Government

Islamabad, Pakistan – Staff nurse Razia Noreen was at a medicine cupboard on the nursery ward of the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad’s largest public-sector hospital. She was two doors from the babies in her care, preparing the morning’s injections.

As she shut the cupboard door, she saw through the nursery’s glass panel a light too sharp and too red to be anything ordinary. She did not wait to understand what it was.

It was 6:38am on Wednesday, August 26. Elsewhere in the ward, her colleague, Sister Nasreen, was already running out, shouting for help.

At 56 seconds past 6:38am, according to security camera timestamps later logged by a government inquiry committee, Noreen rushed into the nursery.

Eight seconds later, she emerged carrying a baby. She tried to go back in. She could not. By 6:40am, the room was gone, swallowed by smoke so thick that the security cameras could no longer see through it.

Noreen was recalling this eight days later, in a plain office beside the hostel warden’s room at PIMS, dressed in a pale pink shalwar kameez, her dupatta loose over one shoulder.

“There was a proper blast,” she told Al Jazeera. “Everything turned to smoke.”

Fifteen newborns had been in that nursery. Fourteen died. The baby Noreen carried out was the only one who lived.

On Thursday, Noreen was given an award by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif for her courage. But for the nurse, the trauma of that Wednesday morning was still raw.

Barely two hours after meeting the prime minister, she sat down and talked, at length, about what happened inside.

‘Save the babies’

Noreen had been on duty since 8pm the previous night, working a routine dawn medication round with Sister Nasreen, with less than two hours left before the end of her shift.

When she saw the light through the nursery glass, she says she did not stop to work out what it was.

“I just told my sister nurse, save the babies,” she told Al Jazeera. “I went in. I didn’t think about what would happen next.”

Noreen said the fire was coming out of the side of the air-conditioning unit facing her.

“The AC was right in front of me, and the fire was coming out of its side,” she said. “We don’t know what was happening behind it. That’s just what I saw.”

The government’s interim inquiry, submitted on August 28, states that the precise cause of the fire “is not yet conclusively established”, with evidence pointing variously to the air conditioner, an incubator or an electrical short circuit.

Inside the nursery, Noreen reached the nearest baby. There was no time to choose between 15. She carried the infant out and handed her to Dr Abdul Rehman, a doctor who had been inserting a feeding tube in the next room and emerged into the corridor moments after her. Then she turned back.

“I thought I’d get five, six, seven, eight more of them out,” she said. “But the fire was moving faster than I was.”

A second doctor, Dr Rimsha, who had been doing rounds nearby and saw the same light Noreen had, followed her in.

The two of them, and later Sister Nasreen, tried to crawl back through the smoke below the worst of the heat. A sudden loss of power plunged the room into darkness. They could not get through.

Noreen’s phone, left behind on the medication table when she ran in, sat inside the burned ward overnight. Hospital guards found it and returned it to her the next afternoon. Its case is still scorched and cracked.

Noreen, Dr Rimsha and Sister Nasreen instead moved to where a separate rescue team was lowering babies from an adjoining gynaecology ward. They stood there catching newborns and running them to the neonatal intensive care unit until the smoke became too thick to remain.

The government’s inquiry later found that the available evidence “does not support generalised allegations that front-line medical and nursing staff simply abandoned the newborns”.

Ask Noreen what a nurse is to a newborn separated from its mother, and she has one answer: its first mother.

“A mother who gives birth endures a pain no one else can stand in for,” she said. “But once a baby is in our hands, no one else is watching over it the way we are, checking their oxygen, their feeding, whether they’re breathing right, every two hours, whatever else is happening around us. That is why we are their first mother.”

‘I am very happy with the children’

Noreen, 38, has spent 21 years in government nursing, the last 17 of them at PIMS. She trained in Karachi right after school, at the age of 17, before a transfer brought her to PIMS in 2009. She has never married.

“Thank God, I am very happy with the children,” she said, when asked about it directly.

Born in Punjab’s city of Sahiwal, she was one of seven children. Her father, Victor John, was a pastor; he died when she was in the eighth grade. Two of her sisters have died; a third, also a nurse, lives in Lahore.

Her mother, 83, a retired government school teacher who is hard of hearing, lives in Lahore with one of Noreen’s brothers.

Noreen herself has lived in the PIMS staff hostel, across from the ward where she works, for most of the past two decades.

With her own phone trapped inside the burning ward, Noreen could not call her family herself.

Noreen’s niece happened to be staying with her that week. It was the niece the warden found, and who got word to the family in Lahore: Noreen was safe.

‘It’s always the two of us’

On the morning of the fire, Noreen and Sister Nasreen were the only two nurses on duty in a nursery holding 15 babies, backed by two doctors, one of them two rooms away. She says it was not an unusual night.

“Sometimes there are 20 babies, sometimes 25,” she said. “It’s always the two of us.”

Doctors on her ward work 36-hour shifts, she said, arriving at 8am and going off duty at 2pm the following day.

Handover between nursing shifts, checking each baby’s medication, feeding and vital signs, takes roughly 45 minutes given the numbers involved. The cost of drugs can also run to tens of thousands of Pakistani rupees per injection, all provided by PIMS to its patients.

“Sometimes we get a break, sometimes we don’t,” she said. “When the workload is heavy, even the water we carry with us goes back home untouched.”

No fire drill had been run in the nursery before August 26, not even after an earlier fire at a nearby PIMS hostel in July.

Asked what is required after an incident like this, she does not hesitate.

“We should all have proper drills. If a fire starts, everyone needs to already know what to do.”

She lists what should follow: extinguishers within reach, cross-ventilation to clear smoke, and a rehearsed evacuation route for babies who cannot walk or call out for help.

‘Golden letters in history’

Until the fire, almost nobody outside her own ward knew her name, Noreen says.

“I have almost no presence in the main hospital,” she said. “Nobody there knows who I am. I work in the nursery, in my own department. I never imagined that saving one baby would take me this far.”

She travelled on Thursday to meet the prime minister in a car the government sent.

During the meeting, Sharif called her “the nation’s daughter” and said her act would be remembered “in golden letters” in Pakistan’s history.

He confirmed Noreen will formally receive the country’s Sitara-i-Khidmat (Star of Service) award at a ceremony on March 23, and handed her a cheque for 10 million Pakistani rupees ($36,000).

She used the meeting to say what she had already told her own colleagues privately.

“My fellow nurses work with just as much dedication,” she said. “This was a very heartbreaking incident.”

‘I haven’t slept since that day’

Eight days on, Noreen is unwell. She has had a fever of 102 to 103 degrees Fahrenheit (38.9C to 39.4C) on and off, and a cough she says came from smoke she breathed in from the fire that morning — a morning she will never forget. She takes an antibiotic and sleeping tablets at night. Neither has worked as it should.

“I haven’t slept, not since that day,” she said. “I take the tablets, I drink the cough syrup, but sleep doesn’t come. I close my eyes, and I open them again.”

Asked whether the same dawn shift keeps replaying in her mind, she did not need the question finished.

“The whole incident. The same babies. The mothers’ screams, and the babies’ screams, how they must have screamed. Those are the things that don’t let me sleep.”

She was signed off on medical rest only the day before this interview. Colleagues have been steadying her since.

“I would just start crying, sitting there,” she said. “They supported me like I was a child.”

But the nights are still hers alone.

“It comes back to the same thing,” she said. “When I’m in the hostel, when I’m alone, it all comes back.”

‘That, I regret’

The baby Noreen carried out — she hasn’t been named yet, according to the nurse — remains in the neonatal intensive care unit a week on.

Born preterm at just over a kilogramme (2 pounds, 3 ounces), the baby was already unwell before the fire. She remains critical.

Noreen met the baby’s parents for the first time the day before the meeting with the prime minister.

“She [the baby’s mother Asifa] hugged me and thanked me, and cried, and I cried with her,” Noreen said, “because for the rest of the children, my heart is still exactly where it was.”

She has told the mother the same thing she tells herself.

“I said, look, your child survived such a huge storm, she will survive what comes next, too. You pray, and I will pray.”

Asked what she would tell other nurses, Noreen urged them to work with honesty and without conditions.

“When you work somewhere with honesty, the reward comes eventually,” she said. “It came to me after 21 years. Work with the same loyalty. That is our real strength.”

Then, unprompted, she returned to the 14 babies who died.

“I do regret it,” she said. “I could not save the rest of the children. That, I regret.”

In the mountain resort of Abetone Cutigliano, nestled in the Tuscan-Emilian Apennines, supporters of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni are celebrating.

On Friday, the Italian leader and her party set a record – leading the country’s longest-lasting government since World War II.

Famed for political instability, Italy has seen 68 governments in eight decades. While the late Silvio Berlusconi keeps the title of longest-serving premier, having held the premiership for a longer period over four terms, the government led by the far-right Brothers of Italy has now overtaken his record of 1,412 consecutive days in power.

Abetone Cutigliano, the prime destination for skiing enthusiasts, was one of the municipalities that made the accomplishment possible, overwhelmingly voting for Meloni’s party in the national elections of October 2022. Andrea Tonarelli, a councillor with Brothers of Italy’s local branch, said a seafront celebratory event is being held to mark the occasion.

“Those of us who can’t go will gather at the party’s local office to watch the rally,” the 35-year-old told Al Jazeera.

For Tonarelli, an engineer for the municipality, the milestone is a “point of pride”.

“Ten years ago, this result would have been unthinkable,” he said. “I feel emotional saying this, but the merit goes to those people who were able to get hold of the youth like me.”

A self-professed mountain dweller who joined Brothers of Italy in 2017, Tonarelli said he was enticed by the party’s opposition to the left’s “armchair environmentalism” that restricts hunting, thwarts big infrastructure projects and opposes selective woods logging.

He also embraced the party’s “patriotic” resolve to put “Italians first”, including through border protection and the promotion of local products and traditional heritage.

“Our main characteristic is believing in what we do and giving it our 100 percent,” he said. “This is not a milestone reached by Giorgia Meloni, by the party, or by a single militant. This is a milestone by an entire community that makes history in this nation.”

‘Profoundly symbolic’

Grazia Di Maggio, the youngest member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brothers of Italy, hailed the government’s record-breaking longevity as “profoundly symbolic”.

