Government

Poland will hold the first round of voting in its presidential election on Sunday.

This is a hotly contested race between two main candidates – one from Civic Platform, the lead party in the ruling Civic Coalition, and the other an independent backed by the main opposition party, Law and Justice (PiS).

While much of the power rests with the prime minister and parliament in Poland, the president is able to veto legislation and has influence over military and foreign policy decisions. The current president, Andrzej Duda, who is from PiS, has used his veto to block reforms to the justice system that the government has been trying to enact for some time.

Furthermore, reports of foreign election interference have recently spooked voters who are primarily concerned with issues such as the Russia-Ukraine war, immigration, abortion rights and the economy.

Here is all we know about the upcoming vote:

How does voting work?

Polish citizens aged 18 or older can vote. There are about 29 million eligible voters. On Sunday, they will select a single candidate from a list of registered presidential candidates. If a candidate wins at least 50 percent of the vote, they win the election. If all candidates fall short of the 50 percent threshold, the country will vote in a second round for the two top contenders from the first round on June 1. The winner of that contest will become president. The election is expected to go to a second round.

Presidents may serve a maximum of two five-year terms in Poland. The current president reaches the end of his second term on August 6.

What time do polls open and close in Poland?

On May 18, polls will open at 7am (05:00 GMT) and close at 9pm (19:00 GMT).

What’s at stake?

In 2023, current Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s Civic Coalition ascended to power, ending eight years of rule by the PiS party’s government.

While Tusk promised to reverse unpopular judicial reforms enacted by PiS, President Andrzej Duda, a former nationalist ally of the party, has hampered Tusk’s efforts by using his presidential power to veto legislation.

What are the key issues?

Key issues dominating this election include the Russia-Ukraine war.

When the war first broke out in February 2022, Poland threw its full support behind Ukraine, welcoming more than one million Ukrainian refugees who crossed the border without documents.

On May 10, Tusk, alongside other European leaders, visited Kyiv and gave Russian President Vladimir Putin an ultimatum to enact an unconditional 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine.

However, relations between Poland and Ukraine have grown tense. Earlier this year, Polish farmers led protests, arguing the market had been flooded with cheap agricultural products from Ukraine.

There are also emerging reports of Ukrainian refugees facing discrimination in Poland, as well as resentment about welfare provided to them.

There have been growing fears of a spillover of Russian aggression to Poland due to its proximity to Ukraine. On May 12, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Warsaw said an investigation had revealed that Moscow’s intelligence agencies had orchestrated a massive fire at a shopping centre in Warsaw in May 2024.

Several candidates for the presidential election have proposed raising the defence budget to 5 percent of GDP.

Poles also have economic concerns about taxes, housing costs and the state of public transport.

Abortion is a key issue in Poland. Poland has some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe. Women are only allowed to have abortions in cases of rape or incest or if their life or health are at risk.

In August 2024, Tusk acknowledged that he did not have enough backing from parliament to deliver on one of his key campaign promises and change the abortion law.

Opinion is also split on whether LGBTQ rights should be restricted or expanded in the country.

The country is also divided over how involved it should be with the European Union (EU), with the PiS taking the stance that the country would be better off forming an alliance with the United States than the EU.

Who is running?

A total of 13 candidates are vying for the presidency. The top four candidates are:

Rafal Trzaskowski

Trzaskowski, 53, has been the liberal mayor of Warsaw since 2018 and is an ally of Tusk, affiliated with the PM’s political alliance, Civic Coalition. He is also a senior member of the Civic Platform party (PO), which heads the Civic Coalition. Trzaskowski was narrowly defeated by Duda in the 2020 presidential election.

During his time as mayor, he was lauded for investing in Warsaw’s infrastructure and culture. He proposes to increase defence spending to 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and to develop Poland’s arms and technology industry.

Trzaskowski has liberal views. He is pro-Europe and one of his campaign promises includes strengthening Poland’s position in the EU. Another one of his pledges is to relax abortion laws, however, he has been quiet on this issue during the run-up to the presidential election. He has also been supportive of the LGBTQ community and has attended pride parades. This could alienate some more conservative voters who live outside urban centres.

For this reason, right-wing voters may vote against him in the second round of voting. Trzaskowski could also lose support from centrist and progressive voters, who are frustrated by Tusk’s inability to bring reform to abortion laws.

Karol Nawrocki

Nawrocki, 42, is a conservative historian standing as an independent candidate backed by the PiS party.

His academic work has been centred around anti-communist resistance. He currently administers the Institute of National Remembrance, where his removal of Soviet memorials has angered Russia. He administered the Museum of the Second World War in northern Poland from 2017 to 2021.

His campaign promises include lowering taxes and pulling Poland out of the EU’s Migration Pact and Green Deal. He also wishes to allocate 5 percent of GDP to defence. Nawrocki is critical of giving more rights to LGBTQ couples.

