsession that survived wars, border closures, and diplomatic freezes. Today, that language is being rewritten, say observers and analysts.

India, the financial and political centre of world cricket, is increasingly using its dominance of the sport to signal, punish, and coerce its neighbours, particularly Pakistan and Bangladesh, they say.

The Mustafizur affair: When politics entered the dressing room

Rahman was signed by KKR for 9.2 million Indian rupees ($1m) before the IPL 2026 season.

Yet the BCCI instructed the franchise to release him, citing vague external developments widely understood to be linked to political tensions between India and Bangladesh.

The consequences were immediate.

Mustafizur, unlikely to receive compensation because the termination was not injury-related, accepted an offer from the PSL – picking the Pakistani league after an Indian snub – returning to the tournament after eight years.

The PSL confirmed his participation before its January 21 draft. The BCB, meanwhile, called the BCCI’s intervention “discriminatory and insulting”.

Dhaka escalated the matter beyond cricket, asking the ICC to move Bangladesh’s matches from the upcoming T20 World Cup, which India is primarily hosting, to Sri Lanka over security concerns.

The Bangladeshi government went further, banning the broadcast of the IPL nationwide, a rare step that underlined how deeply cricket intersects with politics and public sentiment in South Asia.

The BCB on January 7 said the International Cricket Council (ICC) has assured it of Bangladesh’s full and uninterrupted participation in the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026, dismissing media reports of any ultimatum.

The BCB said the ICC responded to its concerns over the safety and security of the national team in India, including a request to relocate matches, and reaffirmed its commitment to safeguarding Bangladesh’s participation while expressing willingness to work closely with the Board during detailed security planning.

Yet for now, Bangladesh’s matches remain scheduled for the Indian megacities of Kolkata and Mumbai from February 7, 2026, even as tensions simmer.

Navneet Rana, a BJP leader said that no Bangladeshi cricketer or celebrity should be “entertained in India” while Hindus and minorities are being targeted in Bangladesh.

Meanwhile, Indian Congress leader Shashi Tharoor questioned the decision to release Mustafizur Rahman, warning against politicising sport and punishing individual players for developments in another country.

A pattern, not an exception

The Mustafizur controversy fits into a broader trajectory.

While all cricket boards operate within political realities, the BCCI’s unique financial power gives it leverage unmatched by any other body in the sport, say analysts.

The ICC, the sport’s global body, is headed by Jay Shah, the son of India’s powerful home minister Amit Shah – widely seen as the second-most influential man in India after Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The IPL, meanwhile, is by far the richest franchise league in the world.

India, with 1.5 billion people, is cricket’s biggest market and generates an estimated 80 percent of the sport’s revenue.

All of that, say analysts, gives India the ability to shape scheduling of events and matches, venues, and revenue-sharing arrangements. This, in turn, has made cricket a strategic asset for the Indian government.

When political relations sour, cricket is no longer insulated.

Nowhere is this clearer than in India’s relationship with Bangladesh at the moment. India has historically been viewed as close to Hasina, whose ouster in 2024 followed weeks of popular protests that her security forces attempted to crush using brutal force. An estimated 1,400 people were killed in that crackdown, according to the United Nations.

India has so far refused to send Hasina back to Bangladesh from exile, even though a tribunal in Dhaka sentenced her to death in late 2025 over the killings of protesters during the uprising that led to her removal. That has spurred sentiments against India on the streets of Bangladesh, which escalated after the assassination of an anti-India protest leader in December.

Meanwhile, attacks on Hindus and other religious minorities in Bangladesh since August 2024 – a Hindu Bangladeshi man was lynched last month – have caused anger in India.

Against that backdrop, the BCCI’s move to kick Rahman out of the IPL has drawn criticism from Indian commentators. Senior journalist Vir Sanghvi wrote in a column that the cricket board “panicked” and surrendered to communal pressure instead of standing by its own player-selection process, turning a sporting issue into a diplomatic embarrassment.

He argued Bangladesh did not warrant a sport boycott and warned that mixing communal politics with cricket risks damaging India’s credibility and regional ties.

Echoing the concern, Suhasini Haidar, diplomatic editor of The Hindu, one of India’s largest dailies, said on X that the government was allowing social media campaigns to overpower diplomacy. She referred to how Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar had travelled recently to Dhaka to attend the funeral of former Bangladesh PM Khaleda Zia, and wondered why Bangladeshi cricketers couldn’t then play in India.

Cricket analyst Darminder Joshi said the episode reflected how cricket, once a bridge between India and its neighbours, was increasingly widening divisions.

That was particularly visible late last year, when India and Pakistan faced off in cricket matches months after an intense four-day aerial war.

The Asia Cup standoff

The 2025 Asia Cup, hosted by Pakistan in September, was meant to be a celebration of regional cricket.

But citing government advice, the BCCI informed the ICC and the Asian Cricket Council (ACC) – the sport’s continental governing body – that India would not travel to Pakistan.