“Giorgia Meloni is the first woman to hold the office of prime minister and she comes from a right-wing background, which means no shortcuts and no favouritism,” the 31-year-old told Al Jazeera, hinting at Italy’s rebuke of Benito Mussolini’s totalitarian dictatorship and subsequent weariness of far-right ideologies.

Meloni has sought to distance herself from fascism, declaring in 2022 that the Italian right had handed the ideology “over to history”.

For Di Maggio, who left the southern region of Basilicata at the age of 18 and started her political career leafleting while pursuing a degree in communications in Milan, Meloni’s accomplishment sets an example.

“It’s a story that shows that passion, sacrifice and personal value can make a difference,” she said. “It demonstrates that a right-wing government can be credible, stable and uphold its responsibilities.”

Stable or static?

Analysts have questioned Brothers of Italy’s claim to a newfound political stability.

“Political stability is not measured by the government’s longevity,” Paolo Carusi, a lecturer in contemporary history at Roma Tre University, told Al Jazeera.

In previous decades, “governments would fall but political ideologies would remain stalwart,” Carusi said. “The current political scene is characterised by voter volatility … Italians don’t feel like voting any   more – and if they do, they tend to reward parties that run for the first time.”

Carusi argued that two main factors enabled Meloni’s government to survive longer than others. First, Italy’s latest electoral law, dating back to 2018 and applied to the 2022 election that brought Meloni to power, worked to her advantage by allowing the right-wing coalition to obtain an absolute majority.

Second, Brothers of Italy gave up on much of its electoral programme to maintain stability, unlike previous governments that had alienated coalition partners by pursuing their own agendas.

As a result, Meloni is now grappling with the rapid ascent of a new far-right party led by former army ‌general Roberto Vannacci, which has become the country’s fourth most popular political force only seven months after its launch.

In the upcoming 2027 general election, Vannacci’s National Future will be able to “claim to be the only true upholder of right-wing values,” Carusi said.

Political scientist Piero Ignazi, who lectures at the University of Bologna, said the government’s longevity signalled a period of stasis.

“Stability can be useful to create change, or it can be a way to remain static or even shift into reverse,” the analyst said, arguing that the latter describes the trajectory of Meloni’s government.

Italy’s economy remains fragile, with forecasts projecting its growth at a lacklustre 0.6 percent in 2026. Next year, it is expected to rank last in growth and first in public debt within the European Union.

Alongside Italy’s economy, social policies are also a cause for concern, Ignazi said.

The government has reformed the law to criminalise actions that previously resulted only in fines or civil penalties.

“The government introduced 52 new felonies and all of them have to do with the expression of public dissent and the right to protest,” he said. “This marks a dangerous setback which I believe is the harbinger of more to come if another right-wing government is elected.”

The Missouri Supreme Court has unanimously blocked a congressional map backed by United States President Donald Trump ahead of November’s midterm elections, restoring the state’s previous districts.

Thursday’s ruling delivered a rare judicial rebuke to Trump in the national battle over redistricting. But it is unlikely to be the final word in the case, with Republican officials already pledging to appeal the ruling.

At the heart of the case is a congressional map signed into law in September 2025, designed to help Republicans win an extra seat in the US House of Representatives this year.

But the partisan redistricting effort prompted a popular backlash, with nearly 300,000 Missouri residents signing a petition to instead put the new map to a vote.

Missouri’s Secretary of State Denny Hoskins rejected the petition as legally insufficient. That set up the legal fight, which the Missouri Supreme Court decided on Thursday.

“The referendum petition was legal, sufficient, and timely, and the secretary incorrectly concluded otherwise,” the court wrote in its ruling.

It added that the Missouri Constitution has made such petitions legal, and “no exception applies”. The court is staffed by seven judges, five of whom are Republican-appointed.

The decision, however, places Missouri in a complicated position. Two months remain until the midterm elections, and ballots will soon be printed.

There are also outstanding legal questions over whether a state’s general election can use different congressional districts than its primaries did.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, a Republican, said she would immediately appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court. She called Thursday’s decision a “full-fledged constitutional crisis”.

“Never before in American history has a court overturned a congressional map after a primary and before a general election,” she said in a statement.

Trump also denounced the ruling in a social media post, calling it “horrible, ridiculous, and unConstitutional”.

“The Missouri Supreme Court just ridiculously ruled in favor of changing the maps back to what they were a long time ago. It’s called, Ancient History,” he wrote.

Last year, Trump triggered the nationwide redistricting fight when he approached Texas state lawmakers to redraw their maps in a way that would give Republicans an advantage.

Normally, congressional maps are redrawn once every 10 years to reflect census results.

But Trump encouraged Republican-led states to issue new maps mid-decade, as a strategy to help the right-wing party maintain control over the House.

Some 10 states ultimately decided to redistrict, including Missouri. Most tilted in favour of Republicans. California, meanwhile, redrew its map to skew Democratic.

Prior to Thursday’s ruling, Missouri’s Supreme Court affirmed that the special legislative action to change the state’s congressional map was lawful. In the US, no federal law bars partisan redistricting, known as gerrymandering.

But Thursday’s decision upheld the legality of the petition campaign to put the map up for a vote.

The Missouri Supreme Court barred the 2025 map from being used in November’s midterm election or any future election until Missouri voters approve it first.

The group People Not Politicians spearheaded the referendum petition. In a statement on Thursday, it applauded the state court’s decision, which overturned a lower court ruling.

“Supreme Court of Missouri has ruled: Missourians will vote on politicians’ rigged map,” the group wrote on social media.

It also blamed Missouri’s secretary of state for any hurdles to restoring the old map.

“Hoskins had the power to prevent all this confusion months ago — and he chose not to,” the group said.

A day before the court’s ruling, hundreds of people rallied outside the state Supreme Court, chanting: “Let us vote!”

Grant Christensen, a resident of Jefferson City and referendum supporter, said he had signed the petition.

“Gerrymandering is the same as voter suppression,” Christensen said. “Cutting up districts in order to steer them to vote one way or the other is not fair.”

Missouri’s 2025 congressional map had already shaped the state’s primary elections. Critics, however, point out that Hoskins did not reject the referendum until August 4, the day of the party primaries.

The outcome of the legal battle is likely to be most pivotal for Missouri’s 5th congressional district, currently held by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver. His district, which encompasses parts of Kansas City, was reshaped to favour Republicans.

Haitian foreign minister says renewal is necessary to ensure safety ahead of elections scheduled in December.

Haiti’s Foreign Ministry has called on the United Nations Security Council to renew the mandate of an internationally backed security force meant to tamp down the powerful armed groups controlling parts of the country.

On Thursday, Foreign Minister Raina Forbin reiterated her view that the Gang Suppression Force (GSF) needed to be fully deployed to her country, with support from the international community.

Its mandate, however, is slated to expire on September 30, unless the UNSC acts to extend its mission.

“We need technical, financial, logistical and safety support that is up to the challenge,” said Forbin. “We must now move from solidarity to action.”

Her remarks came at a meeting of the Organisation of American States (OAS), focused on the continued gang violence in Haiti.

Forbin gestured to a pressing need in her country. This year alone, in the three months from April to June, an estimated 1,408 people were killed in Haiti, with 656 injured. Much of that violence was attributed to gangs.

Haiti is also pushing ahead with long-postponed general elections. Critics, however, fear that the violence could disrupt the elections and weaken public confidence in the outcome.

Political instability in Haiti has been heightened since the assassination of former President Jovenel Moise in 2021. Armed groups have flourished in the vacuum, assuming control over large swaths of the capital of Port-au-Prince and displacing more than one million people.

Authorities have struggled to address either the out-of-control violence or the deeper causes of instability in the country, including poverty and government corruption.

The upcoming elections, the first in a decade, are currently scheduled to take place on December 13. But officials have questioned whether they will take place, given conditions on the ground.

OAS Secretary-General Albert Ramdin said that the regional body would deploy an Electoral Observation Mission to help support a credible vote, urging greater assistance for Haiti’s provisional electoral council.

He added that about one million identity cards must also be produced and distributed before voting can take place.

“Haiti is at a critical juncture,” Ramdin said in a statement on Thursday. “Our responsibility is clear: to strengthen security efforts, advance electoral preparations, fulfill existing commitments and ensure that international cooperation translates into tangible improvements in the daily lives of the Haitian people.”

But international assistance efforts have also drawn criticism, with many Haitians sceptical of outside interference in their country.

Officials within such international forces have also bemoaned a lack of steady support. Before the GSF, Kenya had led a Multinational Security Support (MSS) to support Haitian police, only to withdraw in April, after failing to meet its funding and deployment goals.

The UN Security Council voted to create the GSF task force in October 2025 as a replacement for the MSS. The mission was given a 12-month mandate.

The GSF is authorised to pursue “counter-gang operations to neutralize, isolate, and deter gangs”, either independently or in cooperation with Haitian police and its military.

Human rights advocates, however, note that such international support has been lacking for Haitians fleeing the violence.

Many Haitians have been forcibly returned to the country after fleeing for safety. A UN official informed an emergency meeting of the UNSC last week that nearly 200,000 people have been sent back to Haiti during the first eight months of this year.

That amounts to a 20,000 increase over the same period last year.

Ousted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has urged a United States judge to dismiss the criminal drug trafficking charges against him, arguing he should be immune from prosecution as the head of a sovereign country.

Maduro’s lawyer, Barry Pollack, made the appeal in a Manhattan district court on Wednesday.

His legal team has petitioned District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to dismiss the case, which will test the willingness of US courts to apply international law to criminal cases.

Maduro was abducted and imprisoned on January 3, after US President Donald Trump authorised a military raid in Caracas. The former Venezuelan leader, who has been held in a Brooklyn federal jail, has pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to go on trial on June 1, 2027, if his effort to dismiss the case is unsuccessful.

The principle that sitting heads of state are immune from prosecution abroad is a longstanding tenet of international law, seen as fundamental to diplomacy.

Judge Hellerstein had given Pollack a Wednesday deadline to file his motion to dismiss the case.

Pollack has argued that Hellerstein lacks jurisdiction, both because sovereign heads of state enjoy complete immunity and because the acts that Maduro is accused of would have been part of his official duties.

“This unprecedented prosecution violates the absolute immunity from criminal jurisdiction to which heads of state and foreign officials acting in their official capacities have been entitled for hundreds of years,” Pollack wrote.

Pollack added that Maduro was falsely accused and “vehemently denies” the allegations.

