Government

Legislative, regional elections are the first to allow broad voter participation since last year’s disputed presidential vote.

Venezuelans are casting their ballots in legislative and regional elections under the shadow of a heightened government crackdown and opposition leaders calling for a boycott.

Sunday’s elections are the first to allow comprehensive voter participation since last year’s disputed presidential vote, which President Nicolas Maduro claimed to have won despite contradictory evidence.

It is also taking place two days after the government detained dozens of people, including a prominent opposition leader, and accused them of being linked to an alleged plot to hinder the vote.

In the first hours after the polls opened, members of the military reportedly outnumbered voters in some voting centres in the capital, Caracas. No lines formed outside the polling stations, including the country’s largest – a stark contrast with the hundreds of people gathered around the same time for the July 28 presidential election.

Many people appeared to have lost faith in the electoral process. “I am not going to vote after they stole the elections last year. For what? I don’t want to be disappointed again,” Caracas resident Paula Aranguren said.

In the eyes of the opposition, voter participation legitimises Maduro’s claim to power and what they brand as his government’s repressive apparatus.

After the presidential election, 25 people were reportedly killed and more than 2,000 people were detained – including protesters, poll workers, political activists and minors – to quash dissent. The government also issued arrest warrants against opposition leaders, levelling charges against them ranging from conspiracy to falsifying records.

Despite the risks, campaigning for some has remained a key form of resistance against the government.

“History is full of evidence that voting is an instrument towards democracy,” Henrique Capriles, a former opposition presidential candidate now running for a seat in the National Assembly, told Al Jazeera.

“I believe the way we stood for our rights last year kept alive the peaceful fight for our constitution because voting is what we have left to manifest our rejection of Maduro and his government,” Capriles said.

Meanwhile, the ruling party is touting an overwhelming victory across the country, just as it has done in previous regional elections.

A nationwide poll conducted from April 29 to May 4 by the Venezuela-based research firm Delphos showed only 15.9 percent of voters expressed a high probability of voting on Sunday.

Of those, 74.2 percent said they would vote for the candidates of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela and its allies while 13.8 percent said they would vote for contenders associated with two opposition leaders who are not boycotting the elections.

Maduro accuses the opposition of attempts to destabilise the country.

“The death throes of fascism have tried to bring in mercenaries, and today, we have already captured more than 50 mercenaries who came in to plant bombs or launch violent attacks in the country,” he told supporters before election day.

Political analysts said the chances that free and fair elections would take place are practically nonexistent.

“There won’t be witnesses at the table, very few witnesses. Nobody wants to be a witness,” political analyst Benigno Alarcon told Al Jazeera, adding that low voter turnout, no understanding of who the candidates are and the lack of international observers are likely going to make the elections unfair.

Some voters who cast ballots on Sunday said they did so out of fear of losing their government jobs or food and other state-controlled benefits.

“Most of my friends aren’t going to vote, not even a blank vote,” state employee Miguel Otero, 69, told The Associated Press news agency. “But we must comply. We have to send the photo [showing] I’m here at the polling station now.”

The Gran Morgu project may transform Suriname’s economy, rivalling oil-rich neighbour Guyana by 2028, officials predict.

Voters in Suriname, which is on the cusp of a much anticipated oil boom, have begun to elect a new parliament, which will subsequently choose the next president of the smallest nation in South America.

Sunday’s elections have already been marked by fraud allegations and have seen little debate about what the next government, which will hold power until 2030, should do with income from the offshore oil and gas Gran Morgu project. It is to begin production in 2028.

Experts said Suriname, a country beset by poverty and rampant inflation, is projected to make billions of dollars in the coming decade or two from recently discovered offshore crude deposits.

The project, led by TotalEnergies, is Suriname’s first major offshore effort. The former Dutch colony, independent since 1975, discovered reserves that may allow it to compete with neighbouring Guyana – whose economy grew 43.6 percent last year – as a prominent producer.

“It will be a huge amount of income for the country,” President Chan Santokhi told the AFP news agency this week. “We are now able … to do more for our people, so that everyone can be part of the growth of the nation.”

Santokhi is constitutionally eligible for a second term, but with no single party in a clear lead in the elections, pollsters are not predicting the outcome.

The party with the most seats will lead Suriname’s next government, likely through a coalition with smaller parties, but negotiations and the choosing of a new president are expected to take weeks.

Fourteen parties are taking part in the elections, including Santokhi’s centrist Progressive Reform Party and the leftist National Democratic Party of deceased former coup leader and elected President Desi Bouterse.

Also in the running is the centre-left General Liberation and Development Party of Vice President Ronnie Brunswijk, a former rebel who fought against Bouterse’s government in the 1980s.

Provisional results are expected by late Sunday.

Suriname – a diverse country made up of descendants of people from India, Indonesia, China, the Netherlands, Indigenous groups and enslaved Africans – will mark the 50th anniversary of its independence from the Netherlands in November.

Since independence, it has looked increasingly towards China as a political ally and trading partner and in 2019 became one of the first Latin American countries to join the Asian giant’s Belt and Road infrastructure drive.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio made a stopover in Suriname in March on a regional tour aimed at countering China’s growing influence in the region.

More than 90 percent of the country is covered in forest, and it is one of few in the world with a negative carbon footprint.

Santokhi insisted this status is not in danger and Suriname can use its oil windfall “for the transition towards the green energy which we need, also because we know the fossil energy is limited”.

“It will be gone after 40 years.”

On the surface, it was a routine closed-door meeting between Bangladesh’s interim leader and Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus and the chiefs of the country’s three armed forces, to discuss law and order.

But the May 20 meeting came amid what multiple officials familiar with the internal workings of the government described to Al Jazeera as an intensifying power struggle in Dhaka. Portrayed in both social and mainstream media in Bangladesh as a “cold war” between the armed forces and the interim administration, these tensions now threaten the future of Yunus’s role, nine months after he took charge following the ousting of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the ruling Awami League.

Hasina fled to India in August 2024 amid a mass uprising against her 15-year-long rule, during which she was accused of orchestrating extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

We unpack the latest tumult in Bangladesh, and what it means for the country’s fledgling efforts to return to electoral democracy.

Why are tensions mounting between the military and the government?

The Bangladesh Army has remained deployed since July 2024, following the mass protests that led to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s ouster. Their continued presence was necessitated by the collapse of civilian law enforcement during the upheaval, including a nationwide police strike that left many stations abandoned and public order in disarray.

Although the police resumed operations in mid-August, the army’s presence has been maintained as part of a civil-military consensus, because of unrest in the country.

On Wednesday, Bangladesh’s army chief, General Waker-Uz-Zaman, publicly urged that national elections be held by December this year, warning that prolonged deployment of the army for civil duties could compromise the country’s defences.

According to a report by The Daily Star, General Waker told a high-level gathering at Dhaka Cantonment, “Bangladesh needs political stability. This is only possible through an elected government, not by unelected decision-makers.” The comments came during a rare address in which he delivered a 30-minute speech, followed by more than an hour of questions and answers. Officers from across the country and at Bangladeshi UN missions reportedly joined the event, both physically and virtually, in full combat uniform – a show of unity and resolve.

“The army is meant for defending the nation, not for policing … We must return to barracks after elections,” Waker was quoted in The Daily Star as saying.

His remarks indicate a difference of opinion with the Yunus administration’s stated intention of holding elections no earlier than mid-2026, to allow time for political and electoral reforms first, in order to ensure a fair election.

According to local media reports, Waker is also strongly opposed to key initiatives being considered by the interim government. On a proposed humanitarian corridor into Myanmar’s Rakhine State, he reportedly said: “There will be no corridor. The sovereignty of Bangladesh is not negotiable.” He warned that any such move could drag Bangladesh into a dangerous proxy conflict. “Only a political government elected by the people can make such decisions,” he said, according to the paper.