After months of wrangling, the tournament was held under a hybrid model, with India playing its matches in the United Arab Emirates while the rest were hosted in Pakistan.

But in three matches that the South Asian rivals played against each other during the competition – India won all three – the Indian team refused to publicly shake hands with their Pakistani counterparts.

“There is no rule in cricket that mandates a handshake. Yet players often tie each other’s shoelaces or help opponents on the field, that is the spirit of the game,” Joshi, the cricket analyst, told Al Jazeera. “If countries are in conflict, will players now refuse even these gestures? Such incidents only spread hate and strip the game of what makes it special.

“Sporting exchanges once softened bilateral tensions; this decision does exactly the opposite, making the game more hostile instead of more interesting.”

The controversy did not end with the final. India won the tournament, defeating Pakistan, but refused to accept the trophy from ACC President Mohsin Naqvi, who is also the Pakistan Cricket Board chairman and Pakistan’s interior minister.

The trophy remains at the ACC headquarters in Dubai, creating an unprecedented limbo that has defied resolution despite multiple ICC and ACC meetings. The BCCI requested that the trophy be sent to India. Naqvi has refused.

From bridge to divider

Unlike Pakistan, Bangladesh has historically enjoyed smoother cricketing ties with India. Bilateral series continued even during political disagreements, and Bangladeshi players became familiar faces in the IPL.

The Mustafizur episode marks a turning point. The current moment stands in stark contrast to earlier eras when cricket was deliberately used to soften political hostilities.

The most celebrated example remains India’s 2004 tour of Pakistan, the so-called “Friendship Series”.

That tour took place after years of frozen ties following the Kargil War, an armed conflict between India and Pakistan that took place from May to July 1999.

The then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee personally met the Indian team before departure, handing captain Sourav Ganguly a bat inscribed with the Hindi words: “Khel hi nahi, dil bhi jeetiye” which translates to “don’t just win matches, win hearts too”.

Special cricket visas allowed thousands of Indian fans to travel across the border. Pakistani then-President Pervez Musharraf followed the games and publicly lauded Indian cricketers who developed followings of their own in Pakistan.

The 2008 Mumbai attacks, carried out by fighters that Pakistan acknowledged had come from its territory, froze cricketing ties.

But in 2011, when India and Pakistan faced off in the World Cup semifinal in Mohali, Indian then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh invited his Pakistani counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani, over – the two premiers watched the match together in what was widely seen as an act of “cricket diplomacy”.

By intervening in a franchise-level contract and linking it, however obliquely, to geopolitical tensions as has happened with the Mustafizur case, the BCCI sent a clear message, say analysts: Access to Indian cricket is conditional.

Sport journalist Nishant Kapoor told Al Jazeera that releasing a contracted player purely on political grounds was “absolutely wrong” and warned it would widen mistrust in the cricketing ecosystem.

“He is a cricketer. What wrong has he done?” Kapoor said.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has vetoed a bill that would have reduced the prison sentence of his right-wing rival and predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, who was convicted of plotting a coup.

On Thursday, Lula followed through with his promise to block the legislation, which had passed Brazil’s opposition-controlled Congress last year.

“In the name of the future, we do not have the right to forget the past,” Lula wrote in a series of social media posts, saying that it would have benefitted “those who attacked Brazilian democracy”.

The veto came on the third anniversary of the 2023 attack on the Three Powers Plaza in the capital of Brasilia, where government buildings representing the presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court stand.

On January 8 of that year, thousands of Bolsonaro supporters stormed the buildings in an apparent attempt to provoke a military response that would remove Lula from power.

In marking the anniversary of the attack, Lula called on Brazilians to stand up for their young democracy, which began after a period of violent dictatorship in the late 20th century.

“January 8th is marked in history as the day of democracy’s victory. A victory over those who tried to seize power by force, disregarding the popular will expressed at the ballot box. Over those who have always defended dictatorship, torture, and the extermination of opponents,” Lula wrote online.

“The attempted coup on January 8, 2023, reminded us that democracy is not an unshakeable achievement.”

Bolsonaro’s sentence

The January 8 attack caused millions of dollars in property damage and dozens of injuries, as police and protesters clashed in the government plaza.

The incident evoked comparisons to the violent riot at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, where supporters of President Donald Trump attempted to disrupt the certification of his 2020 election defeat.

Likewise, Bolsonaro, a former army captain, had refused to concede his defeat to Lula after a narrow loss in the 2022 elections.

Rather, he and his allies had argued that Brazil’s electronic voting machines were susceptible to fraud, and they challenged the election results in court. Their petition, however, was thrown out for its “total absence of any evidence”.

Still, many of Bolsonaro’s supporters backed his claims and took to the streets to protest the election results. The weeks surrounding Lula’s inauguration in January 2023 were fraught, with reports of a bomb threat and an attack on police headquarters in Brasilia.