A spokesperson for the Manhattan US Attorney’s office, which brought the charges, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Maduro faces uphill battle

Legal experts have told the Reuters news agency that Maduro faces an uphill battle.

Washington has not recognised Maduro as Venezuela’s president for years, due to disputed elections. Courts tend to defer to the US president and his cabinet in disputes over who is recognised as a foreign country’s leader.

US criminal cases involving heads of foreign states are extremely rare, but precedent offers little encouragement for Maduro. In 1990, a federal judge in Miami rejected former Panamanian military leader Manuel Noriega’s attempt to assert head-of-state immunity, in part because he never officially held the title of president.

The US stopped recognising Maduro in 2019, when he was inaugurated for a second time after a 2018 election that critics say was rigged. Washington also called his 2024 re-election fraudulent.

Maduro says both votes were fair and has long accused the US of seeking his ouster to gain control of the South American country’s oil wealth.

Pollack, however, wrote that Washington’s assessment that Maduro lacked legitimacy was not relevant.

“Unlike in Noriega, the Executive Branch does not dispute that Mr Maduro was Venezuela’s head of state, but instead merely claims that, after 2019, he did not occupy that position legitimately,” Pollack wrote.

Venezuela run by Maduro’s vice president

Since Maduro’s abduction, his former vice president and socialist ally, Delcy Rodriguez, has run Venezuela as its interim leader.

She has also increased cooperation with the Trump administration. Last month, the two countries reached an unprecedented deal that would see the US take over about one-fifth of Venezuela’s oil reserves.

Pollack wrote that it was “incongruous” for the US to recognise Rodriguez, who was appointed by Maduro, and not Maduro himself. He pointed to statements by Rodriguez and officials in her government, made in January and February, indicating that they still considered Maduro Venezuela’s legitimate head of state.

Rodriguez’s government has since gone silent on the matter. Some murals of Maduro in Caracas have been painted over in recent months.

Prosecutors have until October 2 to respond to Maduro’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and Hellerstein will hold a hearing on the dismissal effort on November 17.

The ruling follows a 6-3 decision from the Supreme Court that found Trump’s effort to limit birthright citizenship was illegal.

A United States federal judge in Maryland has blocked President Donald Trump’s latest effort to roll back birthright citizenship, after the Supreme Court ruled that his last attempt violated the Constitution.

District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a preliminary injunction on Wednesday against Trump’s new executive order, which was issued on August 6.

The new order took aim at what Trump has called “birth tourism”, the practice of intentionally giving birth on foreign soil.

It sought to deny citizenship to children of foreign nationals in certain groups, including those accused of engaging in a commercial transaction to obtain citizenship or classified as an “alien enemy”.

Boardman, however, said the order was unconstitutional for the same reason Trump’s previous effort failed. She cited the Supreme Court’s June decision in the case Barbara v Trump.

The order “is almost certainly unconstitutional as applied to the certified class for the simple reason that the Supreme Court in Barbara already decided that the children in the class are citizens at birth”, she wrote.

“This Court must, once again, preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the President’s most recent attempt to strip the right to citizenship from them.”

In the Barbara case, the Supreme Court ruled six to three that birthright citizenship was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Birthright citizenship confers automatic citizenship on anyone born in the US, outside of a handful of narrow exceptions, such as the children of diplomats or invading armies.

The constitutional basis for birthright citizenship has been upheld in several Supreme Court cases over the years, most notably in US v Wong Kim Ark, the case of an American man born to Chinese parents.

But Trump campaigned for a second term as president on the pledge to crack down on immigration into the country.

One of his promises was to reform the concept of birthright citizenship. Trump and his allies have argued that children of temporary or undocumented immigrants do not qualify for the right, as they are not under the “jurisdiction” of the US.

Since the Supreme Court defeat in June, Trump and his allies have continued to probe for ways to challenge the constitutional protections for birthright citizenship.

Wednesday’s legal challenge was brought by immigrant rights advocates and families, including groups like the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project.

They had previously won an injunction from Boardman last year, blocking the Trump administration from enforcing his initial executive order about birthright citizenship.

Last week, Boardman instructed the plaintiffs to revise their complaint to specifically address the second executive order, rather than relying on the same material used for the first.

But she signalled scepticism at the time about the constitutionality of Trump’s latest attempt, calling it “unprecedented”.

“The Supreme Court has spoken: Children in the certified class are ‘citizens at birth’,” she wrote in Wednesday’s decision.

Spain faces unrest as residents protest, while migrants and asylum seekers search for shelter and resources in Ceuta.

Thousands of protesters have rallied across Spain against the ongoing migrant crisis in Ceuta, a small Spanish territory on the African coast.

Roughly 50,000 people gathered in Madrid alone on Wednesday. In Ceuta itself, residents draped Spanish and city flags over their shoulders.

“Expel the invaders” and “Ceuta is not for sale, Ceuta must be defended” were among the crowd’s chants.

The protests fell on Ceuta Day, a local holiday that marks the Portuguese takeover of the North African city in the 15th century.

They also come a little more than a month after more than 70,000 migrants and asylum seekers crossed en masse from Morocco into Ceuta on July 30 and 31. The deadly surge killed at least 80 people.

While many of the arrivals have returned to Africa, some remain. Estimates vary as to how many. The Spanish government places the figure at about 5,000 people, including 1,200 minors, but local statistics have a higher count.

Among those who remain stranded in the Spanish territory is Otman Ianaya, 40. He swam to Ceuta with his wife and two young daughters, searching for better prospects.

“There is no work in Morocco,” he told the news agency AFP. “I want to build a future in my life.”

Some migrants and asylum seekers sleep on Ceuta’s beaches. The Spanish government has worked to expand emergency housing and increase funds to social services, but critics have blasted the effort as inadequate to answer the needs of so many people.

The strain has sparked isolated instances of violence, including fights, the stoning of a military patrol and reports of sexual assault.

Residents in Ceuta have also clashed with police and burned items belonging to migrants and asylum seekers, in protest of the influx of people.

“The situation has been chaotic, so much so that you can’t go out onto the street,” said Gema Guillen, a protester.

The July incident has also underscored political schisms.

Ceuta’s regional leader, Juan Jesus Vivas, represents Spain’s conservative Popular Party and has called the crisis a “violation of Spain’s territorial integrity”.

Meanwhile, Spain’s territorial policy minister, Angel Victor Torres, has accused the conservative and far-right opposition of exploiting the crisis “to attack the government of Spain” instead of helping the city.

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has blamed the surge on a misread court ruling and online disinformation that he said encouraged people to cross the border.

He also said negative coverage of the crisis has since been amplified by Russian and Israeli-linked accounts, though he did not offer proof, instead citing findings from Spain’s intelligence community.

Madrid has pledged 309 million euros ($357m) in aid for Ceuta.

Amid the standoff, while some migrants are looking for economic opportunities, others are seeking asylum to escape alleged persecution back home.

“They are people in a vulnerable situation; we need to have a little bit of empathy,” said Halima Ahmed of Luna Blanca, a nongovernmental organisation that distributes food and aid to migrants and asylum seekers.

“People are tired, people are fed up… but that does not justify any type of violence,” she added.

Senator Thom Tillis accuses Pentagon chief of ‘inept mismanagement’ as US military is strained by war on Iran.

United States Senator Thom Tillis has called on President Donald Trump to fire Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth for creating a “leadership void” within the military amid the ongoing war with Iran.

In a social media post on Wednesday, Tillis contrasted Hegseth unfavourably with former Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who submitted his resignation on Monday amid reported disagreements with the Pentagon chief.

“I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country. He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force,” the North Carolina senator wrote.

“I urge the President to find a new leader at the Pentagon who will retain and empower our military talent rather than diminish it.”

Tillis is a member of Trump’s Republican Party. But in recent years, he has become an increasingly vocal critic from within the party over policies he fears harm democracy.

In June 2025, amid criticism from Trump, Tillis announced he would not be seeking re-election in November’s congressional midterm polls. His term ends in January.

Early in Trump’s second term as president, Tillis was among the senators who voted to confirm Hegseth, a military veteran and former TV host, despite criticisms of his conduct towards women and his past work.

Tillis only confirmed his vote in favour of Hegseth at the last minute, appearing to share some of the concerns being debated in the Senate.

Since taking office as defence secretary, Hegseth has pursued controversial changes to the Pentagon, including attempts to limit journalistic access to the Defence Department.

He has also undertaken a wide-ranging effort to root out what he calls “wokeness” from the military.

That effort has reportedly included firing top military leaders, blocking promotions, removing transgender service members and reviewing admissions standards for top military academies.

In Wednesday’s post, Tillis pointed to some of those efforts, questioning why Hegseth appeared fixated on culture war issues rather than modernising the military.

He pointed to evolving forms of warfare in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and in the US-Israeli war against Iran.

“Our understanding and assumptions of warfare are being challenged in places like Ukraine and Iran, and Dan [Driscoll] understands the old way of doing business no longer applies,” said Tillis.

The senator then proceeded to imply that Driscoll’s departure was a direct result of Hegseth’s mismanagement.

“If we had a Secretary of Defense who maintained the same priorities and forward-thinking, he would be fighting to retain talented leaders like Dan and the many flag officers he has forced into retirement. Instead, he is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks,” Tillis added.

Hegseth has faced growing scrutiny in recent months as the US struggles to achieve its goals in the war on Iran, launched on February 28. The war hit its six-month mark last week with no end in sight.

Media reports indicate that the war has left the Pentagon struggling with shrinking munitions stockpiles that could hinder the US military in future actions.

The war has also taken a toll on the popularity of the Trump administration, which has seen approval numbers sink ahead of the November congressional election.

Since the war began, fuel prices have skyrocketed, and the conflict has spread across the Middle East.

More than two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the administration’s handling of the war, according to a University of Massachusetts poll released on August 31.

United States President Donald Trump’s face has officially found its way onto the country’s currency.

On Tuesday at 12pm Eastern Time (16:00 GMT), the US Mint began circulating – and selling – a “once-in-a-generation” $1 coin bearing Trump’s likeness to commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary.

The gold-coloured coins feature Trump’s portrait on one side, alongside inscriptions of “LIBERTY” and “IN GOD WE TRUST”. On the reverse is an illustration of the US presidential seal with “250” inscribed on its shield.