The army chief also voiced concern about making other decisions without an electoral mandate – including the potential foreign management of Chattogram Port, Bangladesh’s main seaport, and the launch of Starlink, Elon Musk’s satellite internet service – which he said could compromise national security. “The army will not allow anyone to compromise our sovereignty,” The Daily Star quoted him as saying.

His remarks came amid widespread speculation – still unaddressed by either the military or the government – that the Yunus administration had attempted to remove General Waker from his post last week. Though unconfirmed, the rumour has dominated public discourse and prompted questions about civil-military relations during the transitional period.

The timing, therefore, of General Waker’s assertive public statement – and its emphasis on constitutional process and national sovereignty – is widely viewed as a signal of growing unease within the military over the interim government’s expanding civilian initiatives, according to analysts.

Are there tensions with political parties as well?

Yes. Since its formation on August 8 last year, the interim government has faced escalating pressure from different sides. While the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) insists that national elections must be held by December, the National Citizen Party (NCP) – a student-led party formed earlier this year – and several other political groups argue that sweeping reforms and the prosecution of former Awami League (AL) leaders for killings resulting from the brutal crackdown on student-led protests last year must precede any election.

Bangladesh’s largest political party, the BNP, has launched a wave of protests over other demands as well, including that its candidate, who lost an allegedly rigged mayoral election in Dhaka on February 1, 2020, under the Awami League regime, be reinstated as mayor.

On Thursday, the BNP held a news conference demanding an election by the end of the year, as well as the resignation of two student advisers and the national security adviser. The party warned that without these steps, continued cooperation with the Yunus-led administration would become untenable.

On Saturday, Yunus is expected to meet with both the BNP and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami (BJI), the largest Islamic political party in Bangladesh.

Is Yunus preparing to resign?

Amid this growing turbulence, speculation has intensified that Yunus may be preparing to resign. Local media began reporting that he had indicated that he intended to step down and address the nation in a televised statement, during a cabinet meeting on Thursday afternoon, following widespread social media chatter.

That evening, Nahid Islam – a student leader from the July uprising against the previous government and now head of the newly formed National Citizen Party (NCP) – met Yunus along with two student advisers to make an appeal for him to stay on.

After the meeting, Nahid confirmed to BBC Bangla that Yunus was seriously considering stepping down.

By Friday evening (13:00 GMT), sources within the interim administration told Al Jazeera that Yunus was still weighing his options.

However, two government sources said Yunus is likely to convene an emergency cabinet meeting on Saturday, during which he is expected to discuss the next course of action. One of the sources confirmed that Yunus’s resignation remains a possibility.

Why might Yunus want to resign?

Yunus is contemplating resigning because of intensifying political pressure, according to local media reports.

Two advisers quoted in the Samakal newspaper said Yunus told cabinet members on Thursday that the political parties and other government institutions had failed to deliver on promises to cooperate with the transitional government to implement state reforms and a peaceful democratic transition since the fall of Hasina’s government last year.

It had become impossible to carry out his responsibilities, he was reported as saying. Pressure is also mounting to hold an election. “The prospect of a fair election in the current situation is slim,” he said. He was concerned any election would be interfered with or rigged and he did not want to have to take responsibility for it.

Later on Thursday evening, Yunus met Information Adviser Mahfuj Alam, Local Government Adviser Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuyain and NCP convenor Nahid Islam at his official residence, the Jamuna State Guest House in Dhaka.

Speaking to BBC Bangla afterwards, Nahid confirmed Yunus was considering resigning and quoted him as saying he felt “held hostage” by protests and political gridlock.

“I cannot work like this if you, all the political parties, cannot reach a common ground,” Nahid quoted Yunus as saying. He urged the interim leader to “remain strong”, stressing the hopes the public had pinned on him after the July uprising that ousted the Awami League government.

Meanwhile, Yunus’s ambitious reform agenda is reportedly faltering, with analysts noting that key arms of the state – including the police and civil bureaucracy – are increasingly slipping beyond the interim government’s control.

One striking example among many, they say, is a proposal to split the National Board of Revenue (NBR), the country’s authority for tax administration, overseeing the collection of income tax, value-added tax (VAT) and customs duties, into two separate entities – a move that the government says is aimed at enhancing efficiency and the integrity of Bangladesh’s tax system. This has been met with strong resistance from senior officials of the NBR over fears that experienced revenue officers will be sidelined.

What does the BNP want?

Speaking to Al Jazeera, BNP leader Amir Khasru Mahmud Chowdhury said his party does not want Yunus to resign. “Nobody asked for his resignation, and we do not want him to do so,” he stated.

“The people are waiting to cast their vote and bring back democracy. They have been deprived of this for nearly two decades,” said Khasru. “We expect him to go for a free and fair election and peacefully hand over power. That’s how he came in.”

He questioned the delay in setting an election timeline. “What is the wait for? This is something [about which] a very strong conversation is going on in the country.”

Khasru said the BNP wants the administration to move into caretaker mode – with a leaner cabinet and the removal of some controversial figures, particularly those with political ambitions or affiliations. “They have already floated a political party,” he said, referring to the student representatives. “Others made partisan statements. These should go if you’re serious about a credible election.”

He dismissed any contradiction between reforms and elections, saying both could move forward simultaneously. “Where there is consensus, reforms can be completed within weeks.”

Khasru also voiced confidence in the Election Commission and the role of the army in ensuring a fair vote. “This is not the era of Sheikh Hasina,” he remarked, suggesting a more conducive political environment for elections.

On the question of trying former Awami League leaders, he said judicial processes could continue in parallel. “The judiciary must do its job – the elected government will continue if more is needed.”

“BNP suffered the most under the previous regime,” he added. “The trials are a national consensus.”

BNP Standing Committee member Salahuddin Ahmed echoed this sentiment in a TV interview on Friday: “If Yunus is personally unable to carry out his duties, the state will find an alternative.” But he added: “As a globally respected figure, we hope he will understand the situation and announce an election roadmap by December.”

What do other political parties want?

NCP’s Senior Joint Convenor Ariful Islam Adeeb rejected the BNP’s narrative, telling Al Jazeera: “All parties were meant to support the interim government after the July uprising, but the BNP stuck to old tactics based on muscle power – that’s the root of the crisis.”

He urged unity, saying: “BNP and all other parties must come together for the national interest.”

Meanwhile, demonstrations and behind-the-scenes meetings continued across Dhaka. On Thursday evening, top leaders of five political parties, including the NCP, attended an emergency meeting at the headquarters of another Islamic political party, Islami Andolan Bangladesh (IAB), called by its chief Mufti Syed Muhammad Rezaul Karim.

They urged all “anti-fascist forces” to unite, defend national sovereignty, and support a credible election under Yunus after key reforms. Several of these parties, including BJI, argue that elections must come after key reforms – such as adopting a proportional voting system and ensuring accountability for past abuses – to prevent any repeat of past authoritarian practices. They believe holding elections without these changes would undermine public trust and risk another crisis.

BJI chief Shafiqur Rahman joined the IAB meeting via phone and endorsed the resolution. On Thursday, he urged Yunus to convene an all-party dialogue to resolve the crisis.

Then, on Friday night, BJI’s Shafiqur Rahman requested a meeting with Yunus, proposing to convene at 12:00 GMT (6pm local time) on Saturday.

Speaking to Al Jazeera on Friday night, NCP Joint Convenor Sarwar Tushar said: “Whatever the rumours, we believe Dr Muhammad Yunus is committed to his historic responsibility.

“There is massive expectation – both from the international community and the people,” he added.

While acknowledging political divisions, Tushar said: “If everyone moves beyond party agendas and focuses on a national agenda, the crisis can be resolved through dialogue.”

What can we expect next?

Political analyst Rezaul Karim Rony told Al Jazeera that talk of Yunus’s resignation may reflect growing frustration over the lack of unity within the transitional setup. “The unity that had formed around the post-uprising interim government appears to be weakening due to vested interests,” he said. “The resignation talk might be a signal underscoring the need to rebuild that unity.”