Prosecutors later accused Bolsonaro and his allies of leading a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election results.

One of the options the defendants allegedly weighed was to declare a “state of siege” in Brazil, which would allow the military to take control and new elections be held. Another option was reportedly to assassinate Lula and his running mate, Geraldo Alckmin.

Bolsonaro has pleaded not guilty to the charges and denied any wrongdoing, framing the accusations instead as a political hit job.

Still, in September, he was sentenced to 27 years in prison after being found guilty on counts including attempting a coup, causing damage to public property, attempting the violent abolition of the democratic rule of law, participation in a criminal enterprise, and the deterioration of a listed national heritage site.

He began his prison term in November, after he was found to have damaged the ankle monitor used to ensure he was not a flight risk.

Weighing October’s election

Conservative politicians, however, have decried the prison sentence as excessive and called for its reduction.

Bolsonaro’s son Eduardo has petitioned the Trump administration in the US to intervene on behalf of the imprisoned ex-president, and his eldest child, Flavio Bolsonaro, even hinted he might suspend his 2026 presidential bid if his father were released.

On December 10, Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies passed legislation that would reduce the sentences of nearly 1,000 people linked to the January 8 attack, including Bolsonaro.

A week later, on December 17, the Senate followed suit, sending the leniency bill to the president for his signature.

But Lula had repeatedly pledged to reject the bill, risking the possibility that Brazil’s Congress could override his veto.

“ This is a bill that really is a litmus test in Brazilian politics,” Gustavo Ribeiro, a journalist and founder of The Brazil Report, told Al Jazeera. “Conservatives overwhelmingly supported it, while liberals are adamantly against it.”

Still, Ribeiro described the bill as a compromise between Brazil’s centre-right and far-right forces.

“The centre-right tried to work a sort of a middle-of-the-road solution that is not full amnesty but would allow Bolsonaro to leave incarceration after two years, in what we call in Brazil a semi-open prison sentence,” he explained.

He sees Brazil’s general election in October as a significant factor in Congress’s passage of the bill, noting that Bolsonaro remains a popular figure on the right.

“Because Bolsonaro has such a big clout with conservatives, many in Congress – many right-of-centre lawmakers – fear that if they do not lend their full support to any cause that Bolsonaro espouses, they will lose support,” Ribeiro said.

Lula is seeking a fourth term as president in October’s election, and he is expected to face Bolsonaro’s son Flavio at the ballot box.

WASHINGTON — Denmark and Greenland’s envoys to Washington have begun a vigorous effort to urge U.S. lawmakers as well as key Trump administration officials to step back from President Trump’s call for a takeover of the strategic Arctic island.

Denmark’s ambassador, Jesper Møller Sørensen, and Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland’s chief representative to Washington, met on Thursday with White House National Security Council officials to discuss a renewed push by Trump to acquire Greenland, perhaps by military force, according to Danish government officials who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the meeting.

The envoys have also held a series of meetings this week with American lawmakers as they look to enlist help in persuading Trump to back off his threat.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to meet next week with Danish officials.

Trump, in a New York Times interview published Thursday, said he has to possess the entirety of Greenland instead of just exercising a long-standing treaty that gives the United States wide latitude to use Greenland for military posts.

“I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do with, you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document,” Trump told the newspaper.

The U.S. is party to a 1951 treaty that gives it broad rights to set up military bases there with the consent of Denmark and Greenland.

Meanwhile, Trump’s vice president, JD Vance, told reporters that European leaders should “take the president of the United States seriously” as he framed the issue as one of defense.

“What we’re asking our European friends to do is take the security of that landmass more seriously, because if they’re not, the United States is going to have to do something about it,” Vance said.

But the administration is starting to hear pushback from lawmakers, including some Republicans, about Trump’s designs on the territory.

In a floor speech Thursday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) warned that the rhetoric from some in the Trump administration is “profoundly troubling.”

“We’ve got a lot ahead of us in 2026,” Murkowski said. “Greenland — or taking Greenland, or buying Greenland — should not be on that list. It should not be an obsession at the highest levels of this administration.”

Danish officials are hopeful about the upcoming talks with Rubio in Washington.

“This is the dialogue that is needed, as requested by the government together with the Greenlandic government,” Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen told Danish broadcaster DR.

The island of Greenland, 80% of which lies above the Arctic Circle, is home to about 56,000 mostly Inuit people.

Vance criticizes Denmark

Vance said on Wednesday that Denmark “obviously” had not done a proper job in securing Greenland and that Trump “is willing to go as far as he has to” to defend American interests in the Arctic.

In an interview with Fox News, Vance repeated Trump’s claim that Greenland is crucial to both the U.S. and the world’s national security because “the entire missile defense infrastructure is partially dependent on Greenland.”

He said the fact that Denmark has been a faithful military ally of the U.S. during World War II and the more recent “war on terrorism” did not necessarily mean they were doing enough to secure Greenland today.