The US Mint says the coins “capture the spirit, pride, and legacy of a nation approaching its landmark anniversary”.

It’s the first time in nearly 100 years that a living person has been featured on US currency, drawing a heavy dose of criticism, since such honours are largely reserved for long-dead dignitaries.

How did this $1 coin come to be? Here’s what you need to know:

Why is this being done?

Since Trump returned to the White House last year, the administration has taken steps to put his name or image on an array of buildings and items, including the Kennedy Center, the US Institute of Peace, National Parks passes, a limited-edition passport and a $1m “gold card” visa that was announced last year.

The Trump administration has tied some of those efforts to celebrations of the country’s semiquincentennial, the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

On July 15, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent first announced the coin in a post on social media. Bessent said the coin “celebrates the strength of American values, and the promise of a nation dedicated to preserving freedom for all”.

The Trump administration has also pointed to another anniversary coin as a precedent for the Trump-branded $1 piece.

In 1926, for the 150th anniversary of the country, the US Mint struck a coin featuring side-by-side portraits of George Washington and Calvin Coolidge, a president who was in office at the time.

But critics have pointed out that the 1926 coin was commemorative and not intended for circulation as currency.

Are there other proposals for Trump-themed currency?

In May, Bessent also said preparations were under way to print a new $250 banknote featuring Trump’s face.

Bessent added that the Trump administration was seeking congressional approval for the new bill.

How much are the new coins?

Despite the coin being valued at $1, consumers can purchase a 25-coin roll for $61 or a 100-coin bag for $154.50 — a significant mark-up.

While the coins are being sold at a premium, the US Mint emphasises they are not solely decorative.

They are valid currency and can be used to make everyday purchases, just like a $1 bill.

Is it legal?

US federal law states: “Only the portrait of a deceased individual may appear on United States currency and securities.”

Congress passed that law in 1866 after a Department of the Treasury official, Spencer M Clark, put his own face on a note valued at five cents, angering lawmakers.

However, during his first term, Trump signed legislation known as the Circulating Collection Coin Redesign Act of 2020 (CCRA), which gave the Treasury the authority to mint $1 coins “with designs emblematic of the United States semiquincentennial”.

That law prohibits the portrait of “any person, living or dead” on the reverse side of those coins. However, Trump’s image on the new $1 coin appears on the obverse — the front of the coin — meaning it likely complies with the law.

What opposition does this face?

Late last year, Democratic Senators Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Jeff Merkley of Oregon introduced legislation that would block Trump from placing his face on the coin.

“While monarchs put their faces on coins, America has never had and never will have a king,” Cortez Masto said. “Our legislation would codify this country’s long-standing tradition of not putting living Presidents on American coins. Congress must pass it without delay.” Their bill did not become law.

The Treasury Department and US Mint did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Germany has formally accused Russia of attempting an attack last month at the Leipzig-Halle airport, a state-owned facility in the eastern part of the country.

On Tuesday, German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said his country’s intelligence community had determined that a drone discovered at the airport was consistent with Russian technology. The drone had been bearing explosives, according to official reports.

The announcement triggered several retaliatory measures, including the announcement that Germany would shut down a Russian consulate.

The incident is seen as part of a growing trend in Europe, where officials fear Russia is mounting a campaign of intimidation against members of the NATO military alliance.

What was found at the Leipzig airport? How have officials responded? And what does it say about tensions between Europe and Russia as Moscow’s war in Ukraine drags on? Read on for a quick explainer on the basics.

What happened at Leipzig airport?

An explosive-laden drone was found near a cargo plane belonging to the Ukrainian firm Antonov Airlines on the evening of August 4.

An employee flagged the drone, which was located in a cargo area near a runway, resulting in a temporary shutdown at the Leipzig-Halle airport, a major cargo hub in the eastern German state of Saxony.

Specialists were called in to defuse the explosives with a robot. A second drone was reportedly destroyed after it collided with an aeroplane near the airport.

Why does Germany blame Russia?

Dobrindt, Germany’s interior minister, said investigators identified a configuration and components resembling those seen in Russia’s war against Ukraine.

“Taken together, the police investigations, the pattern and intelligence findings prove a Russian responsibility for the attempted attack at Leipzig airport,” Dobrindt said.

Germany’s government has not publicly shared specifics connecting the incident to Moscow or released all the evidence.

But Dobrindt said the device reflected “a high degree of technical expertise”. He added, however, that the task of carrying out the attack appears to have fallen to “low-level agents”, whom he described as people acting “on behalf of Russian state entities”. He did not specify which ones.

How has Germany responded?

Germany has taken a series of retaliatory actions since announcing the intelligence community’s findings.

Starting on September 18, a Russian consulate in Bonn, a major German city on the Rhine River, will be shuttered. The Russian House, a cultural gathering place in Berlin, will also be closed, though the date has yet to be determined.

German leaders said they would also recommend more Russians be added to the European Union’s sanctions list and consider heightening entry controls for Russian citizens.

The German Foreign Ministry has also summoned Russia’s ambassador to the country to discuss the incident.

How has Russia reacted to Germany’s claims?

Moscow has denied it had anything to do with the drone. The Russian Embassy in Berlin called the claims absurd and warned that the accusations would have consequences.

Separately, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the government of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz of pointing the finger at Moscow to distract from domestic problems and falling approval ratings.

He also suggested that Germany had planted evidence to frame Russia for the drone incident.

How have NATO and European allies responded?

NATO allies like Poland, Italy, the United Kingdom, Sweden and the Czech Republic have all backed Berlin’s claims against Moscow.

“Whenever Russian hybrid activities target one of our allies, we are all exposed,” the Czech Foreign Ministry posted on social media.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she would discuss the incident with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and EU foreign ministers are expected to prepare a joint response.

How has Ukraine responded?

Since February 2022, Ukraine has been battling a war that began with Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbour.

There has been speculation that Moscow’s increasing military threats in Europe are designed to weaken NATO support for Kyiv.

Ukraine has welcomed Germany’s measures against Russia, with Ukrainian Ambassador Oleksii Makeiev praising Berlin’s response on Tuesday.

Germany has been a key strategic partner for Ukraine, and in April, the two countries unveiled a security cooperation agreement that would strengthen joint air defences.

As part of the deal, Berlin agreed to fund missile contracts for Kyiv, and the two would collaborate on drone co-production.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said that his country’s airspace is becoming increasingly unsafe for civilian aviation, with both sides in the war increasingly relying on drone warfare.

What other actions has Russia been accused of in Europe?

Critics have long warned that Russia is taking an increasingly aggressive stance towards Europe, which has opposed its invasion of Ukraine.

The Associated Press news agency has logged some 200 incidents of sabotage and malign activity in Europe since the 2022 invasion.

Those acts include cyberattacks, espionage, disinformation campaigns, arson and interference with infrastructure.

One case, in March 2024, involved a warehouse in east London being set on fire. The facility stored aid for Ukraine, and prosecutors blamed the attack on members of the Russian-backed Wagner Group, a paramilitary organisation.

Such low-level operations are often called “hybrid” attacks, as they remain below the threshold of open conflict but still succeed in sowing unease through violence.

Why are these tensions erupting now?

Germany says covert operations like the attempted drone attack at the Leipzig airport are meant to undermine the country’s political backing for Ukraine in its defence against Russia.

The war has stretched for more than four years, and Ukrainian officials have warned that the coming winter may prove the most challenging yet.

The attempted drone attack also comes at a pivotal time for German politics.

On September 6, the eastern province of Saxony-Anhalt is holding elections, and the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is hoping to make gains, building in part on public weariness with the war.

The AfD has called for strengthening ties with Russia and has been critical of support for Ukraine. It is currently leading in public opinion polls ahead of the vote.

Venezuela’s National Assembly voted to back the 65-billion-barrel oil deal, despite no details being publicly released.

United States Energy Secretary Chris Wright is set to travel to Venezuela, after the South American country has approved a deal that will see the US seize effective control of a large portion of its oil reserves.

An anonymous US official told reporters that Wright will travel to Venezuela on Tuesday, as the administration of President Donald Trump presses forward with the controversial energy deal.

“First and foremost, it furthers the national interest of the United States,” the official said, adding that it is “critically important” for the US to be able to “to buy oil at cost reliably”.

Details are still emerging about the arrangement, likened by critics to deals imposed by colonial powers.

Still, the interim government of Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez has defended the agreement as a boon to her country’s beleaguered economy. The National Assembly, led by her brother Jorge Rodriguez, voted to back the measure on Tuesday.

“Support for the binational energy treaty between the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the United States of America … is approved,” Jorge Rodriguez said.

But even within the National Assembly, there was pushback. Some opposition lawmakers abstained from the vote and denounced the fact that the terms of the agreement have yet to be published.

“We need and are obliged to know what is written in the fine print,” lawmaker Luis Emilio Rondon said, calling for “the full and complete text of what has been agreed”.

While details about the arrangement are still emerging, the deal is slated to give the US access to 65 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in Venezuela, about one-fifth of the country’s total.

As part of the deal, the US is expected to enter into a partnership with a private company to extract fuel from 17 large Venezuelan oil fields. The lease over the oil fields will run 100 years, according to reports.

The White House confirmed on Monday that it is partnering with North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), helmed by Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt who is a former ally of the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

The agreement would create a new company, wherein the US Defence Department would take a 35 percent ownership stake and the State Department would have the right to buy 20 percent of the oil produced at cost.

Betancourt has faced criminal investigations for alleged money laundering in Spain and Switzerland.

But a US official who spoke anonymously defended the partnership, arguing that Betancourt is not facing any criminal charges in the US.

“I’m not nominating anyone for sainthood here,” the official said. Instead, the official framed the deal as “a geopolitical opportunity to secure fields that primarily had largely been under the influence of Chinese and Russian companies”.

Asked about the possibility of democratic elections in Venezuela, the official said they were not feasible in the immediate future.

Periods of transition, the official added, “almost invariably requires you to work with elements of the existing structure, even as you are creating a new one”.

Separately, oil giant Chevron is expected to sign an agreement to expand operations in Venezuela on Wednesday.

Venezuela’s energy sector has become dilapidated, with critics blaming heavy US sanctions and government mismanagement.

While the Trump administration has pushed for greater international participation in Venezuela’s oil sector, some companies have expressed scepticism about investing there.

The 65-billion-barrel oil deal was announced on August 27 in a post on Trump’s Truth Social platform.