Rony suggested that certain government appointments may have alienated political parties, raising questions about whether some actors have agendas beyond the official reform mandate. “This could be one reason why the government is struggling to gain broad political cooperation and function effectively,” he noted.

Rony added: “At this point, advocating for elections may [make the administration] appear politically aligned with the BNP. But in the end, it should be up to the people to decide who they want to lead.”

NCP’s Nahid Islam, however, sees otherwise.

He warned in a Facebook post on Friday night: “There’s a conspiracy to sabotage the democratic transition and stage another 1/11-style arrangement.”

The term “1/11” refers to January 11, 2007, when the military-backed caretaker government took control in Bangladesh amid political chaos and ruled for two years, suspending democratic processes.

“Bangladesh has repeatedly been divided, national unity destroyed, to keep the country weak,” Nahid wrote.

Urging Yunus to stay in office and deliver on promises of reform, justice and voting rights, he said, “Dr Yunus must resolve all political crises while in office.”

He also outlined NCP’s demands: a timely July declaration, elections within the announced timeframe (Yunus has repeatedly promised that the election will be held between December 2025 to July 2026), a July Charter with core reforms before polls, visible justice for the July killings, and a roadmap for a new constitution through simultaneous elections to a Constituent Assembly and legislature.

Meanwhile, public anxiety is rising. On Friday, the Bangladesh Army issued a Facebook alert debunking a fake media release circulated a day earlier, which falsely used the military’s logo in what it described as “an apparent attempt to sow confusion and create rifts” between the armed forces and the public. “Do not believe rumours. Do not be misled,” the statement warned.

As the weekend approaches, all eyes are on Muhammad Yunus – and whether he will resign, stand firm, or forge a new consensus to lead the country through its second transition since last year’s dramatic uprising.

Fake stories of a coup d’etat in the West African nation of Ivory Coast surfaced this week amid mounting tensions over the upcoming October general elections.

Several accounts on social media sites, including Facebook and X, posted videos of huge crowds on streets with burning buildings, which they claimed were from the country’s commercial capital, Abidjan.

However, no violence was reported by security forces or any other government authorities in the city this week. Abidjan residents also denied the claims on social media.

On Thursday, the country’s National Agency for Information Systems Security of Ivory Coast (ANSSI) denied the rumours.

In a statement published on local media sites, the agency said: “Publications currently circulating on the X network claim that a coup d’etat has taken place in Cote d’Ivoire [Ivory Coast] … This claim is completely unfounded. It is the result of a deliberate and coordinated disinformation campaign.”

The rumours come just weeks after popular opposition politician Tidjane Thiam was barred from running for office after his eligibility was challenged in court over a technicality relating to his citizenship status. Thiam is appealing the ruling and claims the ban is political.

Ivory Coast, Africa’s cocoa powerhouse, has a long history of election violence, with one episode a decade ago spiralling into armed conflict that resulted in thousands of deaths.

Fears that President Alassane Ouattara might run for a fourth term have added to the tensions this time. Although the country has a two-term limit for presidents, a constitutional amendment in 2016 reset the clock on his terms, the president’s supporters argue, allowing him to run for a third five-year term in 2020. That same argument could also see him on the ballot papers this October, despite what experts say is widespread disillusionment with the political establishment in the country.

Here’s what we know about the current political situation in the country:

How did the coup rumours start?

Videos showing hundreds of people demonstrating in the streets and setting fires to shops and malls started appearing on social media sites on Wednesday this week. French is the official language in Ivory Coast, but most of the posts and blogs with images purporting to be from were from Abidjan and claiming that a coup d’etat was in progress were written in English.

Some posts also claimed that the country’s army chief of staff, Lassina Doumbia, had been assassinated and that President Ouattara was missing. These claims were untrue and have been denied by the office of the president. Credible media outlets, including Ivorian state media and private news media, did not report the alleged violence.

It is unclear how the rumours that President Ouattara was missing emerged. On Thursday, he chaired a routine cabinet meeting in the capital. He also attended a ceremony commemorating the revered former president, Felix Houphouet-Boigny, alongside Togolese President Faure Gnassingbe.

Why are there political tensions in the country?

The upcoming general elections on October 25 are at the root of current political tensions in the country.

Elections have in the past been violent: During the October 2010 general election, former President Laurent Gbagbo refused to hand over power to Ouattara, who was proclaimed the winner by the electoral commission.

Tense political negotiations failed, and the situation eventually spiralled into armed civil war, with Ouattara’s forces, backed by French troops, besieging Gbagbo’s national army. France is the former colonial power in Ivory Coast, and Ouattara has close ties to Paris.

Some 3,000 people were killed in the violence. Gbagbo’s capture on April 11, 2011, marked the end of the conflict. He was later tried and acquitted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes in 2019.

That painful history has spurred fears that this year’s polls could also turn violent, as several opposition candidates, including Gbagbo, have been barred from running, mainly due to past convictions. In 2018, the former president was sentenced in absentia to a 20-year jail term over the looting of the Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO) during the country’s post-election crisis.

Last December, the governing Rally of Houphouetists for Democracy and Peace (RHDP) party nominated Ouattara for a fourth term as president. So far, Ouattara has refused to say whether he intends to run, triggering concerns among Ivorians, many of whom feel the president has outstayed his welcome. Analysts see the party’s nomination as setting the stage for his eventual candidature, however.

Analysts also say there is widespread sympathy for the young military leaders who seized power in neighbouring Mali and Burkina Faso, and who have maintained a hostile stance towards France, unlike Ouattara.

What is the popular view of Ouattara?

He has been praised for overseeing rapid economic stability in the last decade and a half, which has made the country the regional economic hub.

Ouattara is also credited with bringing some level of political peace to the country. In 2023, he welcomed back Gbagbo, who had been living in Brussels since his 2021 ICC acquittal. Since then, election campaigns have not been as inflamed as they were in the 2000s when Gbagbo played on ethnic sentiments to incite opposition to Ouattara, whose father was originally from Burkina Faso.

However, Ouattara’s critics accuse him of fighting to hold onto power unconstitutionally. Some also accuse him of coercing state institutions into railroading his political opponents, including in the latest case involving Thiam.

His closeness with France, which is increasingly viewed as arrogant and neo-colonialistic, particularly by younger people across Francophone West Africa, has not won the president any favour from the country’s significant under-35 population.

Who is Tidjane Thiam, and why has he been barred from the elections?

Thiam, 62, is a prominent politician and businessman in Ivorian political circles. He is a nephew of the revered Houphouet-Boigny and was the first Ivorian to pass the entrance exam to France’s prestigious Polytechnique engineering school. He returned from France to serve as a minister of planning and development from 1998 until 1999, when a coup d’etat collapsed the civilian government, and the army took control of the country.

Thiam declined a cabinet position offered by the military government and left the country. He went on to take high-profile positions, first as the chief executive of the UK insurance group, Prudential, and then as head of global investment bank Credit Suisse. A corporate espionage scandal at the bank led to his resignation in 2020 after a colleague accused Thiam of spying on him. Thiam was cleared of any involvement.

After returning to Ivory Coast in 2022, Thiam re-entered politics and rejoined the Democratic Party (PDCI), the former governing party which held power from independence in 1960 until the 1999 coup d’etat, and which is now the major opposition party.

In December 2023, the party’s delegates overwhelmingly voted for Thiam to be the next leader following the death of former head and ex-President Henri Konan Bedie. At the time, PDCI officials said Thiam represented a breath of fresh air for the country’s politics, and many young people appeared ready to back him as the next president.

But his ambitions came to a halt on April 22 when a judge ordered his name be struck off the list of contenders because Thiam had taken French nationality in 1987 and automatically lost Ivorian citizenship according to the country’s laws.

Although the politician renounced his French nationality in February this year, the court ruled he had not done so before registering himself on the electoral roll in 2022, and was thus ineligible to be the party leader, a presidential candidate, or even a voter.