“Just because you did something smart 25 years ago doesn’t mean you can’t do something dumb now,” Vance said, adding that Trump “is saying very clearly, ‘you are not doing a good job with respect to Greenland.’”

Right to self-determination

Earlier, Rubio told a select group of U.S. lawmakers that it was the Republican administration’s intention to eventually purchase Greenland, as opposed to using military force.

“Many Greenlanders feel that the remarks made are disrespectful,” Aaja Chemnitz, one of the two Greenlandic politicians in the Danish parliament, told the Associated Press. “Many also experience that these conversations are being discussed over their heads. We have a firm saying in Greenland, ‘Nothing about Greenland, without Greenland.’”

She said most Greenlanders “wish for more self-determination, including independence” but also want to “strengthen cooperation with our partners” in security and business development as long as it is based on “mutual respect and recognition of our right to self-determination.”

Chemnitz denied a claim by Trump that Greenland is “covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place.”

Greenland is “a long-standing ally and partner to the U.S. and we have a shared interest in stability, security, and responsible cooperation in the Arctic,” she said. “There is an agreement with the U.S. that gives them access to have bases in Greenland if needed.”

France’s President Emmanuel Macron has denounced the “law of the strongest” that is making people “wonder if Greenland will be invaded.”

In a speech to French ambassadors at the Elysee presidential palace on Thursday, Macron said: “It’s the greatest disorder, the law of the strongest, and everyday people wonder whether Greenland will be invaded, whether Canada will be under the threat of becoming the 51st state [of the United States] or whether Taiwan is to be further circled.”

He pointed to an “increasingly dysfunctional” world where great powers, including the U.S and China, have “a real temptation to divide the world amongst themselves.”

The United States is “gradually turning away from some of its allies and freeing itself from the international rules,” Macron said.

Surveillance operations for the U.S.

The leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the U.K. joined Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen on Tuesday in defending Greenland’s sovereignty in the wake of Trump’s comments about Greenland, which is part of the NATO military alliance.

After Vance’s visit to Greenland last year, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen published a video detailing the 1951 defense agreement between Denmark and the U.S.. Since 1945, the American military presence in Greenland has decreased from thousands of soldiers over 17 bases and installations on the island, Rasmussen said, to the remote Pituffik Space Base in the northwest with some 200 soldiers today. The base supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the U.S. and NATO.

The 1951 agreement “offers ample opportunity for the United States to have a much stronger military presence in Greenland,” Rasmussen said. “If that is what you wish, then let us discuss it.”

‘Military defense of Greenland’

Last year, Denmark’s parliament approved a bill to allow U.S. military bases on Danish soil. The legislation widens a previous military agreement, made in 2023 with the Biden administration, where U.S. troops had broad access to Danish air bases in the Scandinavian country.

Denmark is also moving to strengthen its military presence around Greenland and in the wider North Atlantic.

Last year, the government announced a 14.6 billion-kroner ($2.3 billion) agreement with parties including the governments of Greenland and the Faroe Islands, another self-governing territory of Denmark, to “improve capabilities for surveillance and maintaining sovereignty in the region.”

Madhani and Ciobanu write for the Associated Press. AP writers Seung Min Kim, Konstantin Toropin in Washington and Sylvie Corbet in Paris contributed to this report.

Federal agents in the United States have shot and injured two people in the city of Portland, Oregon, a city where the administration of President Donald Trump has led an immigration enforcement crackdown.

The shooting was the second time in less than a day that federal immigration authorities claimed to have fired upon a vehicle in self-defence, following a deadly shooting in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

On Thursday, the Portland Police Department announced they had responded to reports of gunfire on southeast Main Street at about 2:18pm local time (22:18 GMT).

“Officers confirmed that federal agents had been involved in a shooting,” the city said in a statement.

Emergency responders then received a call for assistance from one of the shooting victims, a man, at about 2:24pm (22:24 GMT) near Northeast 146th Avenue and East Burnside in Portland’s Hazelwood neighbourhood.

“Officers responded and found a male and female with apparent gunshot wounds,” the statement said. “Officers applied a tourniquet and summoned emergency medical personnel.”

The two shooting victims were transported to hospital. Their conditions remain unknown, according to the police, who were not involved in the shooting.

The local bureau of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) confirmed the shooting in a now-deleted post on social media, saying that the incident involved Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents.

“This remains an active and ongoing investigation led by the FBI,” Portland’s FBI bureau said in the post.

Later, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) offered its own account of what happened, describing the shooting as self-defence during a “targeted vehicle stop”.

In a social media post, DHS said its target was a passenger travelling inside a vehicle, who was affiliated with a “transnational Tren de Aragua prostitution ring and involved in a recent shooting”. The driver, DHS claimed, was a member of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang.

“When agents identified themselves to the vehicle occupants, the driver weaponized his vehicle and attempted to run over the law enforcement agents,” DHS said in the post.

“Fearing for his life and safety, an agent fired a defensive shot. The driver drove off with the passenger, fleeing the scene.”