Nawrocki has had a fair share of controversies in the past. In 2018, he published a book about a notorious gangster under the pseudonym “Tadeusz Batyr”. In public comments, Nawrocki and Batyr praised each other, without revealing they were the same person.

Slawomir Mentzen

Mentzen, 38, is a far-right entrepreneur who leads the New Hope party, a member of the Confederation coalition. He has degrees in economics and physics; owns a brewery in Torun; runs a tax advisory firm; and is critical of government regulation, wishing for significant tax cuts.

Mentzen has used social media platforms to connect with younger voters.

He believes that Poland should not take sides in the Russia-Ukraine war. He wants to ensure the Polish constitution overrides EU laws and wishes to withdraw from the EU Green Deal. He opposes LGBTQ rights and opposes abortion, even in cases of rape.

Ahead of the 2019 election for the European Parliament, he said: “We don’t want Jews, homosexuals, abortion, taxes or the European Union.” Since then, he has tried to distance himself from this statement.

While Poland offers free higher education, Mentzen dropped in opinion polls after he advocated for tuition fees in state schools in late March.

Szymon Holownia

Holownia, 48, is a former journalist and television personality-turned-politician. He is the speaker, or marshal, of the lower house of parliament, the Sejm.

In 2020, he founded a centrist movement called Polska 2050, which burgeoned into a party and ended up joining Tusk’s coalition.

Holownia wishes to promote regional development alongside better access to affordable housing and improving the public transport system. He says he wants to reduce bureaucracy, support Polish businesses and develop Poland’s domestic arms production capabilities.

Other candidates

Three leftist candidates are also running the election including Deputy Senate Speaker Magdalena Biejat, 43, an advocate for women’s rights, minority rights, affordable housing and abortion access; Adrian Zandberg, 45, who has made similar promises to Biejat; and academic and lawmaker Joanna Senyszyn, a former member of the Polish United Workers’ Party.

Other candidates include far-right Grzegorz Braun, who was pilloried globally for using a fire extinguisher to put out Hanukkah candles in parliament in 2023, and journalist and YouTuber Krzysztof Stanowski, 42, who does not have a political programme and wants to show Poles behind the scenes of the campaign while raising money for charity.

What do the opinion polls say?

As of May 12, Trzaskowski was in the lead with the support of 31 percent of voters, according to Politico’s polling aggregate. Nawrocki was in second place with 25 percent, while Mentzen had 13 percent and Holownia had 7 percent.

When will we know the results?

As soon as polls close, Ipsos will release an exit poll based on surveys undertaken at 500 randomly selected polling stations. While this is not the official result, it is expected to be highly indicative of which way the vote is going. Partial results may start to emerge on Sunday night or Monday.

In Poland, voting always takes place on a Sunday. In 2020, the official results for the first round of voting were confirmed on Tuesday morning.

What is the election interference controversy about?

On Wednesday, Poland said it had uncovered a possible election interference attempt via advertisements on Facebook.

“The NASK Disinformation Analysis Center has identified political ads on the Facebook platform that may be financed from abroad. The materials were displayed in Poland,” according to a statement by NASK, which is Poland’s national research institute dealing with cybersecurity. “The advertising accounts involved in the campaign spent more on political materials in the last seven days than any election committee.”

The NASK statement did not specify which countries’ financial backers of the campaign were believed to be based in. Fears of Russian election interference are high in Europe after Romania declared a do-over of its November presidential election after reports emerged of alleged Russian election interference. The first round of the repeat election took place on May 4, with the second round due to happen on May 18. This was after far-right politician Calin Georgescu, who was polling in single digits during the campaign, surprisingly emerged victorious.

A police officer killed as the country sees renewed deadly clashes in the aftermath of the killing of a militia commander.

Several ministers with Libya’s internationally recognised government have resigned in support of the protesters calling for Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah to step down.

The government late on Friday said a police officer was killed in an “attempted assault” on the prime minister’s office as thousands of Libyans marched into squares and various areas in the capital, Tripoli.

“He was shot by unknown attackers and succumbed to his injuries,” a statement said, adding that members of a group who mixed with the protesters tried to set the office on fire using Molotov cocktails.

Economy and Trade Minister Mohamed al-Hawij, Local Government Minister Badr Eddin al-Tumi and Minister of Housing Abu Bakr al-Ghawi resigned, according to a video released by two of those ministers as well as local media reports.

The government had earlier on Friday denied reports of the ministers’ resignations.

Meanwhile, in the city of Misrata, protesters gathered in support of Dbeibah and his government.

The protests follow a wave of violence in Tripoli in the past week that led to the deaths of at least eight civilians. The deadly clashes started after powerful militia leader Abdelghani al-Kikli, also known as Gheniwa, was killed in an ambush at a military base.

Dbeibah attempted to consolidate power and assert control after the killing, with more clashes following later in the week.

Before the demonstrations, the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) had emphasised “citizens’ right to peaceful protest” and warned against “any escalation of violence”.