Thiam and his lawyers argued that the law is inconsistent. Ivorian footballers on the country’s national team, Thiam pointed out in one interview with reporters, are mostly also French nationals, but face no restrictions on holding Ivorian nationality. “The bottom line is, I was born Ivorian,” Thiam told the BBC in an interview, accusing the government of trying to block what he said is his party’s likely success in this year’s elections.

Will Thiam be able to stand and who else is standing?

It is unclear if Thiam can legally make his way back onto the candidate list, but he is trying.

In May, he resigned as PDCI president and was almost immediately re-elected with 99 percent of the vote. He has yet to reveal if he will attempt to re-register as a candidate, but has promised to keep up the fight.

Thiam has pledged to attract industrial investment to the country as he once did as minister, and to remove the country from the France-backed CFA currency economy that comprises West and Central African countries formerly colonised by France, and sees their currencies pegged to the euro.

Meanwhile, other strong candidates include Pascal Affi N’Guessan, 67, a former prime minister and close ally of Gbagbo, who will represent Gbagbo’s Ivorian Popular Front (FPI).

Simone Gbagbo, the former first lady who is now divorced from Gbagbo, will also run, as the nominee for the Movement of the Capable Generations. She was sentenced to a 20-year term in 2015 on charges of undermining state security, but benefitted from an amnesty law to foster national reconciliation later in 2018.

WASHINGTON — A multifront assault by the Trump administration against the nation’s oldest university intensified on Friday when Harvard sued to block the government from barring international student enrollment, and a judge issued an immediate order to halt the ban.

The rapid-fire legal action is the latest in Trump administration attacks against the university as it claims Harvard failed to adhere to its demands to combat antisemitism.

But the whiplash felt by Harvard international students is reverberating far beyond Cambridge, Mass., as university leaders and foreign students across the United States and California watch with growing alarm over how federal actions will affect the nation’s 1.1-million foreign student population — 6% of American higher education enrollment.

Campuses have been on alert since last month, when the Homeland Security and State departments canceled thousands of enrollment certifications and visas at dozens of U.S. colleges, including UCLA, for individuals who often had minor infractions such as traffic tickets. The government, seeing losses in court, later reversed those cancellations and was further blocked from undertaking them when an Oakland-based federal judge issued an injunction Thursday.

“The current mindset of the international community is uncertainty,” said Syed Tamim Ahmad, a junior at UCLA who is from India and recently completed his term as the student government’s international student representative.

Ahmad, who recently took the MCAT and plans to apply to medical school, said he was reconsidering whether continuing his studies in the United States is a safe option.

“We do not know what to expect or what to come next,” he said. “Every student saw what happened at Harvard and was absolutely shocked. We wonder, what if it happens at UCLA or any other university?”

UCLA senior Adam Tfayli, a dual U.S.-Lebanese citizen who grew up in Beirut, had a different view. “My friends at Harvard are very concerned right now,” said Tfayli, who finished his term this week as the Undergraduate Student Assn. Council President. “At UCLA, it’s tense just because it has been on college campuses for months under this administration, but doesn’t feel as bad as it did when people’s visas were being revoked last month.”

In a statement, UCLA Vice Chancellor of Strategic Communications Mary Osako said that “international Bruins are an essential part of our community.”

“We recognize that recent developments at other universities have created a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety, and we remain committed to supporting all Bruins’ ability to work, learn, teach and thrive here at UCLA,” Osako said.

USC, home to 17,000 international students — the most of any California school — declined to respond to events at Harvard, and pointed The Times to statements on its Office of International Services website about foreign students. “New restrictions could be implemented with little notice. The decision to travel internationally should be made carefully,” said a letter this month.

Like at Harvard, government officials have also scrutinized USC for its enrollment of Chinese students, who they have suggested may be a security threat — an accusation that also arose at California colleges during the first Trump administration. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who has accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students amid pro-Palestinian protests, accused the university on Thursday of “coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.”

In March, a House commitee wrote to USC to request data on Chinese nationals and their “involvement in federally funded research and the security of sensitive technologies developed on campus.”

USC said in a statement Friday that it is “cooperating with the select committee’s inquiries and are following all applicable privacy laws and other legal protections.”

Speaking on Fox News on Thursday, Noem said the actions against Harvard were a “warning” to universities nationwide.

“This should be a warning to every other university to get your act together,” she said. “Get your act together.”

The case amplifies an increasingly existential fight for Harvard, one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions of higher education. The Trump administration has launched multiple investigations into the university, moved to freeze nearly $3 billion in federal funding and pushed to end its tax-exempt status. Taken together, the federal actions raise fundamental questions over Harvard’s ability to sustain its international standards.

Harvard alleged in its suit Friday that the Trump administration’s moves mark “the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government’s demands to control Harvard’s governance, curriculum, and the ‘ideology’ of its faculty and students.”

The administration’s “pernicious” actions, Harvard alleged, would prevent some of the world’s greatest minds from pursuing research and degrees at the university. Already, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology has offered “unconditional” acceptance of international students forced to depart the Boston area due to Trump’s policies.

U.S. District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs, appointed by former President Obama, granted an immediate restraining order, agreeing with Harvard’s argument that the Trump directive would cause “immediate and irreparable harm” to the institution.

In a statement to The Times, Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, dismissed the judicial injunction out of Massachusetts.

“The American people elected President Trump — not random local judges with their own liberal agenda — to run the country,” Jackson said. “These unelected judges have no right to stop the Trump administration from exercising their rightful control over immigration policy and national security policy.”

The Trump administration’s assault on higher education has not focused solely on Harvard, but on much of the Ivy League and other elite campuses, including Columbia University, several UC campuses, USC and Stanford. Columbia and UCLA in particular became a focal point last year when protests against Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza roiled campuses.

A Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism established by Trump sent Harvard a letter last month demanding the university police ideology on campus and expel students it deems are “anti-American.”Harvard has sued over those demands, as well, calling them a violation of free speech.

Discussing the legal fight with reporters in the Oval Office, Trump noted that “billions of dollars have been paid to Harvard.”

“How ridiculous is that?” he asked. “Harvard’s going to have to change its ways.”

The same task force has also similarly singled out UCLA, USC and UC Berkeley. While the campuses have been subject to hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grant cancellations that have affected a wide swath of American academia, they have not seen the targeted federal funding clawbacks that took place at Harvard and Columbia.

Still, the California universities — anticipating less federal support overall — have recently instituted hiring freezes and budget cuts. They’ve also vowed to address campus antisemitism allegations and faced criticism that they have given unequal treatment to allegations of bias against Muslim and Arab American student activists.

A new law, championed by President Nayib Bukele, is seen by advocates as an effort to stifle dissent in El Salvador.

Human rights groups, politicians and experts have sharply criticised a law approved by El Salvador’s Congress as a censorship tool, designed to silence and criminalise dissent by nongovernmental organisations critical of President Nayib Bukele.

The law proposed by Bukele bypassed normal legislative procedures and was passed on Tuesday night by a Congress under the firm control of his New Ideas party.

Bukele first tried to introduce a similar law in 2021, but after strong international backlash, it was never brought for a vote by the full Congress.

Bukele said the law is intended to limit foreign influence and corruption. It comes after the government took a number of steps that have prompted concerns the country may be entering a new wave of crackdowns. Critics warn that it falls in line with measures passed by governments in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Russia, Belarus and China.

Here are more details about the root of the criticism:

What does the law say?

Anyone — individual or organisation, local or foreign — who acts in the interest of a foreign entity or receives foreign funding to operate in El Salvador is required to register under the law.

Every payment, whether in cash, goods or services, made to such groups will be subject to a 30-percent tax. The final law passed does not specify how the money from the tax will be used.

While the United States also has a law that requires individuals working on behalf of foreign entities and governments to register, Bukele’s is far broader in scope and grants him greater powers. It is fairly common in poorer countries in Latin America to depend on international aid dollars, as it is often difficult to raise money in their own countries.