Second agent-involved shooting

Details about Thursday’s shooting remain unknown. But the administration of President Donald Trump has faced criticism for misrepresenting incidents where federal agents deployed violence as part of its nationwide immigration crackdown.

The Portland shooting comes one day after an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, in her car in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

“Just one day after the horrific violence in Minnesota at the hands of federal agents, our community here in Portland is now grappling with another deeply troubling incident,” Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said in a statement.

“We cannot sit by while constitutional protections erode and bloodshed mounts.”

Good’s death has triggered widespread outrage, as well as criticism that the Trump administration rushed to disseminate a misleading narrative about the Minneapolis shooting.

Video of Good’s shooting showed the 37-year-old stopped in her SUV on a snowy Minneapolis road, appearing to wave other drivers by.

A vehicle carrying ICE officers stopped next to her vehicle, and agents approached her, reaching for the handle of her car door. One approached the front of her vehicle. As her car appeared to turn and manoeuvre away, that agent fired multiple times into the vehicle, killing Good.

In that case, too, Trump administration officials claim the ICE agent acted in self-defence, despite the fact that the vehicle did not seem to make contact with his body.

Trump asserted – without evidence – that Good was a “professional agitator” who “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer”. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also accused Good of a “domestic act of terrorism”, despite there being no evidence Good sought to harm the ICE agent.

Democratic officials have accused the Trump administration of spreading false narratives to distract from its own abuses during the immigration crackdown.

Still, officials in Portland repeatedly called for calm in the aftermath of Thursday’s shooting, while acknowledging the parallels between the incidents.

“We are still in the early stages of this incident,” Portland Police Chief Bob Day said in a statement.

“We understand the heightened emotion and tension many are feeling in the wake of the shooting in Minneapolis, but I am asking the community to remain calm as we work to learn more.”

Mayor Wilson, meanwhile, called for federal immigration agents to leave the city, arguing that they had endangered local citizens with their heavy-handed actions.

“Portland is not a ‘training ground’ for militarized agents, and the ‘full force’ threatened by the administration has deadly consequences,” Wilson said.

“As Mayor, I call on ICE to end all operations in Portland until a full investigation can be completed. Federal militarization undermines effective, community‑based public safety, and it runs counter to the values that define our region.”

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, meanwhile, expressed “huge concern” over the incident and suggested that responding with anger would only fuel the Trump administration’s fixation with Portland.

“Trump wants to generate riots,” he wrote. “Don’t take the bait.”

Portland under a microscope

Portland has long been a focal point of Trump’s immigration enforcement actions, and the increased federal presence has ignited largely nonviolent protests in response.

Long seen as a Democratic stronghold, Portland was identified in May as one of the “sanctuary jurisdictions” that the Trump administration identified as resisting its immigration crackdown.

The Republican president hinted he could surge federal agents to the area in response.

In September, those threats appeared to materialise when Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that he would be sending the US military to support immigration operations in the city.

The announcement came five days after Trump declared antifa – the loose-knit antifascist movement – a “domestic terrorist organisation”.

“I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” Trump wrote. “I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary.”

It was the latest in the string of instances where Trump attempted to send federal troops to largely Democratic urban areas, including Los Angeles and Chicago, Illinois.

Local officials denounced the deployment as a violation of the law and a misuse of executive authority. But the Trump administration doubled down, describing Portland as overrun by criminal behaviour.

“ In Portland, Oregon, antifa thugs have repeatedly attacked our officers and laid siege to federal property in an attempt to violently stop the execution of federal law,” Trump said at an October roundtable.

In response, some protesters in Portland began arriving in inflatable frog costumes, in an effort to cast Trump’s warnings about violent extremists as absurd. The Portland Frog Brigade, as the protesters were called, inspired similar demonstrations nationwide.

State and local leaders fought Trump’s troop deployment in court, and on November 7, US District Judge Karin Immergut permanently blocked the deployment.

The US Supreme Court in December declined the Trump administration’s appeal to allow National Guard troops in areas where lower courts had barred them.

On Thursday, Mayor Wilson called for accountability in the recent shootings, saying he would protect local residents’ civil liberties.

“ICE agents and their Homeland Security leadership must be fully investigated and held responsible for their violence against the American people, in Minnesota, in Portland, and across the nation,” he said.

He repeated the message that Portland residents should not seek retribution in the aftermath of the gunfire.

“Portland does not respond to violence with violence. We respond with clarity, unity, and a commitment to justice. We must stand together to protect Portland,” he said.

United States President Donald Trump has dismissed international law, saying only his “own morality” can curb the aggressive policies he is pursuing across the world after the abduction of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.

“I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people,” Trump told The New York Times on Thursday.

Asked whether he needs to abide by international law, Trump said he does, but it “depends what your definition of international law is”.

Trump has shown a willingness to use the brute force of the US military to achieve his foreign policy goals.