Reporting from Tripoli, Al Jazeera’s Malik Traina said Libyans want to see a major change as people are “extremely frustrated” with the security situation.

“Libyans are calling for elections and want to be able to voice their opinion and put those that they want in power,” he said.

Egypt’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on Saturday that Cairo was closely monitoring developments in Libya, and urged all parties to exercise “maximum restraint”. It also advised Egyptian citizens in Libya to remain cautious and stay in their homes until the situation is clarified.

Libya has been in turmoil since a NATO-backed uprising in 2011, which ended up dividing the country between two rival administrations.

Dbeibah’s Government of National Unity (GNU) has maintained control over western Libya since 2021, while an administration backed by renegade military commander Khalifa Haftar leads in the east.

Libya was scheduled to hold national elections at the end of 2021, which were postponed indefinitely due to disputes over candidate eligibility, constitutional rules, and concerns over security as the rival governments failed to agree on a framework.

May 16 (UPI) — A federal judge will hear arguments Friday from the Trump administration to determine if the government has the legal privilege to not share details about its actions taken toward the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Abrego Garcia was deported in March to the supermax Terrorism Confinement Center prison, or CECOT, in El Salvador because he was an accused member of the MS-13 gang.

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration in April to return Abrego Garcia, who it said was illegally removed from the United States.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers continue to try to bring him back but allege the federal government has purposefully delayed his return. The Trump administration has since invoked “state secrets privilege,” which allows an executive department to withhold information or evidence in a court case because the information or evidence could jeopardize national security.

The administration’s use of the privilege has presiding U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis to ask lawyers from both sides of the case to file added legal papers about the administration’s use of the privilege.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed papers Monday that purport the government has yet to produce any evidence that it has done anything to facilitate the man’s release from imprisonment in El Salvador.

Abrego Garcia was born in El Salvador but entered the U.S. illegally in 2011 and had been living in Maryland. He was granted a withholding of removal legal status in 2019 that protected him from deportation due to the risk he would face upon a return to El Salvador from local gangs.

He was one of hundreds of migrants sent by the Trump administration in March to CECOT, and despite the government’s acknowledgement that he was incorrectly deported, he has been purported to be a member of the gang MS-13 by immigration officials.

Abrego Garcia’s legal team has argued that he was not only never part of MS-13, but was never charged or convicted of any crimes in the United States.

The United States Supreme Court has granted an emergency petition from a group of migrants in Texas, barring the use of an 18th-century wartime law to expedite their removals.

Friday’s unsigned decision (PDF) is yet another blow to the administration of President Donald Trump, who has sought to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to swiftly deport undocumented immigrants out of the US.

Only two conservative justices dissented: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

While the high court has yet to rule on the merits of Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, it did issue “injunctive relief” to Venezuelan migrants faced with expulsion under the centuries-old law.

“We have long held that ‘no person shall be’ removed from the United States ‘without opportunity, at some time, to be heard’,” the court majority wrote in its ruling.

It reaffirmed a previous opinion that migrants in the US are entitled to due process – in other words, they are entitled to a fair hearing in the judicial system – before their deportation.

Friday’s case was brought by two unnamed migrants from Venezuela, identified only by initials. They are being held in a detention centre in north Texas as they face deportation.

The Trump administration has accused them, and others from Venezuela, of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. It has further sought to paint undocumented migration into the US as an “invasion” and link Tren de Aragua’s activities in the US to the Venezuelan government, an assertion that a recently declassified intelligence memo disputes.

That, the Trump administration has argued, justifies its use of the Alien Enemies Act, which has only been used three times prior in US history – and only during periods of war.

But Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act has spurred a legal backlash, with several US district courts hearing petitions from migrants fearing expulsion under the law.

Multiple judges have barred the law’s use for expedited removals. But one judge in Pennsylvania ruled the Trump administration could deploy the law – provided it offer appropriate notice to those facing deportation. She suggested 21 days.

The Supreme Court on Friday did not weigh in on whether Trump’s use of the law was merited. Instead, its ruling – 24 pages in total, including a dissent – hewed closely to the issue of whether the Venezuelans in question deserved relief from their imminent deportation under the law.

The majority of the nine-justice bench noted that “evidence” it had seen in the case suggested “the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18” to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, even transporting the migrants “from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them”.

The justices asserted that they had a right to weigh in on the case, in order to prevent “irreparable harm” to the migrants and assert their jurisdiction in the case. Otherwise, they pointed out a deportation could put the migrants beyond their reach.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh went a step further in a separate opinion, calling on the Supreme Court to issue a final and binding ruling in the matter, rather than simply grant this one petition.

“The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court,” he said, agreeing with the majority’s decision.

Thomas and Alito, in their dissent, argued the Supreme Court had not afforded enough time to a lower court to rule on the emergency petition.

In the aftermath of the ruling, Trump lashed out on Truth Social, portraying the Supreme Court’s majority as overly lax towards migrants.

“THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” Trump wrote in the first of two consecutive posts.