Analysts say a broad definition of a “foreign agent” in the law could cover:

• Human rights organisations
• Community associations
• Independent media outlets
• Foreign-funded startups or businesses
• Religious groups
• International aid agencies

New rules governing NGOs

The law creates a new government body called RAEX, or Registry of Foreign Agents, which will have wide powers, including setting requirements for registration, approving or denying applications, revoking or refusing to renew registrations and demanding documents or information at any time.

Some NGOs can apply for exceptions, but RAEX will decide who can operate in the country. About 8,000 NGOs operate in El Salvador and often depend on foreign donations due to a lack of funds available in the Central American nation.

Some of those groups have long been at odds with Bukele and have criticised some of his actions, including his decision to waive key constitutional rights to crack down on the country’s gangs and seeking re-election despite clear constitutional prohibitions.

The rules NGOs will have to adhere to the following:

• They must register with RAEX and report the source and purpose of all donations.
• They must keep complete accounting records, use the banks for transactions and follow anti-money laundering laws.
• They cannot operate without registering.
• They cannot engage in political activities or actions seen as threatening public order or national security.
• They cannot use foreign donations for undeclared activities or share information on behalf of foreign donors without labelling it as such.

Violations of the rules can lead to fines between $100,000 to $250,000 and possible closure.

Why now?

Critics say Bukele revived the law because he has now consolidated power across all branches of government. His political alliance with US President Donald Trump has also emboldened him.

Bukele announced the law shortly after a protest near his home ended in a violent crackdown by police that saw two people arrested.

In addition, it comes after a number of moves by Bukele that have raised concerns that the self-described “world’s coolest dictator” is cracking down on dissent.

• Just two days before the law passed, the government arrested an anticorruption lawyer with the human rights organisation Cristosal — one of Bukele’s most outspoken critics — on corruption charges.
• The government arrested the heads of bus companies for defying an order from Bukele posted on his social media.
• Journalists with the investigative news organisation El Faro said they had to flee the country after receiving word that the government was preparing orders for their arrest, after they published reports on the president’s links to gangs.

What are critics saying?

• Opposition legislator Claudia Ortiz called the law “an authoritarian tool for censorship“ and said it hands the president excessive levels of control. “It’s obvious that exemptions will only be given to groups that align with the government, while those who expose corruption or abuse will be punished,” she said.
• Lawyer Roxana Cardona of the NGO Justicia Social y Controlaría Ciudadana said: “The Foreign Agents Law seeks to suppress organisations that promote civic participation or support marginalised groups the state ignores.”
• Eduardo Escobar, director of Acción Ciudadana, added: “This is part of the government’s increasing repression. It affects constitutional rights like freedom of expression and freedom of association.”
• Lawyer and analyst Bessy Ríos said: “The goal is to control the funding of civil society, especially organisations critical of the government.”

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa met Donald Trump in a bid to reset US ties. But critics say he missed a key chance to counter Trump’s false ‘white genocide’ claims. Al Jazeera’s @FahmidaMiller reports on the mixed reaction from Johannesburg.

McALLEN, Texas — The Trump administration is seeking to end an immigration policy cornerstone that since the 1990s has offered protections to child migrants in federal custody, a move that will be challenged by advocates, according to a court filing Thursday.

The protections in place, known as the Flores Settlement, largely limit to 72 hours the amount of time that child migrants traveling alone or with family are detained by the U.S. Border Patrol. They also ensure the children are kept in safe and sanitary conditions.

President Trump tried to end the protections during his first term and his allies have long railed against it. The court filing, submitted jointly by the administration and advocates, says the government plans to detail its arguments later Thursday and propose a hearing on July 18 before U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee.

The settlement is named for a Salvadoran girl, Jenny Flores, whose lawsuit alleging widespread mistreatment of children in custody in the 1980s prompted special oversight.

In August 2019, the first Trump administration asked a judge to dissolve the agreement. Its motion eventually was struck down in December 2020 by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under the Biden administration, oversight protections for child migrants were lifted for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services after new guidelines were put in place last year.

The Department of Homeland Security is still beholden to the agreement, including Customs and Border Protection, which detains and processes children after their arrival in the U.S. with or without their parents. Children then are usually released with their families or sent to a shelter operated by Health and Human Services, though processing times often go up when the number of people entering increases in a short period.

Even with the agreement in place, there have been instances where the federal government failed to provide adequate conditions for children, as in a case in Texas where nearly 300 children had to be moved from a Border Patrol facility following reports they were receiving inadequate food, water and sanitation.

Court-appointed monitors provide oversight of the agreement and report noncompliant facilities to Gee. Customs and Border Protection was set to resume its own oversight, but in January a federal judge ruled it was not ready and extended the use of court-appointed monitors for another 18 months.

Gonzalez writes for the Associated Press.

Israeli attacks come as residents of Lebanon’s southern districts prepare to vote in municipal elections on Saturday.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has denounced a wave of Israeli attacks across southern Lebanon, calling on the international community to pressure Israel to respect a ceasefire reached in November with Lebanese group Hezbollah.

Lebanon’s official National News Agency (NNA) said on Thursday that the Israeli military struck a building in Toul, a town in the Nabatieh governorate. The army had earlier warned residents to evacuate the area around a building it said was used by Hezbollah.

Lebanese media outlets also reported Israeli bombardment in the towns of Soujod, Touline, Sawanna and the Rihan Mountain – all in the country’s south.

In a statement, Salam’s office said the Israeli attacks come at a “dangerous” time, just days before municipal elections in Lebanon’s southern districts on Saturday.

The contests are expected to be dominated by Hezbollah and its allies, and there have been growing concerns about the safety of voters, especially in border towns, amid the continued Israeli occupation of parts of southern Lebanon.

“Prime Minister Salam stresses that these violations will not thwart the state’s commitment to holding the elections and protecting Lebanon and the Lebanese,” his office said in its statement.

As part of the November ceasefire agreement, Hezbollah fighters were to pull back north of the Litani River and dismantle military infrastructure south of that demarcation line.

For its part, Israel was to withdraw all forces from Lebanon but it has kept troops in parts of south Lebanon. It argues it must maintain a presence there for “strategic” reasons.

The truce was based on a UN Security Council resolution that says Lebanese troops and UN peacekeepers should be the only people to bear arms in southern Lebanon, and calls for the disarmament of all non-state groups.

On Thursday, the Israeli military said its forces had carried out several strikes targeting Hezbollah sites and killed one fighter in the southern Lebanon town of Rab el-Thalathine.

Hezbollah did not immediately comment on the Israeli army’s claim.

Separately, a shepherd was injured in a different Israeli attack nearby, the NNA reported.

The Israeli military said its forces also “struck a Hezbollah military site containing rocket launchers and weapons” in the Bekaa Valley in northeastern Lebanon.

The NNA described Israel’s attacks as some of the heaviest since the ceasefire went into effect.

The United States Supreme Court has reached a deadlock in a case over whether a religious charter school in Oklahoma should be publicly funded.

Thursday’s tie vote allows a lower court ruling to stand. Previously, Oklahoma’s state-level Supreme Court had barred the use of government funds to establish the St Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, citing constitutional limits to the government’s role in religion.

But the US Supreme Court’s split vote on Thursday leaves an avenue open for other, similar cases to advance. With no decision from the highest court in the country, no new precedent has been set to govern funding for charter schools, which are independent institutions that receive government funding.

It is relatively rare, though, that a Supreme Court case should end in a tie vote. The Houston Law Review in 2020 estimated that there had only been 183 ties at the Supreme Court since 1791, out of more than 28,000 cases.

Normally, there are nine justices on the court’s bench — an odd number, to ensure that the judges are not evenly split.

But Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the hearings over the St Isidore school. Though she did not indicate her reasons, it is widely believed that Barrett stepped away from the case to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

Barrett has a close personal relationship with an adviser to the St Isidore school, lawyer Nicole Garnett. As young legal professionals in the late 1990s, they clerked together on the Supreme Court, and they eventually taught together at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.

When US President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to the Supreme Court in 2020, Garnett even wrote an opinion column in the newspaper USA Today, praising her friend as “remarkable” and describing their lives as “completely intertwined”.