On Saturday, the US launched an early-morning attack on Venezuela, with explosions reported across the capital Caracas and at Venezuelan military bases.

US troops ultimately abducted Venezuelan President Maduro from Caracas in what critics say was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.

The attack on Venezuela appears to have supercharged the belligerence of the US president, who received the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize Award last month.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Trump said the US would “run” Venezuela and exploit the country’s vast oil reserves, though his administration has said it would cooperate with interim President Delcy Rodriguez.

Still, the Trump administration said it would “dictate” policy to the interim government and repeatedly threatened a “second wave” of military actions if US demands were disobeyed.

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump said of Rodriguez in a Sunday interview with The Atlantic.

Earlier this week, Trump also suggested that the US may carry out a strike against Colombia’s left-wing President Gustavo Petro, and he has escalated his campaign to acquire the Danish territory of Greenland.

In June, Trump joined Israel’s unprovoked war against Iran, ordering the bombing of the country’s three main nuclear sites.

Trump aide Stephen Miller has criticised the post-World War II international order, saying that, from here forward, the US would “unapologetically” use its military force to secure its interests in the Western Hemisphere.

“We’re a superpower, and under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower,” Miller told CNN on Monday.

But experts warn that disregard for international law could have catastrophic consequences for the entire global community, including the US.

International law is the set of rules and norms that govern ties between states. It includes UN conventions and multilateral treaties.

Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, told Al Jazeera earlier this week that US statements dismissing international law are “extremely dangerous”.

Satterthwaite said she is concerned the world may be returning to an “age of imperialism”, stressing that degrading international laws may embolden Washington’s adversaries to launch their own acts of aggression.

“International law cannot stop states from doing terrible things if they’re committed to doing them,” Satterthwaite told Al Jazeera.

“And I think that the world is aware of all of the atrocities that have happened in Gaza recently, and despite efforts by many states and certainly by the UN to stop those atrocities, they continued. But I think we’re worse off if we don’t insist on the international law that does exist. We’ll simply be going down a much worse kind of slippery slope.”

Yusra Suedi, an assistant professor of international law at the University of Manchester, warned against the belief that “might is right” and the trend towards disregarding international law.

“It signals something very dangerous, in that it gives permission to other states to essentially follow suit – states such as China, who might be eyeing Taiwan, or Russia with respect to Ukraine,” Suedi told Al Jazeera.

Ian Hurd, a professor of political science at Northwestern University, said history illustrates the perils of US policies in Latin America.

The region has witnessed more than a century of US invasions and US-supported military coups, leading to instability, repression and human rights abuses.

“There are innumerable examples historically of this, from Panama to Haiti to Nicaragua to Chile in the ’70s and on and on,” Hurd told Al Jazeera.

He added that Trump’s policies in Venezuela are “in line” with how the US has previously attempted to decide how other parts of the Americas are governed.

“You can see that in every one of those cases, the US came to regret its choice to intervene. These never work well.”

Israeli gunfire killed 11-year-old Hamsa Hosou in northern Gaza, her family says, despite a ceasefire in place for nearly three months. She is among more than 400 Palestinians reported killed since the truce took effect.

United States President Donald Trump has issued a stern warning to defence contractors that supply the US military, accusing them of profiteering.

In a Truth Social post on Wednesday, he threatened to take action if the companies failed to take specific actions, including capping executive pay, investing in the construction of factories and producing more military equipment at a faster clip.

“MILITARY EQUIPMENT IS NOT BEING MADE FAST ENOUGH,” Trump wrote at one point in his lengthy, 322-word post.

“It must be built now with the Dividends, Stock Buybacks, and Over Compensation of Executives, rather than borrowing from Financial Institutions, or getting the money from your Government.”

Trump singled out the technology company Raytheon as the worst offender, in his eyes.

“I have been informed by the Department of War that Defense Contractor, Raytheon, has been the least responsive to the needs of the Department of War, the slowest in increasing their volume, and the most aggressive spending on their Shareholders rather than the needs and demands of the United States Military,” Trump wrote in a follow-up post.

The president threatened to sever government ties with Raytheon, now known as RTX, which earns billions from its defence contract work.

Just last August, the Department of Defence awarded the firm $50bn – the maximum possible – for a 20-year contract to supply the military with equipment, services and repairs.

“Our Country comes FIRST, and they’re going to have to learn that, the hard way,” Trump warned.

Defence spending fuels a significant portion of the US economy: As of 2024, Defence Department spending represented approximately 2.7 percent of the US gross domestic product (GDP).

Normally, the total defence budget hovers around $1 trillion. But in a Wednesday evening post on Truth Social, Trump announced that he would petition congressional Republicans to boost that amount to a record $1.5 trillion for fiscal year 2027.

“This will allow us to build the ‘Dream Military’ that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe,” Trump wrote.

Still, Trump’s threats sent stocks for defence contractors plummeting, amid uncertainty over the future of the high-stakes industry.