His administration has exercised increasing influence over Venezuela’s government, since it launched a January 3 military operation to abduct and imprison Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Trump and Maduro had frequently clashed. In the wake of Maduro’s abduction, Trump backed the socialist leader’s vice president, Rodriguez, to take over Venezuela’s government, holding her up as a model of cooperation.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has reprimanded the United States for what he describes as a flippant approach to the ongoing trade dispute between the two countries.

On Tuesday, Carney hit back against a series of insults and disparaging remarks from US President Donald Trump and his officials, saying that talks can proceed once Washington takes a more serious approach to the issues at hand.

“When the Americans stop doing memes, stop throwing shade and stop trying to be tough, and start being serious about having those discussions, we can have those discussions,” Carney told reporters in Ottawa. “It’s not constructive, but that’s their democracy.”

The Liberal Party leader’s remarks come as tensions flare once again between the US and Canada, which have historically had tight relations.

But Trump’s second terms have caused those ties to fray. Since returning to office in 2025, Trump has imposed a series of tariffs on Canadian products, prompting retaliatory actions.

The latest round of tariffs came on August 22, when negotiations between the two countries fell through.

As a result, 50 percent tariffs were imposed on roughly $20bn worth of Canadian goods. Canada has pledged to respond with tariffs on US goods, worth roughly the same dollar amount, starting on September 8.

In the aftermath of the failed negotiations, Carney blamed the impasse on last-minute US demands.

He accused the Trump administration of seeking to limit Canada’s ability to cement trade deals with other countries and of requesting changes to laws protecting Canada’s French language and culture.

Carney also said Trump’s team attempted to push an asymmetrical deal that would damage Canada’s industries.

“Canada’s a sovereign state. We will strike free trade deals with the countries we wish to strike free trade deals with,” Carney told reporters on Tuesday. He added, “Of course, we’re not going to accept those terms.”

The trade war between the two countries has prompted a surge of nationalism in Canada.

A June poll from the research firm Abacus Data found that national pride surged 12 points in two years, reaching 77 percent this year.

Carney has faced pressure not to yield to US demands. In addition to imposing steep tariffs, the Trump administration has also pushed Canada to cede its sovereignty and become a “51st state” within the US.

Trump has also taken symbolic actions designed to assert US dominance over the two countries’ shared border region. On August 27, the US president signed an executive order directing federal entities to refer to Lake Ontario as “Lake America”.

“They are one of the worst countries in the world to deal with,” Trump said of Canada in a recent radio interview.

Other cabinet-level officials in the Trump administration have echoed Trump’s remarks disparaging Canada.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told the news outlet CNBC that Canada’s economy is ill-equipped to handle a trade war with the US, and he blamed Carney for escalating the situation.

“Well, I don’t think you can be in a tit-for-tat with someone who’s 13 times larger than you are,” Bessent said on Monday.

Of Carney, he added, “He came to power on an anti-American, anti-Trump agenda. He was 20 points behind in the polls. And then he started this. And it’s unfortunate that he’s not doing what’s best for the Canadian people.”

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, meanwhile, posted an image of two female Canadian cadets on social media, in an apparent effort to mock the country’s armed forces.

“This is real,” he wrote beneath the image of the two women, alongside an emoji of the Canadian flag.

Hegseth, a former TV host, has frequently castigated efforts to include women, LGBTQ people and racial minorities in the military as “woke” distractions from the US military’s core mission.

When reporters asked Carney to respond to such messages, he replied that such comments were “beneath” the officials’ office.

“Our plan has always been standing up for Canada, first and foremost, here at home,” Carney said.

Borrowing costs across some of Europe’s biggest economies have surged to their highest levels in more than 15 years, as a renewed sell-off in global bond markets gathers pace.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The global bond rout pushed Germany’s benchmark borrowing costs to a 15-year high on Tuesday, with France, Italy and the Netherlands all seeing similarly steep rises.

Germany’s 10-year Bund climbed above 3.36% on Tuesday, according to Trading Economics. Later, the yield went down a bit and traded at around 3.34%.

Bond yields move inversely to prices. When investors sell bonds, prices fall, and because a bond’s fixed interest payment becomes worth more relative to that lower price, the effective yield rises.

In short — the more bonds get sold, the more it costs governments to borrow.

Sovereign debt came under renewed pressure as rising oil prices and increasingly hawkish signals from major central banks reinforced bets that interest rates will stay higher for longer.

The yield on Germany’s 30-year Bund surged above 3.84%, also its highest level since 2011. The French 10-year OAT yield rose to its highest level since November 2008, trading slightly above 4.215% at around 10.45 CEST on Tuesday. The equivalent Italian yield was trading slightly lower at 4.188 at the same time.

At the same time, the Dutch 10-year government bond yield increased to 3.43%, its highest level since May 2011. Spain’s 10-year yield climbed above 3.80%, its highest level since November 2023.

Investors are concerned that rising energy prices will fuel inflation around the world, potentially prompting interest-rate increases by central banks in the US, Japan and the eurozone, among others.

These concerns were reinforced in the eurozone on Tuesday morning, as the latest flash inflation data from Eurostat showed that energy prices were 14.3% higher than a year earlier. This helped push eurozone inflation to 3.3% in August, up from 2.9% in July. This is significantly above the ECB’s 2% target.

The central bank is due to hold its next monetary policy meeting next week, and most investors are betting on a 25-basis-point rate hike.

Leo Barincou, senior economist at Oxford Economics, said: “With inflation still accelerating, the ECB is all but certain to hike at next week’s meeting, in line with our expectations.”

Looking at the largest European economies, analysts say Germany’s Bund has moved largely in line with global benchmarks, while France faces an additional risk premium because of its political and fiscal outlook.

French 10-year borrowing costs have exceeded Italy’s for much of the summer, as France increasingly replaces Italy as the main focus of European debt concerns.

According to the IMF, France’s gross government debt is projected to reach 118.4% of GDP this year and 120.5% in 2027. France currently has the third-highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the EU, after Greece and Italy.

The Banque de France expects the budget deficit to reach 5.2% of GDP this year. Difficult budget negotiations ahead of the 2027 presidential election have raised doubts about the government’s ability to reverse this trend.

Robert Timper, BCA’s chief fixed-income strategist, previously told Euronews Business: “We have held the view for some time that France is the country in the euro area with the most unsustainable fiscal outlook, and its borrowing cost should reflect that.”

“To get back to a sustainable fiscal path, France needs to do substantial reforms, which will be unpopular as they will curtail welfare spending,” Timper said. “A large political majority is therefore necessary for such reforms, or a bond market riot will force reforms.”

Global bond sell-off

Expectations of persistently high inflation and rising borrowing costs also pushed the yield on 10-year US Treasuries to its highest level since January 2025. The yield on the 10-year Treasury was trading at around 4.78% on Tuesday.

In the US, higher energy prices have added to already stubborn inflation, which remains well above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. Inflation has weighed on household spending and consumer confidence, complicating the Fed’s decisions on interest rates.

According to Bloomberg, traders raised the probability of a September US rate hike to about 70%, extending a repricing that began last week when Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh doubled down on a pledge to tame inflation.

The sell-off also spread to Asia, where Japan’s benchmark 10-year government bond yield reached 3.00% for the first time since 1996.

Government bonds have traditionally been seen as safe-haven assets during periods of uncertainty.

That role is being tested as investors become increasingly concerned that global conflicts and higher energy prices could produce a prolonged period of stagflation — a combination of high inflation and weak or zero economic growth.

WASHINGTON — In firing up a trade war with Canada, President Trump turned to a 96-year-old statute so obscure that many trade lawyers didn’t even know it was still on the books.

Trump invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on Aug. 24 to slap a 50% tax on $20 billion worth of Canadian imports. The move prompted dollar-for-dollar retaliation from Ottawa and strained already-tense relations between the neighbors and longtime allies.

The president’s Section 338 tariff authority has never been used, let alone tested in court. “This law is literally a blank canvas because it’s never been litigated,’’ said Ryan Majerus, a partner at law firm King & Spalding and a former U.S. trade official.

So it’s unclear whether Trump’s latest Canada tariffs could survive a legal challenge, and some lawyers argue that the Depression-era law has been rendered obsolete by more recent trade laws.

Trump raises Section 338 from the dead

To sanction Canada allegedly for discriminating against U.S. dairy, auto and alcoholic beverage exports this summer, the Trump administration reached back to the Great Depression.

The 1930 tariff legislation is known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act after its congressional sponsors. With the U.S. and world economies in collapse, Congress raised tariffs on hundreds of imports in an attempt to protect American farmers and manufacturers.

The tariffs are notorious among economists and historians for shutting down world commerce and making the Great Depression worse. (Trump, who proudly calls himself “Tariff Man,” has a different view, arguing that the Smoot-Hawley levies simply came too late to rescue the American economy.)

In addition to raising tariffs themselves, lawmakers in 1930 gave the president new power to impose them himself: Section 338 authorizes presidential tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that have discriminated against U.S. businesses.

Before Trump, no president had actually used the statute.

“Until Trump’s second term, few trade lawyers were aware that Section 338 remained on the books or understood what it did,” legal scholars Peter Harrell and Jennifer Hillman of Georgetown University wrote this month in the libertarian magazine Reason.

Harrell and Hillman cite State Department records to show that the U.S. considered using Section 338 in trade disputes — against Spain in 1932 and against newly communist China in 1949 — but never did. After the Depression, U.S. policy focused more on using negotiations — rather than sanctions — to open foreign markets.

So Section 338 sat moldering in the law books.

Other laws take hold

As the years went by, the United States passed new trade laws. Some of them ceded to the president tariff power, which the Constitution originally granted to Congress. But the new laws also limited the president’s authority to certain circumstances — including dealing with national security threats and foreign currency crises — and required the government to carry out investigations and meet other procedural requirements beforehand.

“There is a very strong argument that [Section 338] was superseded,” said Sara Albrecht, chief executive of the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian advocacy group that represented businesses that successfully challenged the earlier Trump tariffs with the Supreme Court.

If Congress wanted the president to retain Section 338 power, Albrecht asks, why did lawmakers pass the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allowed for national security tariffs? And the Trade Act of 1974, which gives the president power to go after other countries’ unfair trade practices?

Battling over Canada’s dairy market

Legal experts see other weaknesses in the Section 338 tariffs.