In the second, he called Friday’s decision the mark of a “bad and dangerous day in America”. He complained that affirming the right to due process would result in “a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person”.

He also argued that the high court was preventing him from exercising his executive authority.

“The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,” he wrote, imagining a circumstance where extended deportation hearings would lead to “bedlam” in the US.

His administration has long accused the courts of interference in his agenda. But critics have warned that Trump’s actions – particularly, alleged efforts to ignore court orders – are eroding the US’s constitutional system of checks and balances.

In a statement after the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the court’s decision as a bulwark against human rights abuses.

“The court’s decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government’s attempt to hurry people away to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

“The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance.”

The Supreme Court currently boasts a conservative supermajority, with six right-leaning judges and three left-leaning ones.

Three among them were appointed by Trump himself. Those three sided with the majority.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has accused a Mexican woman of furnishing a cartel with grenades and other weapons.

The United States has revealed the first federal charges against a foreign national for providing material support to one of the criminal groups that President Donald Trump has designated a “foreign terrorist organisation”.

On Friday, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a statement identifying the suspect as 39-year-old Maria Del Rosario Navarro-Sanchez of Mexico.

An unsealed indictment accused Navarro-Sanchez of furnishing the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), a Mexican drug cartel, with grenades and helping it smuggle migrants, firearms, money and drugs.

“Cartels like CJNG are terrorist groups that wreak havoc in American communities and are responsible for countless lives lost in the United States, Mexico and elsewhere,” US Attorney General Pam Bondi said in the statement.

“This announcement demonstrates the Justice Department’s unwavering commitment to securing our borders and protecting Americans through effective prosecution.”

The charges stem from a decision early in Trump’s second term in office to apply “terrorism” designations to foreign criminal organisations, including gangs and drug cartels.

On his first day back in office, on January 20, Trump signed an executive order declaring that “international cartels constitute a national-security threat beyond that posed by traditional organized crime”. He directed his officials to begin preparations for implementing the “terrorism” designations.

By February 19, the Federal Register in the US listed eight Latin American criminal groups as “foreign terrorist organisations”, among them the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13).

Mexico’s Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion was also among that initial group of designated organisations.

Since then, the Trump administration has broadened its scope, adding more Latin American groups to the list. On May 2, for instance, two Haitian gangs – Viv Ansanm and Gran Grif – joined the US’s list of foreign terrorist organisations.

These designations are a departure from the usual use of the “foreign terrorist” label, often reserved for organisations that seek specific political aims through their violence.

Critics, however, warn that this application could have unintended consequences, particularly for civilians in vulnerable situations. The “foreign terrorist designation” makes it a crime for anyone to offer material support to a given group, but criminal gangs often extort civilians for money and services as part of their fundraising activities.

“You could accuse anyone – from a migrant who pays a smuggler to a Mexican business that is forced to pay a ‘protection fee’ – of offering material or financial support to a terrorist organisation,” Will Freeman, a fellow for Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Al Jazeera journalist Brian Osgood earlier this year.

In the case unsealed on Friday, it was revealed that Navarro-Sanchez was arrested on May 4. She had two co-defendants, also Mexican citizens, who likewise faced charges of firearms trafficking and other crimes.

The Mexican government had previously confirmed Navarro-Sanchez’s arrest. A statement ICE released to the media showed multiple firearms and packages of meth and fentanyl allegedly linked to the case.

It also included a photo of a golden AR-15 gun known as “El Dorado” that was reportedly “recovered from Navarro-Sanchez’s possession during her arrest in Mexico”.

“Supplying grenades to a designated terrorist organisation – while trafficking firearms, narcotics, and human beings – is not just criminal,” said ICE’s acting Director Todd Lyons. “It’s a direct assault on the security of the United States.”

Moody’s cited rising debt, saying US had repeatedly failed to end the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and interest.

Moody’s Ratings has stripped the United States government of its top credit rating, citing successive governments’ failure to stop a rising tide of debt.

On Friday, Moody’s lowered the rating from a gold-standard Aaa to Aa1. “Successive US administrations and Congress have failed to agree on measures to reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs,” it said as it changed its outlook on the US to “stable” from “negative”.

But, it added, the US “retains exceptional credit strengths such as the size, resilience and dynamism of its economy and the role of the US dollar as global reserve currency.”

Moody’s is the last of the three major rating agencies to lower the federal government’s credit rating. Standard & Poor’s downgraded federal debt in 2011, and Fitch Ratings followed in 2023.

In a statement, Moody’s said: “We expect federal deficits to widen, reaching nearly 9 percent of [the US economy] by 2035, up from 6.4 percent in 2024, driven mainly by increased interest payments on debt, rising entitlement spending, and relatively low revenue generation.’’

Extending President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, a priority of the Republican-controlled Congress, Moody’s said, would add $4 trillion over the next decade to the federal primary deficit, which does not include interest payments.

The White House adopted an aggressive tone towards Moody’s after the ratings agency downgraded the US credit rating.