Since taking office for a second term, Trump has taken an aggressive, hands-on approach to private companies that have ties to national security concerns.

In June, for instance, the Trump administration was awarded a “golden share” in the metal company US Steel, in exchange for giving a green light to its merger with Japan’s Nippon Steel. That share allows the Trump administration to essentially have a veto over any major action US Steel may take to reorganise or dissolve.

Then, in August, the technology firm Intel struck a deal to sell the US government a 10-percent stake in its company, amid pressure from Trump.

The Trump administration has continued to snap up stakes in other private firms, most notably mining companies involved in the production of rare earth minerals and other raw materials used in technology.

It is not yet clear how Trump plans to enforce his demands for the defence contractors he blasted in Wednesday’s social media messages. Nor is it certain that Trump could legally enforce his orders.

But Trump aired a list of grievances against the companies, including that their executives’ pay was simply too large.

“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he wrote at one point.

At another, he called on the private firms to invest in new construction projects, a request he has made across industries, from the pharmaceutical sector to automakers.

“From this moment forward, these Executives must build NEW and MODERN Production Plants, both for delivering and maintaining this important Equipment, and for building the latest Models of future Military Equipment,” Trump said.

“Until they do so, no Executive should be allowed to make in excess of $5 Million Dollars which, as high as it sounds, is a mere fraction of what they are making now.”

He also complained that the defence companies were “far too slow” in offering repairs for their equipment.

Defence contractors are responsible for a range of services and products, from software to training to missiles and tanks. RTX, for example, designed the Patriot Missile, the US’s flagship surface-to-air missile system, and it keeps the US military supplied with spare parts and other updates.

Based in Virginia, the company boasted sales exceeding $80bn in 2024. Just this week, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) awarded RTX a $438m contract to update its radar system.

Still, Trump maintained that too much of that income was going to shareholders, executive pay and stock buybacks, wherein a company purchases its own shares in order to limit their supply and increase their value.

“Defense Contractors are currently issuing massive Dividends to their Shareholders and massive Stock Buybacks, at the expense and detriment of investing in Plants and Equipment,” Trump wrote.

“This situation will no longer be allowed or tolerated!”

The Trump administration has accused Somali officials of destroying a World Food Programme warehouse that contained US-funded food aid.

The United States says that it has suspended all assistance to the government of Somalia, alleging that officials destroyed a World Food Programme warehouse filled with food aid it funded.

In a social media post on Wednesday, the administration of US President Donald Trump alleged that Somali officials had seized 76 metric tonnes of donor-funded food aid that had been intended for Somalis in need.

“The US is deeply concerned by reports that Federal Government of Somalia officials have destroyed a US-funded World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse and illegally seized 76 metric tons of donor-funded food aid for vulnerable Somalis,” the post said.

“The Trump Administration has a zero-tolerance policy for waste, theft, and diversion of life-saving assistance.”

The announcement was made on the social media platform representing the US State Department’s Under Secretary for Foreign Assistance, Humanitarian Affairs and Religious Freedom.

Somali officials have not yet responded to the allegations of aid theft.

Still, the stark measure continues a recent trend under the Trump administration. In recent months, President Trump has leaned into criticism of Somalis living in the United States and placed restrictions on Somalis seeking to enter the US.

His administration has also stepped up air strikes targeting armed groups in Somalia itself.

Notably, in a December cabinet meeting, Trump personally levelled racist attacks against the Somali community in the US, saying they are “destroying America”. He also attacked Ilhan Omar, a Democratic representative from Somalia who arrived in the US as a child refugee.

“We’re going to go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country,” Trump said at the December 2 meeting.

“Ilhan Omar is garbage, just garbage. Her friends are garbage. These aren’t people that work. These aren’t people that say, ‘Let’s go, come on, let’s make this place great.’ These are people that do nothing but complain.”

As part of his tirade, Trump cited a fraud scandal in the midwestern state of Minnesota, which has seen some members of the large Somali community there charged with wrongdoing.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has since indicated that Trump could use denaturalisation – the revocation of US citizenship – as “a tool” to penalise Somali Americans involved in the fraud scheme.

The Trump administration has also ramped up immigration enforcement raids in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a city with the largest Somali community in the US.

The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back US humanitarian assistance since returning to the White House in 2025, and it is not clear how much aid will be affected by the suspension of assistance.

Trump’s Democratic predecessor Joe Biden had provided about $770m in assistance for projects in Somalia, but only a small portion went towards the Somali government.

In announcing Wednesday’s aid freeze, the US State Department signalled that assistance could resume – but only with an acknowledgement of responsibility from the Somali government.

“Any resumption of assistance will be dependent upon the Somali Federal Government, taking accountability for its unacceptable actions and taking appropriate remedial steps.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he will meet Denmark next week as Donald Trump again raises the prospect of gaining control of Greenland. When pressed on NATO concerns, Rubio said the president can use force, but diplomacy is preferred.