The Supreme Court’s brief, two-line announcement on Thursday acknowledged Barrett’s absence.

“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,” it read. “JUSTICE BARRETT took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.”

That left the court split four to four, though the precise breakdown was not provided. Chief Justice John Roberts is thought to have joined with the three left-leaning justices on the bench to oppose the school’s use of government funds.

The Supreme Court currently has a conservative supermajority, with six justices leaning rightward.

In the past, the court has signalled receptiveness to expanding religious freedoms in the US, including in cases that tested the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution.

While that clause bars the government from “the establishment of religion”, what qualifies as establishing a religion remains unclear — and is a source of ongoing legal debate.

The Oklahoma case stretches back to 2023, when the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City submitted an application to open a taxpayer-funded charter school that would share Catholic teachings.

The school would have been the first of its kind, offering public, religious education online for children from kindergarten through high school. The plan was to open the following year.

The Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board initially voted down the proposal in April, only to give it the go-ahead in June by a narrow vote of three to two.

That teed up a legal showdown, with opponents calling the school a clear violation of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. But supporters argued that barriers to establishing a Catholic charter school limited their freedom of religion.

Plans for the school even ended up dividing Oklahoma’s government. The state attorney general, Gentner Drummond, opposed the charter school as a form of “state-funded religion”. The governor, Kevin Stitt, supported the proposal. Both men are Republicans.

In Oklahoma, as in the majority of other US states, charter schools are considered part of the public school system.

When the case reached the state-level Oklahoma Supreme Court in 2024, that distinction became pivotal. The fact that St Isidore was a public — not private — school ultimately caused the court to strike it down, for fear of constitutional violations.

The judges ruled in a six-to-two decision that establishing St Isidore with state funds would make it a “surrogate of the state”, just like “any other state-sponsored charter school”.

The school, the judges explained, would “require students to spend time in religious instruction and activities, as well as permit state spending in direct support of the religious curriculum and activities within St. Isidore — all in violation of the establishment clause”.

The school’s backers appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to arguments being held in April. It was unclear at the time which way the high court seemed to be leaning, with Roberts pressing both sides with questions.

But conservatives on the Supreme Court’s bench seemed in favour of backing St Isidore’s appeal. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for instance, argued that withholding taxpayer funds from the religious school “seems like rank discrimination against religion”.

“All the religious school is saying is, ‘Don’t exclude us on account of our religion,’” he said.

The left-leaning justices, meanwhile, indicated that a ruling in favour of St Isidore would pave the way for public schools to become religious institutions, a slippery slope that could require the government to fund faith-based education of all stripes.

On Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has backed a separate lawsuit against the school, framed the deadlock at the Supreme Court as a victory for the separation of church and state.

“The very idea of a religious public school is a constitutional oxymoron. The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms that a religious school can’t be a public school and a public school can’t be religious,” said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

But proponents pledged to keep on fighting. Jim Campbell, who argued in favour of St Isidore on behalf of Oklahoma’s charter school board, noted that the court may “revisit the issue in the future”, given the deadlock.

“Oklahoma parents and children are better off with more educational choices, not fewer,” he said.

A federal judge in the United States has told the administration of President Donald Trump that an alleged effort to deport migrants to South Sudan was “unquestionably violative” of his court injunction.

The announcement from US District Judge Brian Murphy on Wednesday tees up yet another judicial battle for the Trump administration, which has faced repeated criticism that it is ignoring court orders.

Judge Murphy, who is based in Boston, Massachusetts, has yet to announce what he plans to do about the apparent violation. He left that question to another day.

But he indicated that the people on board Tuesday’s flight had not been given enough time to challenge their deportations, in violation of their right to due process — and also in violation of Murphy’s April 18 injunction.

Murphy had ruled that migrants facing removal to a third-party country besides their own had the right to a reasonable amount of time to challenge their deportations.

But the Trump administration has repeatedly dismissed claims that it refuses to abide by decisions unfavourable to its policies, instead blasting judges like Murphy as “activist”.

During Wednesday’s court hearing, a lawyer for Trump’s Justice Department, Elainis Perez, refused to confirm where the deportation flight had landed, saying that divulging the information raised “very serious operational and safety concerns”.

Separately, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) held a news conference addressing the issue and defending the deportation flight.

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said the people on board had been accused of murder, armed robbery, rape and sexual assault.

In the case of one migrant, Lyons said, “his country would not take him back.” He called such countries “recalcitrant”.

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), also framed the removals as a “diplomatic and military security operation”.

Standing in front of photos representing eight migrants, she said they were deported alone for safety reasons and confirmed they remain in DHS custody, although they had indeed left the US.

“We cannot tell you what the final destination for these individuals will be,” she added, again citing security issues.

But she did address the possibility that they might currently be in South Sudan, as their lawyers indicated in court filings.

“I would caution you to make the assumption that their final destination is South Sudan,” she said, later clarifying that the flight may make multiple stops: “We’re confirming the fact that that’s not their final destination.”

In Tuesday’s court filings, lawyers for the migrants said their clients hail from Myanmar, Vietnam and other countries. They also explained that their clients speak little English but were provided no translator to understand their removal notices.

They allegedly were deported with less than 24 hours’ notice. On Tuesday morning, as one lawyer tried to locate her client, she said she was informed he had been removed to South Sudan, a country with a turbulent history and a record of human rights abuses.

Judge Murphy had previously ordered the migrants to be given at least 15 days to challenge their removals on the grounds that they could face dangers in the countries they were deported to.

In the wake of Tuesday’s flight, he has also ruled that the US government must keep the migrants in its custody and ensure their safety while hearings proceed.

McLaughlin, however, accused the “activist judge” of “trying to protect” the migrants, which she described as “some of the most barbaric, violent individuals”.

“While we are fully compliant with the law and court orders, it is absolutely absurd for a district judge to try to dictate the foreign policy and national security of the United States of America,” she said.

McLaughlin and the other officials also argued that the Trump administration was exercising its right to find “safe third countries” to remove these individuals to.

“No country on earth wanted to accept them because their crimes are so uniquely monstrous and barbaric,” she said.

“Thanks to the courageous work of the State Department and ICE and the president’s national security team, we found a nation that was willing to accept custody of these vicious illegal aliens.”

The Trump administration has been accused of amping up fears of criminality among immigration populations, as part of its justification for its “mass deportation” campaign.

Police in South Sudan have told The Associated Press news agency that no migrants from the US have arrived in the country so far. The New York Times has reported that the plane is believed to have landed in the East African country of Djibouti.

Washington, DC – United States Congresswoman LaMonica McIver has been charged with assaulting a law enforcement officer after a standoff at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in early May.

On Tuesday, Democrats denounced the charge as an attempt by the administration of Republican President Donald Trump to silence his political rivals for speaking out against his deportation campaign.

In a post on the social media platform X, Democratic Representative Gil Cisneros blasted the administration for having “gone after judges, prosecutors, and now, Members of Congress” in its attempts to stifle dissent.

“The charges against Rep McIver are a blatant political attack and an attempt to prohibit Members of Congress from conducting oversight,” Cisneros wrote.

The charge was announced on Monday evening, with federal prosecutor Alina Habba —Trump’s former personal lawyer — accusing McIver of having “assaulted, impeded, and interfered” with law enforcement.

“The conduct cannot be overlooked,” Habba wrote in a statement. “It is my constitutional obligation to ensure that our federal law enforcement is protected when executing their duties.”

The criminal charge stemmed from an incident on May 9, when McIver joined two other members of Congress for an oversight tour of Delaney Hall, a privately run immigration detention facility in Newark, New Jersey.

The visit devolved into a fracas involving elected officials, protesters and federal law enforcement agents. The mayor of Newark, Ras Baraka, was arrested at the scene for alleged trespassing.

In Monday’s statement, Habba announced the charge against Baraka has since been dropped “for the sake of moving forward”. But his arrests likewise spurred outcry over possible political motives.