White House communications director Steven Cheung reacted to the downgrade via a social media post, singling out Moody’s economist, Mark Zandi, for criticism. He called Zandi a political opponent of Trump.

“Nobody takes his ‘analysis’ seriously. He has been proven wrong time and time again,” Cheung said.

A gridlocked political system has been unable to tackle the huge deficits accumulated by the US. Republicans reject tax increases, and Democrats are reluctant to cut spending.

On Friday, House Republicans failed to push a big package of tax breaks and spending cuts through the Budget Committee. A small group of hard-right Republican lawmakers, insisting on steeper cuts to Medicaid and President Joe Biden’s green energy tax breaks, joined all Democrats in opposing it, a rare political setback for the Republican president.

Washington, DC – Three days, three countries, hundreds of billions of dollars in investments and a geopolitical shift in the United States’s approach to the region: Donald Trump’s trip to the Middle East has been eventful.

This week, the United States president visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates in the first planned trip of his second presidency, after attending Pope Francis’s funeral last month.

Trump was visibly gleeful throughout the trip as he secured investments, criticised domestic political rivals and heaped praise on Gulf leaders. The word “historic” was used more than a few times by US officials to describe the visits.

With Trump returning to the White House, here are five key takeaways from his trip:

A rebuke of interventionism

Addressing an investment summit in Riyadh, Trump promoted a realist approach to the Middle East — one in which the US does not intervene in the affairs of other countries.

He took a swipe at neoconservatives who oversaw the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as he lauded Gulf leaders for developing the region.

“This great transformation has not come from Western intervention or flying people in beautiful planes, giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs,” he said.

“The gleaming marbles of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neo-cons or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities.”

Trump built his political brand with his “America First” slogan, calling for the US to focus on its own issues instead of helping — or bombing — foreign countries.

But his words at the investment summit marked a stern rebuke of the neo-cons who dominated Trump’s Republican Party a decade ago.

“In the end, the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,” Trump said.

Israel sidelined, but no Gaza solution

It is rare for US presidents to travel to the Middle East and not visit Israel, but Trump omitted the US ally from his itinerary as he toured the region.

Skipping Israel was seen as a reflection of the deteriorating ties between the US administration and the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This week’s trip also came in the context of several moves perceived as evidence of the US marginalising Israel. The US has continued to hold talks with Israel’s rival Iran, announced a ceasefire with the Houthis in Yemen, and conducted unilateral negotiations to release Israeli soldier Edan Alexander, a US citizen, from Hamas captivity.

Moreover, while touring the Gulf, Trump did not use his remarks to prioritise the establishment of formal diplomatic ties between Saudi Arabia and Israel, which had been a top goal during his first term.

It remains unclear how Trump’s decisions will affect the “special relationship” between the two allies, but experts say it is becoming increasingly apparent that the US no longer views the Middle East solely through the lens of Israel.

“Is it a tactical problem for Netanyahu and the entire pro-Israel lobby? I think it is,” Khaled Elgindy, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University, said of Trump’s shift.

“It does throw a wrench in the machinery because it is a president who is showing openly daylight with Israeli decision-making, and not just in rhetoric, but acting on it — leaving Israel out of the process.”

With that chasm emerging, some Palestinian rights advocates had hoped that the US president’s trip to the region would see Washington pursue a deal to end Israel’s war on Gaza.

But as Trump marvelled at the luxurious buildings in the Gulf, Israel intensified its bombardment to destroy what’s left of the Palestinian territory.

No ceasefire was announced, despite reports of continuing talks in Doha. And Israel appears to be pushing forward with its plan to expand its assault on Gaza as it continues to block aid for the nearly two million people in the enclave, leading to fears of famine.

United Nations experts and rights groups have described the situation as a genocide.

But despite preaching “peace and prosperity” for both Israelis and Palestinians, Trump made no strong push to end the war during this week’s trip.

On Thursday, Trump suggested that he has not given up on the idea of depopulating Gaza and turning it over to the US — a proposal that legal experts say amounts to ethnic cleansing.

“I have concepts for Gaza that I think are very good. Make it a freedom zone,” he said. “Let the United States get involved, and make it just a freedom zone.”

Lifting Syria sanctions

In a move that surprised many observers, Trump announced from Riyadh that he will offer sanction relief to Syria, as the country emerges from a decade-plus civil war.

Trump also met with interim Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and described him as a “young, attractive guy”.

A wholesale lifting of sanctions was not expected, in part because of Israel’s hostility to the new authorities in Syria. Israeli officials often describe al-Sharaa, who led al-Qaeda’s branch in Syria before severing ties with the group, as a “terrorist”.

But Trump said he made the decision to lift the economic penalties against Syria at the request of Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

“I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness,” the US president said.

The White House said on Wednesday that Trump had a list of requests for al-Sharaa, including establishing diplomatic relations with Israel and deporting “Palestinian terrorists”.