Harrell and Hillman, for instance, write in Reason that Section 338 authorizes only tariffs that “offset” the harm that a foreign country’s trade practices do to American companies. But in targeting Canada, they note, the Trump administration made no attempt to calculate the dollar amount of damage arising from discrimination against U.S. farmers, automakers and marketers of alcoholic beverages. And the U.S. went after Canadian imports unconnected to those trouble spots, including hockey sticks and cement.

Harrell and Hillman also say that Canada’s protection of its dairy market does not single out U.S. farmers for discrimination; the rules apply to many other Canadian trading partners as well.

Moreover, the United States agreed to the Canadian system — in which Canada imposes stiff tariffs on dairy imports that exceed a quota — in a North America trade pact Trump himself negotiated with Canada and Mexico in his first term. Harrell and Hillman write that it is “incongruous, to say the least, for the United States to denounce as discriminatory the very terms it agreed to.”

But John Veroneau, former general counsel for the U.S. Trade Representative, said the Section 338 tariffs are straightforward: They are justified when another country discriminates against U.S. imports by taxing them more than it taxes imports from other countries.

And in a “perverse irony,” Veroneau said, Canada did just that when it responded to tariffs Trump imposed on Canadian products last year with its own retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports. “Courts will rightly feel obliged in the face of any challenge [to decide]: Are the statutory requirements met or are they not met, however ludicrous the broader context might be,” said Veroneau, adjunct professor at the University of Maine School of Law.

Plaintiffs are so far hard to find

Trump’s other tools to impose his protectionist agenda already have floundered in court. The Supreme Court in February threw out his boldest gambit: invoking a 1977 national security law to hit almost every country on Earth last year with double-digit tariffs.

When Trump tried to replace the revenue lost to the Supreme Court defeat with a new set of tariffs, a specialized trade court in New York rejected those too — though the government was allowed to continue collecting the import taxes while the case works its way through the court system.

No one has filed a lawsuit challenging the Section 338 tariffs. The Liberty Justice Center has been looking for businesses willing to sue the government over the levies.

“I haven’t had a lot of response from plaintiffs,” Albrecht said. “Anytime you want to sue the government, it’s a hard proposition.” The Section 338 tariffs on Canada are also far smaller — just 5% of Canadian imports — than Trump’s 2025 worldwide tariffs, meaning that fewer companies have to pay them and can claim to have been injured by them.

There’s also a chance, Albrecht said, that the two countries will resume the talks they broke off Aug. 21 and reach a compromise to end a standoff neither country wants. “I’m hopeful that somebody blinks, that they come to some agreement and it all goes away,” she said.

Yair Netanyahu, a podcaster and right-wing activist, had been living in the US for several years prior to his departure.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s eldest son was flown back to Israel from the United States after a threat to his life, according to Israel’s domestic intelligence agency.

The Shin Bet said in a statement on Saturday evening that, “there was a significant threat to harm Yair Netanyahu, and in light of this and after an assessment, a decision was made to urgently evacuate him along with his security team and return him to Israel”.

The agency did not specify the source of the threat.

US broadcaster Newsmax reported earlier this week that Yair Netanyahu was the target of an alleged Iranian assassination plot last December, while he was living in Florida.

Israeli intelligence informed US authorities after it had learned of the alleged plot, the broadcaster reported, citing a US law enforcement official.

The report surfaced after Benjamin Netanyahu told Israel’s Channel 14 that “Iran targeted one of my sons. Iran tried to kill, to murder one of my sons”.

Yair Netanyahu, who was constantly accompanied by an Israeli security team, was ordered to leave the area immediately, Newsmax reported. He left without taking his personal belongings and returned directly to Israel.

Netanyahu’s eldest son has lived in Florida for several years, where his “reportedly luxurious lifestyle and the state-funded security provided to him repeatedly drew public attention in Israel”, reported The Times of Israel.

His continued residency in the US after the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel provoked criticism from many Israelis. They questioned the double standard of Netanyahu’s son remaining overseas while hundreds of thousands of Israeli reservists were called up, the Israeli newspaper reported.

The right-wing activist and podcaster is active on social media, frequently commenting on Israeli politics and attacking his father’s political opponents, government critics and journalists.

Bogota, Colombia – Opposition politicians and migrant communities in Colombia have decried President Abelardo de la Espriella’s plan to launch a deportation campaign against foreign nationals living irregularly in the country.

De la Espriella unveiled the crackdown during a security council meeting on Sunday, ordering police to begin operations as soon as this week.

The policy is expected to primarily affect Venezuelans, by far the largest migrant population in Colombia.

It marks a stark departure from measures under previous administrations, which largely sought to create legal immigration pathways for those fleeing hardship in neighbouring Venezuela.

“I will not accept any illegal immigrants, wherever they come from,” said de la Espriella in a video shared on the social media platform X on Sunday evening. “They will have to leave and be deported. It is a political decision I am taking responsibility for.”

The far-right president – who was inaugurated earlier this month – said his government will first target those “committing crimes” and then those whose “status has not been regularised”.

While de la Espriella did not address any specific nationalities, some 95 percent of Colombia’s migrant population are Venezuelan, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental group.

Approximately 2.8 million Venezuelans reside in Colombia, making it home to the largest Venezuelan migrant community in the world.

While nearly 2 million have a Temporary Protection Permit (PPT) authorising them to live in the country, an estimated 500,000 lack permission to be in Colombia, according to migration authorities. Many of them were granted temporary permits that have since expired.

De la Espriella, a political outsider, pledged to tackle illegal immigration during his presidential campaign, his first bid for elected office.

The former lawyer has aligned himself with right-wing leaders such as US President Donald Trump, who initiated his own deportation campaign in the United States.

De la Espriella’s declaration on Sunday triggered uproar among opposition leaders, including leftist Senator Ivan Cepeda, who narrowly lost the presidency in a June run-off. He leads the Historic Pact, the largest party in Colombia’s Congress.

“Today, de la Espriella has added xenophobia to all the authoritarian, despotic and discriminatory traits of his policies,” Cepeda wrote on X.

Cepeda then accused de la Espriella of failing to protect Colombian deportees from the United States.

“De la Espriella is bold enough to target migrants from Latin American countries in Colombia, yet cowardly when it comes to protecting our fellow migrants in the United States,” he said.

Maria del Mar Pizarro, a Historic Pact congresswoman, also denounced de la Espriella’s plans in an interview with Al Jazeera. She questioned whether the deportation campaign was about security or discrimination.

“Foreign nationals who commit crimes must be prosecuted,” she said. “But persecuting and deporting someone — simply because their immigration status is not in order — is populism, not security.”

Given the porous nature of the roughly 2,200-kilometre (1,370-mile) land border between the two countries, Pizarro added that there is little to stop deported Venezuelans from returning to Colombia.

“Without border control, legalisation and intelligence efforts against criminal gangs, the government pays for the deportation, and the problem returns,” she said.

Venezuelan diaspora fears policy implications

De la Espriella has announced that the deportation operation will begin with a pilot programme in the coastal city of Barranquilla, which is home to an estimated 182,000 Venezuelans.

Members of the Venezuelan diaspora in the city, however, fear that the crackdown will feed into stereotypes about their community.

“We must not confuse irregular immigration status with criminality. They are two completely different things,” said Juan Carlos Viloria Doria, the vice president of Venezuelans in Barranquilla, a migrant advocacy organisation.

While he backed the need to prosecute those who commit crimes, he said the law should apply to everyone “independent of nationality”.

Viloria also noted that many migrants could face political persecution if deported back to Venezuela.

Experts at the United Nations and other human rights watchdogs have accused the Venezuelan government of “repressive” activities, including the arbitrary detention and torture of political dissidents.

“We have people who left because they believed their lives, their freedom, or their safety were at risk,” Viloria explained. “Added to that are the economic, social and humanitarian conditions that Venezuela still faces.”

Despite being home to the world’s largest petroleum reserves, Venezuela has suffered from a plummeting gross domestic product (GDP) and rampant hyperinflation in the past decade.

Critics of the governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) say it has presided over chronic economic mismanagement, funnelling oil profits to a small elite while underfunding public services.

The Venezuelan government, however, argues it has been constrained by US sanctions, which have affected oil revenue, trade and foreign investment.

Faced with Venezuela’s economic crisis and threats of political persecution, some 7.6 million citizens have left the country since 2014, according to the UN.

Ronald Vergara moved to Colombia in 2016 and founded Fundacion Hermanos Caminantes, a nongovernmental organisation that supports recently arrived migrants. He fears how de la Espriella’s crackdown may harm an already struggling community.

“It would truly be inhumane to deport people who came here to survive and to work – decent people, who account for the majority of us,” he told Al Jazeera.

Despite living in Colombia for 10 years, Vergara was only granted a Temporary Protection Permit a few months ago, due to delays in the system. He said that residing in Colombia without papers limited his opportunities.

“I always felt excluded. I was never able to get a job that paid a decent wage,” he explained.

Vergara also said he has seen cases where those who had a Temporary Protection Permit lost their legal status because their identity card was lost or stolen. Thousands of others are still waiting to be granted their papers, including his son.

“He’s 17 and about to graduate from high school, but he can’t graduate without the PPT,” said Vergara.

A departure from political tradition

De la Espriella’s announcement heralds a new era of anti-immigrant politics in Colombia, according to experts.

Since the Venezuelan migration crisis began, successive administrations in Bogota have responded by offering new arrivals assistance and opportunities for integration.

In 2017, for instance, then-President Juan Manuel Santos introduced a two-year temporary permit for Venezuelans called the Special Permit of Permanence and bolstered humanitarian assistance on the border.

His successor, right-wing leader Ivan Duque, severed relations with Caracas in 2019, closing the land border to vehicular traffic and suspending air travel. But he still offered migrants the chance to remain in Colombia by rolling out the PPT in 2021.

Most recently, Colombia’s first left-wing president, Gustavo Petro, presided over a thaw in bilateral relations with Venezuela and adopted a pro-migrant stance. His presidency ended this year, with de la Espriella’s victory.

Ronal Rodriguez, a spokesperson at the Venezuela Observatory, a research centre at Bogota’s Rosario University, said de la Espriella’s policies interrupt a years-long trend.

“Everyone had a favourable stance toward migration and, in particular, used language that promoted integration,” Rodriguez explained.