‘Intimidate and interfere’

Late on Monday, McIver responded to the charges against her with a statement of her own, saying she and other members of Congress were “fulfilling our lawful oversight responsibilities” when they visited the detention centre.

McIver accused ICE agents at the scene of creating an “unnecessary and unsafe confrontation”. She added that the charges against her “mischaracterise and distort my actions”.

“The charges against me are purely political,” McIver wrote.

Top Democrats also remained defiant in the face of the Trump administration’s accusations, saying they would continue their oversight duties at immigration facilities like Delaney Hall.

“The criminal charge against Congresswoman LaMonica McIver is extreme, morally bankrupt and lacks any basis in law or fact,” Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives said in a joint statement.

They underscored that they have a right as Congress members to show up at federal facilities unannounced for inspections.

The charges against McIver, they argued, are a “blatant attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate Congress and interfere with our ability to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch”.

In a separate statement, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee said the criminal charge was a “dangerous precedent” that “reveals the increasingly authoritarian nature of this administration”.

“Representative McIver has our full support, and we will do everything in our power to help fight this outrageous threat to our constitutional system,” they said.

Democrats have denounced the Trump administration’s push for “mass deportation” as violating constitutional and human rights. As part of that push, the Trump White House has sought to expand the use of private detention centres to house the growing number of people arrested for deportation.

Mayor Baraka, in particular, has repeatedly protested the 1,000-bed Delaney Hall for opening without the proper permits and approvals. Its operator, The GEO Group, has denied any violations.

The facility became operational in early May, under a 15-year agreement made with ICE.

A United States citizen has been transferred to the US after being held for nearly six months in Venezuela.

The family of US Air Force veteran Joseph St Clair confirmed his release on Tuesday, following his detention in November of last year.

“This news came suddenly, and we are still processing it, but we are overwhelmed with joy and gratitude,” St Clair’s parents, Scott and Patti, said in a statement.

US President Donald Trump’s envoy for special missions, Richard Grenell, later explained on social media that he had met with Venezuelan officials on the Caribbean island of Antigua to negotiate the release.

Grenell credited St Clair’s freedom to Trump’s “America First” political platform.

“Joe St. Clair is back in America,” he wrote. “I met Venezuelan officials in a neutral country today to negotiate an America First strategy. This is only possible because [Trump] puts Americans first. ”

Citing anonymous sources familiar with the negotiations, the Reuters news agency reported that Grenell discussed St Clair’s case on Tuesday with Jorge Rodriguez, the president of Venezuela’s National Assembly and an ally of President Nicolas Maduro.

Reuters and another news agency, Bloomberg, both reported that a deal was struck to extend a licence for the US oil company Chevron to operate in Venezuela by 60 days.

The Trump administration had previously announced it was revoking the licence in February, on the basis that Venezuela had not upheld its commitment to fair elections. The licence was due to end on May 27.

Any extension will likely need the approval of the US Department of State and the US Treasury.

The South American country relies on oil as the pillar of its economy. But since the mid-2010s, Venezuela has experienced an economic crisis that has pushed even basic supplies like food and medicine beyond what some families can afford.

That, combined with alleged political repression, has prompted an exodus of nearly 7.9 million people out of Venezuela, according to the United Nations.

In 2023, Venezuela committed to electoral reforms under the Barbados Agreement, a deal that the US applauded. Then-US President Joe Biden loosened restrictions on Venezuela’s oil industry in the aftermath of the agreement.

But Venezuela’s presidential election on July 28, 2024 was widely criticised for its lack of transparency. While Maduro and his allies claimed he had won a third term, the electoral authorities did not provide any proof of his victory.

Instead, the opposition coalition published voting tallies it said proved that its candidate had won by a landslide. That prompted widespread protests and a deadly crackdown from law enforcement.

During his first term in office, from 2017 to 2021, Trump had pursued a campaign of “maximum pressure” on Maduro’s government, even offering a $15m bounty for information that led to the Venezuelan leader’s arrest.

But critics have pointed out that Trump may need Venezuela’s cooperation to carry out his goal of “mass deportation” during his second term.

Since returning to office in January, Trump has signalled a willingness to negotiate with Maduro. In late January, he even sent Grenell to meet with Maduro in person in the capital of Caracas. Part of Grenell’s directive was to ensure all detained Americans in the country were returned home.

As Grenell left the country, he revealed he was returning with six Americans who had previously been imprisoned in Venezuela.

In March, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio estimated that nine Americans remained in Venezuela’s custody.

Venezuela, for its part, has started to accept deportation flights from the US, although in the past it has refused to accept migrants removed from the US.

St Clair’s family has said that the military veteran was a language specialist who was seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder in South America.

A United States judge has rebuked the administration of President Donald Trump, saying that reports of deportations to South Sudan appear to violate his previous court order.

On Tuesday in Boston, Massachusetts, US District Court Judge Brian Murphy held a virtual hearing to weigh an emergency motion on behalf of deported migrants reportedly on board a flight to South Sudan.

He asked lawyers for the Trump administration to identify where the migrants were. He also indicated that he could ask for the flight to be turned around.

“Based on what I have been told, this seems like it may be contempt,” Judge Murphy told Elianis Perez, a lawyer for the Trump Justice Department.

In a recent annual report, the US Department of State accused South Sudan of “significant human rights issues”, including torture and extrajudicial killings.

But the Trump administration has been looking abroad for destinations to send undocumented immigrants currently detained in the US, particularly those whose home countries will not accept them.

In Tuesday’s hearing, Judge Murphy said the flight to South Sudan appeared to violate a preliminary injunction he issued on April 18, which prohibited migrants from being deported to third-party countries that were not their own.

That injunction required the Trump administration to give the migrants an adequate opportunity to appeal their removal.

The migrants, Judge Murphy ruled, were simply seeking “an opportunity to explain why such a deportation will likely result in their persecution, torture, and/or death”.

He cited the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to due process: in other words, a fair hearing in the US court system.

Earlier this month, on May 7, lawyers for the migrants had indicated that their clients were slated to be sent to Libya, another country with significant human rights concerns.

Judge Murphy, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, ruled that such a deportation would be in violation of his injunction.

In Tuesday’s emergency court filing, the lawyers for those migrants emphasised how close a call that incident was. The migrants in question were already on a bus, sitting on the tarmac of an airport, when they were ordered to be returned.

The emergency motion identifies the migrants only by their initials and countries of origin, Myanmar and Vietnam among them.

But it explains what allegedly happened to them over the last 24 hours and seeks immediate action from the court.

The lawyers allege that one migrant from Myanmar, called NM in the court filings, received a notice of removal on Monday. It identified the destination as South Africa. Within 10 minutes, the court filing said the email was recalled by its sender.

A couple of hours later, a new notice of removal was sent, this time naming South Sudan as the destination.

In both instances, NM refused to sign the document. Lawyers in the emergency petition indicate that NM has “limited English proficiency” and was not provided a translator to understand the English-language document.

While one of NM’s lawyers stated her intention to meet with him on Tuesday morning, by the time their appointment time came, she was informed he had already been removed from his detention facility, en route to South Sudan.

The emergency filing includes a copy of an email sent to the lawyers from the family members of those deported.

“I believe my husband [name redacted] and 10 other individuals that were sent to Port Isabel Detention Center in Los Fresnos, TX were deported to South Africa or Sudan,” the email begins.

“This is not right! I fear my husband and his group, which consist of people from Laos, Thailand, Pakistan, Korea, and Mexico are being sent to South Africa or Sudan against their will. Please help! They cannot be allowed to do this.”

President Yoweri Museveni’s government has frequently defended military trials, citing national security concerns.

Uganda’s parliament has passed a controversial bill authorising military tribunals for civilians, drawing condemnation from opposition figures and rights groups, who accuse the government of trying to silence opponents, which it denies.

The practice has long been used in Uganda, but was struck down by the country’s top court in January. The Supreme Court had ruled that the military tribunals lacked legal competence to try civilians and failed to meet fair trial standards.