Removing US sanctions, which had been imposed on the government of former President Bashar al-Assad, is likely to be a boost for the new Syrian authorities, who are grappling with an ailing economy after years of conflict.

“Lifting sanctions on Syria represents a fundamental turning point,” Ibrahim Nafi Qushji, an economist, told Al Jazeera.

“The Syrian economy will transition from interacting with developing economies to integrating with more developed ones, potentially significantly reshaping trade and investment relations.”

A carrot and a stick for Iran

In Saudi Arabia, Trump declared that he wants a deal with Iran — and he wants it done quickly.

“We really want them to be a successful country,” the US president said of Iran.

“We want them to be a wonderful, safe, great country, but they cannot have a nuclear weapon. This is an offer that will not last forever. The time is right now for them to choose.”

Trump warned Iran that, if it rejects his “olive branch”, he would impose a “massive maximum pressure” against Tehran and choke off its oil exports.

Notably, Trump did not threaten explicit military action against Iran, a departure from his previous rhetoric. In late March, for instance, he told NBC News, “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing.”

Iran says it is not seeking nuclear weapons and would welcome a stringent monitoring programme of its nuclear facilities.

But Israel and some hawks want the Iranian nuclear programme completely dismantled, not just scaled back.

US and Iranian officials have held multiple rounds of talks this year, but Tehran says it has not received an official offer from Washington. And Trump officials have not explicitly indicated what the endgame of the talks is.

US envoy Steve Witkoff said last month that Iran “must stop and eliminate” uranium enrichment, but days earlier, he had suggested that enrichment should be brought down to civilian energy levels.

Several Gulf countries, including the three that Trump visited this week, have welcomed the nuclear negotiations, as relations between Iran and its Arab neighbours have grown more stable in recent years.

Investments, investments and more investments

Before entering politics, Trump was a real estate mogul who played up his celebrity persona as a mega-rich dealmaker. He appears to have brought that business mindset to the White House.

While in the wealthy Gulf region, Trump was in his element. He announced deals that would see Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE buy US arms and invest in American firms. According to the White House, Trump secured a total of $2 trillion in investments from the Middle East during the trip.

And his administration is framing the deals as a major political and economic victory for Trump.

“While it took President Biden nearly four years to secure $1 trillion in investments, President Trump achieved this in his first month, with additional investment commitments continuing to roll in,” the White House said.

“President Trump is accelerating investment in America and securing fair trade deals around the world, paving the way for a new Golden Age of lasting prosperity for generations to come.”

NEW YORK — Christine Farro has cut back on the presents she sends her grandchildren on their birthdays, and she’s put off taking two cats and a dog for their shots. All her clothes come from thrift stores and most of her vegetables come from her garden. At 73, she has cut her costs as much as she can to live on a tight budget.

But it’s about to get far tighter.

As the Trump administration resumes collections on defaulted student loans, a surprising population has been caught in the crosshairs: hundreds of thousands of older Americans whose decades-old debts now put them at risk of having their Social Security checks garnished.

“I worked ridiculous hours. I worked weekends and nights. But I could never pay it off,” says Farro, a retired child welfare worker in Santa Ynez, Calif.

Like millions of debtors with federal student loans, Farro had her payments and interest paused by the government five years ago when the pandemic thrust many into financial hardship. That grace period ended in 2023 and, earlier this month, the Department of Education said it would restart “involuntary collections” by garnishing paychecks, tax refunds and Social Security retirement and disability benefits. Farro previously had her Social Security garnished and expects it to restart.

Farro’s loans date back 40 years. She was a single mother when she got a bachelor’s degree in developmental psychology and when she discovered she couldn’t earn enough to pay off her loans, she went back to school and got a master’s degree. Her salary never caught up. Things only got worse.

Around 2008, when she consolidated her loans, she was paying $1,000 a month, but years of missed payments and piled-on interest meant she was barely putting a dent in a bill that had ballooned to $250,000. When she sought help to resolve her debt, she says the loan company had just one suggestion.

“They said, ‘Move to a cheaper state,’” says Farro, who rents a 400-square-foot casita from a friend. “I realized I was living in a different reality than they were.”

Student loan debt among older people has grown at a staggering rate, in part due to rising tuitions that have forced more people to borrow greater sums. People 60 and older hold an estimated $125 billion in student loans, according to the National Consumer Law Center, a six-fold increase from 20 years ago.

That has led Social Security beneficiaries who have had their payments garnished to balloon by 3,000% — from approximately 6,200 beneficiaries to 192,300 — between 2001 and 2019, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This year, an estimated 452,000 people aged 62 and older had student loans in default and are likely to experience the Department of Education’s renewed forced collections, according to the January report from CFPB.

Debbie McIntyre, a 62-year-old adult education teacher in Georgetown, Ky., is among them. She dreams of retiring and writing more historical fiction, and of boarding a plane for the first time since high school. But her husband has been out of work on disability for two decades and they’ve used credit cards to get by on his meager benefits and her paycheck. Their rent will be hiked $300 when their lease renews. McIntyre doesn’t know what to do if her paycheck is garnished.