“Unfortunately, I believe that this ends – for the moment – with what President Abelardo de la Espriella is now saying.”

While the president has pledged a crackdown on irregular migrants, the full details of his deportation platform have yet to be revealed.

For Rodriguez, de la Espriella may yet back down from his bold declarations.

He hopes that the president will “reconsider and return to the Colombian government’s policy of integration”.

PHOENIX — The Trump administration has begun work on a project to build a stretch of border wall in southern Arizona along part of a Native American tribe’s reservation, pushing ahead with one of its signature projects despite protests from the tribe.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection says the area is a dangerous smuggling route and that building the wall will close a longstanding security gap. But members of the Tohono O’odham Nation, whose membership spans both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, have accused the administration of trespassing and say the construction will damage land sacred to the tribe.

The wall segment is part of a $46 billion effort by the Trump administration to fill the border with 30-foot steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers, and technology designed to stop undocumented immigration and smuggling.

But as building efforts have ramped up, the administration has run into opposition from landowners, environmental groups, and Native American tribes who say construction is violating property rights and desecrating sacred Indigenous sites.

The Tohono O’odham Nation said in a statement Tuesday that about 20 Customs and Border Protection officers, working with contractors, went onto the tribe’s land early that morning to begin construction.

Drone videos published by nation officials show roughly 14 vehicles and an industrial drill at one of the sites.

A federal judge permitted the government to move forward with construction earlier this month, but the tribe says the contractors are violating tribal codes and trespassing to access the border wall site.

The Tohono O’odham Nation, which has 37,000 members including thousands who live in Mexico, sued the federal government in June in an attempt to block construction of the border wall. The tribe argued that the wall would cause “significant devastation” on the reservation, including the destruction of mountain peaks sacred to the tribe, and would alter boundaries of their nation.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ruled in favor of the government, noting that the border wall would be built on a 60-foot wide buffer zone of federally owned land called the Roosevelt Reservation.

“Defendants have not yet articulated plans to construct outside the Roosevelt Reservation,” the judge wrote in his opinion.

The Tohono O’odham Nation said that even if construction were contained to the Roosevelt Reservation, driving onto tribal land to access the area still constitutes trespassing.

“The contractors, who are on the Nation illegally, were accompanied by agents as they worked on three separate locations near the border with drill trucks to conduct soil sampling and other activities,” tribal officials said in a statement.

The CBP agents were masked, armed, and set up a vehicle blockade to stop tribal police from removing the contractors, according to Tohono O’odham officials. The nation had set up “No Trespassing” signs before Tuesday.

So far, no physical confrontations between police or members of the Tohono O’odham Nation have been reported.

CBP defended the need for the wall in a statement Tuesday, saying the desert spanning the Tohono O’odham Nation is a corridor for drug smuggling.

“The project will close one of the most dangerous smuggling and trafficking corridors on the Southwest border: remote desert that has facilitated decades of drug loads, migrant deaths, and cartel activity,” said CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott.

Tribal officials said they’re exploring further legal actions in an effort to remove contractors.

SLSCO Ltd., the Texas-based construction company building the section in Arizona, has secured over $390 million in funding from the Department of Homeland Security to build the border wall since 2023.

Schuettler writes for the Associated Press.

At a Kathmandu hospital, families peer at lists of those who are critical, dead — or have been released.

Kathmandu/Nuwakot/Trishuli, Nepal – Loknath Chaulagain is looking for his 23-year-old nephew Sudarshan at Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal’s capital.

A bus conductor, Sudarshan was waiting at the checkpoint in Timure, a town bordering Tibet, when the flash flood that devastated parts of Nepal and Tibet struck on Wednesday. His family says a phone call went through to his number at 9:54am local time – after the flash flood struck the border region – but Sudarshan did not pick up the call. Since then, his phone has been unreachable.

The family has been searching for him – near where the floods struck, and now in Kathmandu’s hospitals, where some survivors have been brought. But so far, they’ve had no luck.

They’re not alone. Thousands of families in Nepal are still stranded in the no-man’s land between hope and fear: hopes of an impossible miracle and worst fears of losing someone they love.

Two days after the flash flood swept away much of what lay in its path along the Bhotekoshi River in the northern Himalayan region bordering Tibet, the full scale of devastation is yet to be ascertained in Nepal. The death toll is on the rise, with nearly 500 bodies recovered. The missing toll is well over 1,000 and is expected to rise further.

The wall of water with ice and mud that surged downstream with fury on August 26 caused maximum damage to Timure, Rasuwagadhi and Syabrubesi in the higher Rasuwa region nearer to Tibetan border checkpoints.

Downstream, it washed away buildings, electric poles, bridges, markets, homes and vehicles that stood in its path in Trishuli and Nuwakot regions.

The usually buzzing Trishuli market is today covered in mud, sludge and debris. Locals, including many Indians who have made the area their home for many years, beg and plead with relief workers to take them to their destroyed homes in earthmovers to retrieve whatever may be left of their belongings.

Helicopters whirred nonstop on Wednesday and Thursday in these areas, trying to rescue those trapped under the rubble or washed away and stranded in dangerous situations. Those rescued with lighter injuries are being treated at the army camp helipad medical unit, while those with grievous injuries are being airlifted to bigger facilities in Kathmandu.

At the Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital, people come by and plaster posters on walls with photographs and contact details of missing friends and family. Other hospital pillars bear lists of those who have been admitted or are in critical condition – or those who have been killed: five-year-old Ishara Tamang in paediatric surgery; 30-year-old Tej Bhadur Tamang in the ICU; 25-year-old male Kusal Magar, listed as dead. Multiple pairs of concerned eyes gaze intensely at these lists, hoping to find their loved ones there.

Among them is Sohan, a young man who does not want to speak to journalists on camera. He is searching for his 42-year-old father, Gyan Bahadur Rana Magar. “Three days on, we are searching and still trying to find him,” he says. His father went with Indian tourists as a guide to Rasuwa, the border district with Tibet that is one of the worst affected.

When the lists on pillars offer no answers, people searching for their loved ones head to the mortuary where photographs of some of the recovered bodies have been glued to the gates. Many bodies were found dismembered; some were missing limbs. When someone finds a hint of familiarity, they inform security officials, who let them in after some identification check to take a look at the body.

Dressed in a red saree and blouse, and wearing a red pothe necklace  – a traditional glass-bead necklace worn by married women in Nepal – Lal Kumari is desperately looking for her husband, Arjun Shreshtha. A tourist van driver in his late 40s, he was swept away by the flood in Rasuwa district. Kumari has three children, including a married daughter and a grandchild, and her only question is: Could her husband, miraculously, still be alive?

WASHINGTON — For the last six months, President Trump has attempted to control the narrative of the Iran war.

As days, weeks and months passed, he repeatedly said that an agreement to end the conflict was close at hand and that Iran was already defeated. Between fraught negotiations, Trump has gone from conciliatory to antagonistic, characterizing Iran’s new leadership as more “rational” than their predecessors, only to later call them “sick individuals.”

There have even been times the commander in chief contradicted himself and his own Cabinet in the same week — and sometimes, the same day.

Friday marks the sixth month of the war launched by the U.S. and Israel. Among U.S. forces, there have been at least 18 killed and 758 wounded, according to Pentagon data. The Human Rights Activists News Agency puts the death toll in Iran at 3,636. In Lebanon, officials, say more than 4,300 have died. The Israeli military reported 72 deaths, and at least 50 civilians have died, according to news reports.

Here is a recap of notable comments Trump made in public remarks and on social media during half a year of war:

What he said: “The United States military has undertaken a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests.”

In announcing the start of Operation Epic Fury from the White House, Trump called Iran the world’s No. 1 state sponsor of terror and recalled actions by Iran or its proxies, such as the hostage crisis of 1979 and the bombing of a Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 that left 241 dead.

The goals of the operation, Trump said, were to destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its naval capabilities and missile industry and to ensure that Iranian proxies — including Hezbollah and Hamas — were thwarted. He implored Iranian citizens to rise up against the government.

Women carry the casket of a teacher from Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School toward the cemetery in Minab, Iran, on March 30. The teacher was among those killed in a missile strike on Feb. 28, the first day of the war on Iran.

(Zohreh Saberi / For The Times)

What happened: That morning the U.S. and Israel conducted airstrikes on Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as well as other key military and government figures. According to Iran’s Red Crescent, 24 of Iran’s 32 provinces were hit in the first day of bombings, with more than 200 deaths and 700 injuries reported. Iranian officials said that at least 120 students and 26 teachers died in a missile strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab.

Iran retaliated by launching missiles at Israel and U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps also warned ships to not travel through the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway for 20% of the world’s oil and energy supplies.

What he said: “We grieve for the true American patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, even as we continue the righteous mission for which they gave their lives. Sadly, there will likely be more.”

Trump announced that at least three service members were killed in an Iranian attack, the first U.S. casualties in the war.

In an interview with the New York Times, Trump was asked how long the U.S. and Israel could sustain its offensive in Iran. “It won’t be difficult,” he replied. “We have tremendous amounts of ammunition. You know, we have ammunition stored all over the world in different countries.”

What happened: An Iranian one-way drone attack was launched against the industrial Port Shuaiba in Kuwait, where American soldiers set up an operations center after abandoning the larger Camp Arifjan military installation.

What he said: “We projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that.”

At a Medal of Honor ceremony at the White House, Trump assessed the progress of the attacks on Iran, saying the U.S. was “already substantially ahead of our time projections.”

Retired Command Sgt. Maj. Terry P. Richardson is presented the Medal of Honor by President Trump on March 2, the same day Trump said progress in the war on Iran was exceeding projections. ..

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

What happened: The conflict expanded, with Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon launching drones against Israel.

Israel’s counter-strike would ultimately decapitate Hezbollah leadership, but strikes between the two forces would continue through the first week of war.

U.S. Central Command increased the number of U.S. troop deaths in the Kuwait strike to six from three.

What he said: “The war itself is going unbelievably. It’s as good as it can be.”

He said that the U.S. “wiped out” the Iranian navy, air force, drone manufacturing capabilities and “every form of leadership you can have,” adding that he was interested in being a part of the selection of Iran’s new leader.

He also said that he believed the strike on the Minab school was a misdirected missile launched by Iran. He offered no evidence.