Despite that ruling, lawmakers moved ahead Tuesday with the legislation, which permits civilians to be tried in military courts.

“Today, you proved you are fearless patriots! Uganda will remember your courage and commitment,” said General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, head of the military and son of President Yoweri Museveni, in a post on X.

Earlier this month, Kainerugaba said that he was holding a missing opposition activist in his basement and threatened violence against him, after the man’s party said he was abducted.

Museveni’s government has frequently defended military trials as necessary for national security amid concerns about armed opposition and alleged threats to state stability.

Military spokesperson Chris Magezi said the legislation would “deal decisively with armed violent criminals, deter the formation of militant political groups that seek to subvert democratic processes, and ensure national security is bound on a firm foundational base”.

But critics say the move is part of a broader pattern of repression. “There’s no legal basis to provide for the trial of civilians in the military court,” opposition MP Jonathan Odur told parliament during debate on the bill. He described the legislation as “shallow, unreasonable and unconstitutional”.

Uganda has for years used military courts to prosecute opposition politicians and government critics.

In 2018, pop star-turned-opposition-leader Bobi Wine was charged in a military court with illegal possession of firearms. The charges were later dropped.

Kizza Besigye, a veteran opposition figure who has challenged Museveni in multiple elections, was arrested in Kenya last year and returned to Uganda to face a military tribunal.

Following the Supreme Court’s January ruling, his trial was moved to a civilian court. His party, the People’s Front for Freedom (PFF), has denounced the charges as politically motivated.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has previously criticised Uganda’s military courts for failing to meet international standards of judicial independence and fairness.

Oryem Nyeko, senior Africa researcher at HRW, said earlier this year: “The Ugandan authorities have for years misused military courts to crack down on opponents and critics”.

It also imposes new sanctions, targeting illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The British government says it will suspend new free trade negotiations with Israel due to its military conduct in the war on Gaza, where hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in recent days under bombardment and as a new ground offensive has been launched.

The United Kingdom also announced on Tuesday that it was imposing sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The actions came a day after the UK, France and Canada condemned Israel’s handling of the war in Gaza and assaults and raids in the West Bank.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer ramped up his pointed criticism of Israel on Tuesday, saying the level of suffering by children in Gaza was “utterly intolerable” and repeated his call for a ceasefire.

The Labour government has been heavily criticised at home for not saying or doing enough in support of Palestinians under constant fire and facing starvation in besieged Gaza. Stop the War demonstrations continue to draw thousands of protesters weekly.

Settler violence against Palestinians, backed by the Israeli army, has surged in recent months, as the military also carries out daily raids in the territory.

Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the UK’s existing trade agreement is still in effect, but new discussions cannot be undertaken with an Israeli government pursuing “egregious policies” in Gaza and the West Bank.

Lammy said the persistent cycle of violence by Israeli settlers in the West Bank demanded action. In addition to previous sanctions imposed, the UK  was now imposing sanctions on another “three individuals, two illegal settler outposts and two organizations supporting violence against the Palestinian community”, he added.

“The Israeli government has a responsibility to intervene and halt these aggressive actions,” Lammy said. “Their consistent failure to act is putting Palestinian communities and the two-state solution in peril.”

Israel quickly denounced the UK decision: “Even prior to today’s announcement, the free trade agreement negotiations were not being advanced at all by the current UK government,” the Israeli Foreign Ministry said in a statement. The ministry called the UK sanctions “unjustified and regrettable.

Government says funding freeze is due to the university’s alleged failure to address anti-Semitism on campus.

The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has said it is terminating $60m in federal grants to Harvard University, further escalating an ongoing feud between the Ivy Leave institute and President Donald Trump’s administration over alleged anti-Semitism, presidential control and the limits of academic freedom.

“Due to Harvard University’s continued failure to address anti-Semitic harassment and race discrimination, HHS is terminating multiple multi-year grant awards – totalling approximately $60 million over their full duration,” the department said on X on Monday.

It said discrimination will “not be tolerated” on campus, adding that “federal funds must support institutions that protect all students.”

HHS is taking decisive action to uphold civil rights in higher education. Due to Harvard University’s continued failure to address anti-Semitic harassment and race discrimination, HHS is terminating multiple multi-year grant awards—totaling approximately $60 million over their… pic.twitter.com/99aUd4ZVYF

— HHS.gov (@HHSGov) May 20, 2025

The Trump administration has already frozen more than $2.2bn in federal grants to Harvard.

Education Department Secretary Linda McMahon also announced earlier this month that the university would no longer be receiving public funding for research as it had made a “mockery” of higher education, in a letter addressed to Harvard.

“Harvard will cease to be a publicly funded institution, and can instead operate as a privately-funded institution, drawing on its colossal endowment, and raising money from its large base of wealthy alumni,” McMahon wrote in the letter.

Harvard has sued the administration in response, alleging that the funding freeze violates the First Amendment and federal law, which bars the president from directly or indirectly ordering the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to conduct or terminate an audit or investigation.

Harvard President Alan Garber announced last week that the university will use $250m of its own funds to support research.

The feud between the president and Harvard – a prestigious Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts – began in March, when Trump sought to impose new rules and regulations on top schools across the country that had played host to pro-Palestinian protests over the past year.

Trump has called such protests “illegal” and accused participants of anti-Semitism. But student protest leaders have described their actions as a peaceful response to Israel’s war in Gaza, which has elicited concerns about human rights abuses, including genocide.

The Trump administration announced the first funding freeze in April. Harvard had rejected the administration’s series of demands to tackle alleged anti-Semitism, saying they would subject it to undue government control. The demands had included revamping its disciplinary system, eliminating its diversity initiatives and agreeing to an external audit of programmes deemed anti-Semitic by the administration.

Trump and prominent conservatives in the US have also long accused Harvard and other universities of propagating extreme left-wing views and stifling right-wing perspectives.

Ruth Eleonora López has defended Venezuelan immigrants deported to El Salvador by US President Trump’s administration.

A prominent human rights lawyer known for defending immigrants deported amid United States President Donald Trump’s hardline anti-immigration policies has been arrested in El Salvador.

Ruth Eleonora López, 47, a senior figure at the rights group Cristosal and a vocal critic of El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, a Trump ally, was detained late on Sunday.

The arrest was confirmed by the country’s attorney general’s office, which in an online post accused López of embezzling state funds during her time at El Salvador’s electoral court more than a decade ago.

“Neither her family nor her legal team has managed to find out her whereabouts,” Cristosal said in a statement, calling the refusal to disclose her location or allow access to lawyers “a blatant violation of due process”.

The group said her arrest “raises serious concerns about the increasing risks faced by human rights defenders in El Salvador”.

López has publicly criticised the government’s mass incarceration of alleged gang members, many of whom have not been charged.

Cristosal, one of the most prominent human rights groups in Latin America, has assisted Salvadoran families caught in Bukele’s security policies, as well as more than 250 Venezuelan immigrants who have been deported to El Salvador under Trump’s administration.

Bukele, who has called himself “the world’s coolest dictator” and has cultivated close ties with Trump, said earlier this year that El Salvador is ready to house US prisoners in a sprawling mega-prison opened last year.

In March, Trump used rarely invoked wartime powers to send dozens of Venezuelans to El Salvador without trial, alleging ties to the Tren de Aragua gang – a charge their families and lawyers deny.

The US Supreme Court on Friday barred the Trump administration from quickly resuming swift deportations of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

In April, Cristosal reported that police had entered its offices during a news conference to film and photograph journalists and staff members – part of what observers say is a broader campaign of harassment and intimidation against civil society organisations and independent media.

López was recognised by the BBC as one of the world’s 100 most inspiring and influential women for her commitment to justice and the rule of law.

A joint statement signed by more than a dozen rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, demanded her immediate release.

“El Salvador’s state of exception has not only been used to address gang-related violence but also as a tool to silence critical voices,” the statement said.

“Authoritarianism has increased in recent years as President Nayib Bukele has undermined institutions and the rule of law, and persecuted civil society organizations and independent journalists,” it added.