She floats the idea of bankruptcy, but that won’t automatically clear her loans, which are held to a different standard than other debt. She figures if she picks up extra jobs babysitting or tutoring, she could put $50 toward her loans here and there. But she sees no real solution.

“I don’t know what more I can do,” says McIntyre, who is too afraid to check what her loan balance is. “I’ll never get out of this hole.”

Braxton Brewington of the Debt Collective debtors union says it’s striking how many older people dial into the organization’s calls and attend its protests. Many of them, he says, should have had their debts canceled but fell victim to a system “riddled with flaws and illegalities and flukes.” Many whose educations have left them in late-life debt have, in fact, paid back the principal on their loans, sometimes several times over, but still owe more due to interest and fees.

For those who are subject to garnishment, Brewington says, the results can be devastating.

“We hear from people who skip meals. We know people who dilute their medication or cut their pills in half. People take drastic measures like pulling all their savings out or dissolving their 401ks,” he says. “We know folks that have been driven into homelessness.”

Collections on defaulted loans may have restarted no matter who was president, though the Biden administration had sought to limit the amount of income that could be garnished. Federal law protects just $750 of Social Security benefits from garnishment, an amount that would put a debtor far below the poverty line.

“We’re basically providing people with federal benefits with one hand and taking them away with another,” says Sarah Sattelmeyer of the New America think tank.

Linda Hilton, a 76-year-old retired office worker from Apache Junction, Ariz., went through garnishment before COVID and says she will survive it again. But flights to see her children, occasional meals at a restaurant and other pleasures of retired life may disappear.

“It’s going to mean restrictions,” says Hilton. “There won’t be any travel. There won’t be any frills.”

Some debtors have already received notice about collections. Many more are living in fear. President Trump has signed an executive order calling for the Department of Education’s dismantling and, for those seeking answers about their loans, mass layoffs have complicated getting calls answered.

While Education Secretary Linda McMahon says restarting collections is a necessary step for debtors “both for the sake of their own financial health and our nation’s economic outlook,” even some of Trump’s most fervent supporters are questioning a move that will make their lives harder.

Randall Countryman, 55, of Bonita, Calif., says a Biden administration proposal to forgive some student debt didn’t strike him as fair, but he’s not sure Trump’s approach is either. He supported Trump but wishes the government made case-by-case decisions on debtors. Countryman thinks Americans don’t realize how many older people are affected by policies on student loans, often thought to be the turf of the young, and how difficult it can be for them to repay.

“What’s a young person’s problem today,” he says, “is an old person’s problem tomorrow.”

Countryman started working on a degree while in prison, then continued it at the University of Phoenix when he was released. He started growing nervous as he racked up loan debt and never finished his degree. He’s worked a host of different jobs, but finding work has often been complicated by his criminal record.

He lives off his wife’s Social Security check and the kindness of his mother-in-law. He doesn’t know how they’d get by if the government demands repayment.

“I kind of wish I never went to school in the first place,” he says.

Sedensky writes for the Associated Press.

A Los Angeles construction worker from Vietnam was among 13 immigrants roused by guards in full combat gear around 2:30 a.m. one day last week in a Texas detention facility, shackled, forced onto a bus and told they would be deported to Libya, two of the detainees’ lawyers said.

“It was very aggressive. They weren’t allowed to do anything,” said Tin Thanh Nguyen, an attorney for the Los Angeles man, whom he did not identify for fear of retaliation.

Libya, the politically unstable country in North Africa, is beset by “terrorism, unexploded landmines, civil unrest, kidnapping, and armed conflict,” according to the U.S. State Department. Human rights groups have documented inhumane conditions at detention facilities and migrant camps, including torture, forced labor and rape.

The construction worker, who has a criminal conviction on his record, had lived in the U.S. for decades and has a wife and teenage daughter. He was arrested after appearing at an annual immigration check-in at a Los Angeles office two months ago and then shuffled around to various detention facilities before arriving at the South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall.

In the early morning hours of May 7, he was placed on the bus from the detention facility south to what was likely Lackland Air Force Base. From there, he and the rest of the group sat for hours on the tarmac in front of a military plane in the predawn dark, unsure what was going to happen. The men hailed from Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar, Mali, Burundi, Cuba, Bolivia, Mexico and the Philippines, the attorneys said. None were from Libya.

“My client and the other men on the bus were silent,” Nguyen said in court files. “My client was extremely scared.”

The plane hatch was open. Military personnel bustled in and out, appearing to bring in supplies and fuel the plane. Photographers positioned themselves in front of the military aircraft.

“Suddenly the bus starts moving and heading back to the detention facility,” said Johnny Sinodis, an attorney for another detainee, a Filipino who grew up and went to college in the United States and also had a criminal conviction.