The family of 8-year-old Reza Habashian, a second-grader killed in the strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School, observes the Persian New Year at his graveside in Minab, Iran, on March 20.

(Zohreh Saberi / For The Times)

What happened: Iranian drone and missile strikes on gulf neighbors continued.

The day after Trump said Iranians had no existing leadership prospects, Mojtaba Khamenei, one of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s sons, would become the new supreme leader.

U.S. officials familiar with the preliminary findings of an investigation into the Minab school strikes leaked information to the New York Times that indicated the U.S. had bombed the school as a result of a “targeting mistake.”

What he said: “Watch what happens to these deranged scumbags today. They’ve been killing innocent people all over the world for 47 years, and now I, as the 47th President of the United States of America, am killing them. What a great honor it is to do so!”

In a Fox News radio interview with Brian Kilmeade, Trump said that an uprising by Iranian civilians appeared likely. “It’ll happen, but it probably will be, maybe not immediately,” he said.

What happened: Iran and Hezbollah continued joint attacks against Israel, while Israel continued its own large-scale strikes on Beirut and Tehran.

On March 13, a U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker — a refueling and airlift plane — crashed over Western Iraq without being attacked, resulting in the death of six more U.S. service members, Central Command announced. The U.S. death toll increased to 13.

What he said: “I think we won. All they’re doing is clogging up the Strait [of Hormuz], but from a military standpoint, they’re finished.”

Lightning streaks across the sky over an oil tanker on March 21 at Sultan Qaboos Port in Muscat, Oman.

(Elke Scholiers / Getty Images)

That same afternoon, in a post on his social media website, Trump said the U.S. was considering “winding down” military efforts in Iran.

What happened: The Pentagon said in a statement that it would send three warships and roughly 2,500 Marines to the Middle East for “routine training.”

What he said: “I am pleased to report that the United States of America and the country Iran have had, over the last two days, very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East.”

Trump also postponed military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure after threatening to do so if Iran did not open access to the Strait of Hormuz.

What happened: Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker, responded to Trump’s claims in a post on X. “No negotiations have been held with the U.S.,” Qalibaf wrote, adding that he believed the U.S. was using the prospect of an accord to ease strain on financial and oil markets.

What he said: “The United States of America is in serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME to end our Military Operations in Iran.”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei, addressing journalists in Tehran on March 30, said a truce plan proposed by the United States contained “very excessive, unrealistic and unreasonable” demands.

(Shadati / Xinhua / Getty Images)

While saying in a social media post that progress had been made, Trump leveled additional threats if a pact wasn’t reached shortly. “We will conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island,” he wrote.

What happened: Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei once again rejected that direct talks with the U.S. had taken place, describing the proposed terms as “unrealistic, unreasonable and excessive.”

What he said: “We’re gonna hit them hard over the next two to three weeks. We’re gonna bring them back to the stone ages, where they belong.”

In an address to the nation, Trump also denied that a change of governments was ever a goal in attacking Iran.

What happened: Thousands more U.S. troops arrived in the Middle East amid continuous back-and-forth strikes. Iran hit an oil tanker off Qatar’s coast and fired missiles and drones at Jordan, which were intercepted. Israel carried out strikes on a Beirut neighborhood.

What he said: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”

Vice President JD Vance holds a cellphone up to a microphone while on a call with President Trump at an event on April 7..

(Jonathan Ernst / Pool Photo)

What happened: Trump’s post about a whole civilization dying went live around 5 a.m., but later in the day the U.S. and Iran announced a two-week truce. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said in a statement that the truce did not “signify the termination of the war.”

What he said: “Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz.”

What happened: U.S. Central Command announced that the blockade of Iranian ports began at 10 a.m. Eastern. Central Command said the blockade would be “enforced impartially against vessels of all nations” entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas.

People pass in front of a pro-government political mural in Tehran on April 12.

(Majid Saeedi / Getty Images)

What he said: “I think it’s close to over, yeah. I view it as very close to being over.”

Trump’s comment to Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo on “Mornings with Maria” came two days after he announced the blockade of Iranian ports.

What happened: Though the ceasefire continued to hold, Iran officials had not relented on their right to enrich uranium, to maintain conventional defensive capabilities and to police traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

What he said: “I didn’t guarantee no war. Why would I have built the strongest military in the world?”

In an interview with Kristen Welker of NBC on the 100th day of the conflict, Trump claimed that he had never promised during his campaign that he would not engage in new wars in the Middle East.

President Trump sits for an interview with NBC’s Kristen Welker.

(Adam Bettcher / NBC / Getty Images)

What happened: On multiple occasions during his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump suggested that he wouldn’t start new “endless wars.”

In a social media post in late June 2024, he framed the election as a choice between “peace and prosperity or war and no war.”

What he said: “It’s a memorandum of understanding, and if I don’t like it, we’ll go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head.”

Trump spoke the same day he signed a 14-point Memorandum of Understanding with Iran to cease hostilities for 60 days. Trump put his signature to the memorandum while attending a dinner with French President Emmanuel Macron in Versailles.

French First Lady Brigitte Macron, President Emmanuel Macron and President Trump meet at the Palace of Versailles in France on June 17.

(Mustafa Yalcin / Anadolu / Getty Images)

What happened: The document set out a series of conditions, including the release billions of dollars in Iranian assets that were frozen and restricted by the United States “upon the implementation” of the memorandum.

Some issues, such as the future of Iran’s nuclear program, were set aside for negotiations down the road.

The White Housed pushed back on bipartisan criticism of the deal, arguing its concessions were contingent on Iran’s conduct.

What he said: “There may come a point when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist!”

President Trump boards Air Force One on Aug. 9 at Morristown Airport in Morristown, N.J.

(Eric Lee / Getty Images)

What happened: Trump’s social media post came as Iran and the U.S. continued to carry out strikes in the Middle East despite the memorandum. CENTCOM announced that military surveillance, air defense sites and drone storage facilities were struck after an Iranian attack on a container ship, the Ever Lovely.

What he said: “Iran has been very, very badly damaged. They’ve lost everything, almost, militarily. … They’ve got very little left; They’ve got some missiles; They’ve got some drones; They’ve got some manufacturing ability, not much; We control the Strait.”

People gather July 19 on a bridge rendered unusable in a U.S. airstrike in Iran’s Hormozgan province. Iranian authorities said the United States carried out attacks on 95 locations in Iran over the previous 10 days.

(Amir Hossein Khorgooei / Anadolu / Getty Images)

What happened: According to a CENTCOM press release, the U.S. completed 13 nights of consecutive strikes against Iran by July 23, adding to an earlier announcement that Iran had attacked more than 30 commercial vehicles in the previous three months of conflict.

What he said: “I think it’s going to end really soon.”

Trump made the comment in the Oval Office while back-and-forth strikes — primarily over control of the Strait of Hormuz — continued.

What happened: According to a report by NPR, Iran’s parliament aimed to block U.S. and Israeli access to the Strait of Hormuz, despite Trump’s assertion that the waterway was under his control.

What he said: “We are only semi-negotiating with them. We are just watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money.”

Trump’s comments reflected how U.S. officials sought to readjust wartime strategy after multiple rounds of failed negotiations. Trump told Axios that he would not proceed with expanded strikes against Iran, as the U.S. was “low-keying” its approach to the conflict.

What happened: As the war approached its six-month mark, both sides mostly ceased military attacks, but shifted to economic pressure.

“ANY country that allows its financial institutions, businesses, airports, or government entities to provide any type of lifeline to Iran will itself face TREMENDOUS Economic Consequences,” Trump wrote in an Aug. 19 post, threatening “ECONOMIC D-DAY” if Iran did not comply with his demands.

According to Reuters, Qalibaf, the Iranian parliament speaker, said that the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed until military threats ceased and sanctions on Iran were lifted.

What he said: “IRAN IS COMPLETELY COLLAPSING!!!”

What happened: In a post on X three days before Trump’s “completely collapsing” post, the hard-line leader of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council had noted economic sanctions placed on Iran by previous presidents, including Obama and Biden, and said they had all failed.

“We have seen this movie before,” he wrote. “Same bull. Different bullies.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and other officials attend an event at the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in Tehran on Aug. 23.

(Anadolu / Getty Images)

Court order rules that Pentagon acted illegally, punishing AI company for criticism of government.

A United States judge has blocked the Pentagon’s blacklisting of technology company Anthropic.

In a 59-page written order issued on Thursday night, District Judge Rita Lin ruled that the Department of Defense had acted illegally when it designated the company a supply chain risk to national security.

The decision marks the latest turn in the Claude maker’s high-stakes fight with the US military over artificial intelligence safety on the battlefield. The government is expected to fight the ruling.

The judge’s order rebuked the Pentagon, saying it had targeted and punished Anthropic for the company’s public criticism of the Defense Department’s stance on AI deployment on the battlefield.

“The empty invocation of national security is not a blank check to punish and retaliate against government critics,” Lin, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, wrote.

Autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance

Anthropic’s lawsuit in a California federal court alleges that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth overstepped his authority when he designated the company a national security supply-chain risk.

Hegseth’s move, which blocked Anthropic from military contracts, followed the company’s refusal to allow the military to use its Claude AI models for US surveillance or autonomous weapons.

Anthropic argues that AI models are not reliable enough for autonomous weapons and opposes domestic surveillance. The Pentagon maintains that private companies should not constrain military action.

Executives have said the ban could cost the company billions of dollars in lost business.

During a hearing on July 30, Lin described the government’s position as “really troubling” and “at odds … with the First Amendment”, adding that the record had “gotten worse for the government” over time.

In the same hearing, Department of Justice lawyers argued that the nature of AI models is “so staggeringly enormous and opaque” that the Pentagon cannot evaluate them like physical hardware.

First use of obscure statute

Anthropic welcomed the ruling, stating it remained “focused on working productively with the government to harness AI for our national security so all Americans benefit from this technology”.

The designation was the first time a US company has been publicly labelled a supply-chain risk under an obscure procurement statute aimed at protecting military systems from foreign sabotage.

In its lawsuit, Anthropic alleged the government violated its constitutional rights to free speech and due process by retaliating against its views on AI safety without allowing it to dispute the claim.

The lawsuit called the decision unlawful, unsupported by facts, and inconsistent with the military’s past praise of Claude.

There was no immediate comment from the Pentagon on the ruling.