Leader of Yemen’s Southern Transitional Council removed from government with the Saudi-led coalition saying he ‘fled to unknown location’.

Tehran, Iran – Bolder protests are being recorded across Iran amid an increasing deployment of armed security officers as the government’s efforts to contain an unravelling economic situation fall flat.

Footage circulating online showed huge protests on Tuesday night in the city of Abdanan, in the central province of Ilam, where several major demonstrations have taken place over the past week.

Thousands of people, from children accompanied by parents to the elderly, were filmed walking and chanting in the streets of the small city while helicopters flew overhead. The protesters appeared to have vastly outnumbered the security personnel deployed to contain them.

In the city of Ilam, the province’s capital, videos showed security forces storming the Imam Khomeini Hospital to root out and arrest protesters, something rights group Amnesty International said violates international law and again shows “how far the Iranian authorities are willing to go to crush dissent”.

The hospital became a target after protests in the county of Malekshahi earlier this week, where multiple demonstrators were shot dead while gathering at the entrance of a military base. Some wounded protesters were taken to the hospital.

Several graphic videos from the scene of the shooting circulating online showed people being sprayed with live fire and falling to the ground as they fled from the gate. The local governor said the shooting is under investigation.

State-linked media confirmed that at least three people were killed. They also announced on Tuesday that a police officer was shot dead after armed clashes took place in the aftermath of funeral processions for the dead protesters.

In Tehran, numerous videos showed traders and business owners at the Grand Bazaar, who closed down their shops, clashing with security forces in riot gear with batons and using tear gas.

People could be heard chanting “freedom” in the bazaar and shouting “dishonourable” at police officers. “Execute me if you want, I’m not a rioter,” one man shouted when pressured by security forces, to cheers and clapping from the crowd.

‘Show no mercy’

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said, in his first reaction to the protests this week, that rioters must be “put in their place”.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei said, “We will show no mercy to rioters this time.”

The situation was similarly tense in adjacent streets and neighbourhoods, where the protests were originally started by shopkeepers on December 28. Multiple other major shopping areas in Tehran saw huge strikes and protests on Tuesday, including Yaftabad, where police were met with shouted slogans, “Neither Gaza nor Lebanon; my life for Iran”.

Iran’s government has been accused of providing support for armed groups in Gaza and Lebanon.

More clashes were recorded around the Sina Hospital in downtown Tehran, but the Tehran University of Medical Science said in a statement that the tear gas canisters filmed inside the hospital compound were not thrown by security forces.

Demonstrations also occurred in Lorestan and Kermanshah in the west; Mashhad in the northeast; Qazvin, south of the capital; the city of Shahrekord in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari to the southwest; and the city of Hamedan, where a woman was filmed braving a police water cannon in the winter cold.

A foreign-based human rights monitor opposed to the theocratic establishment in Iran claimed at least 35 people have been killed in the protests so far. The Iranian state has not announced casualty figures, and Al Jazeera could not independently verify any.

Cooking oil triples in price

The country continues to have one of the highest inflation rates in the world, especially when it comes to the rampant increases in prices of essential food items.

The government of moderate President Masoud Pezeshkian says it is implementing plans to make sure the economic situation is contained, but a rapid decline continues to unfold.

The country’s embattled currency, the rial, was priced at more than 1.47 million to the US dollar in the open market in Tehran on Tuesday, marking yet another new all-time low that showed a lack of public and investor trust.

The price of cooking oil has experienced by far the sharpest price surge this week, more than tripling and falling further out of reach of the decimated Iranian middle class, which has seen its purchasing power dwindle since 2018, when the US unilaterally abandoned a 2015 nuclear deal and reimposed harsh sanctions.

The development comes after Pezeshkian presented a budget for the upcoming Iranian calendar year, starting in late March, that eliminated a subsidised currency rate used for certain imports, including foodstuffs.

Some economists have welcomed the rationale behind the move, which is to eliminate the rent-distributing subsidised currency rate in an attempt to combat corruption, particularly since the cheaper currency has only been abused and has failed to curb food prices.

The move was expected to lead to increased prices in the short term and face pushback from interest groups within the establishment that have benefitted from the cheap currency for years. But the oil price jump was very sudden, prompting the government to announce official prices of its own, though it remains to be seen whether the market will listen.

Using the resources to be freed from eliminating the cheaper subsidised currency, the government has offered to allocate online credits, each amounting to 10 million rials ($7 at the current exchange rate), to help people buy food.

Two renowned singers, Homayoun Shajarian and Alireza Ghorbani, joined the ranks of many people and celebrities online who said they would stop their professional activities, including scheduled concerts, in solemn observance and support for the protests.

“How can our officials lay down their heads and sleep?” asked Ali Daei, a legend of Iranian football and a respected national figure among the people, in a video interview released on Tuesday that is going viral.

“Perhaps many of them are not even Iranians, since they don’t feel sympathy for the Iranian nation.”