U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Massachusetts had issued a warning to the administration to halt any immediate removal to Libya or any other third country, as it would violate a previous court order that officials must provide detainees with due process and notice in their own language. Lawyers had scrambled to get the order after media reports confirmed what their clients had told them: Removals to Libya appeared imminent.

Sinodis said his client and others were returned to the detention unit and placed in solitary confinement for 24 hours.

In his declaration, he said his client spoke to a Mexican and a Bolivian national who were in the group. Each had been told that their home countries would accept them, but the officials still said they were going to send them to Libya.

It’s been a week since the incident, and the lawyers said they are still fighting to stop their clients deportations to a third country.

The Trump administration deported hundreds of mostly Venezuelan men to a prison in El Salvador, invoking a wartime law to speedily remove accused gang members. Their deportation drew immediate challenges and became the most contentious piece of the immigration crackdown. Officials have also sent people to Panama who were not from that country.

This month, the foreign minister of Rwanda said in a televison interview it was in talks with U.S. officials to take in deported migrants.

It’s unclear how Libya came to be a possible destination for the immigrants. Two governments claim power in the nation. The Tripoli-based Government of National Unity has denied any deal with the Trump administration. The Government of National Stability, based in Benghazi, also rejected reports that it would take deportees.

The U.N. Human Rights Office said on Tuesday that it had information that at least 100 Venezuelans held in the Salvadoran megaprison weren’t told they were going to be deported to a third country, had no access to a lawyer and were unable to challenge the removal.

“This situation raises serious concerns regarding a wide array of rights that are fundamental to both U.S. and international law,” U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said in a statement. “The manner in which some of the individuals were detained and deported — including the use of shackles on them — as well as the demeaning rhetoric used against migrants, has also been profoundly disturbing.”

Sinodis said his client had already been in custody for months and been told that he would be deported to the Philippines in late April. But that month, he was transferred from the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Wash., to Texas. An officer in Tacoma told him the decision to move him there came from “headquarters,” according to court documents.

On May 5, he was scheduled to be interviewed by two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in Texas. He expected to learn of his deportation date. Instead, they handed him a one-page document that said he would be deported to Libya. He was shocked, Sinodis said.

The man asked the officers whether there was anything he or his attorney could do to avoid this. They said no.

Nguyen said his client, who doesn’t speak English fluently, had a similar experience on the same day. The officers handed him a document in English that they said would allow him to be free in Libya. He doesn’t even know where Libya is and refused to sign the document. The officers told him he would be deported no matter what he did.

The next day, Sinodis said, his client’s commissary and phone accounts were zeroed out.

Sinodis finally reached an officer at the detention center who told him, “That’s crazy,” when asked about Libya. His client must have misheard, he said. But his client, who grew up on the West Coast, speaks fluent English.

Then on May 7, as things unfolded, the attorney reached another officer at the facility, who said he had no information that the man was going to Libya, and referred him back to an officer in Tacoma. A supervisor downplayed the situation.

“I can assure you this is not an emergency because the emergency does not exist,” the supervisor told him, according to court documents.

Shortly after noon that day, a detention center officer who identified himself as Garza called and told him he was looking into it, but so far had “no explanation” for why his client was told this, but he also couldn’t guarantee it didn’t happen.

Less than an hour later, his client called to tell him that he had been taken to an air base. He said when he was pulled out of his cell in the early morning, he saw the same two officers that interviewed him and asked him to sign the removal papers.

“He asks the officers, ‘Are we still going to Libya?” Sinodis said. “They said yes.”

Baraka’s defence team say they will file a motion to dismiss trespassing charges pursued by the Trump administration.

Lawyers in the United States have said they will file a motion to dismiss trespassing charges directed at Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, following his arrest during a protest at an immigrant detention centre in New Jersey.

During a hearing in a New Jersey federal court on Thursday, Baraka’s defence team said that they believed he was being selectively prosecuted by the administration of President Donald Trump.

“We believe that the mayor himself was targeted here,” said Rahul Agarwal, one of Baraka’s lawyers.

“The mayor was invited into the facility on Friday,” Agarwal added, pointing out that Baraka was “outside the facility when he was ultimately handcuffed and detained”.

Baraka himself attended the hearing and spoke to supporters outside afterwards. On social media, he framed the criminal complaint as a sham.

“Today, the U.S. Attorney General’s office chose to move forward with a trial over trespassing charges at Delaney Hall. While the charges are unwarranted, we will fight this,” Baraka wrote. “This is bigger than me. It’s about all of us.”

The incident is the latest to underscore growing tensions between the Trump administration and local authorities who oppose his immigration crackdown.

Civil liberties groups have argued that the government is using its power to intimidate or coerce officials who do not align with its priorities on immigration.

The Trump administration’s complaint centres on the events of May 9, when lawmakers and protesters showed up at Delaney Hall, a new detention facility in Newark run by the private company GEO Group.

Baraka has long opposed the 1,000-bed facility, saying it lacks the proper permitting, and he has appeared outside its gates multiple times since its May 1 opening.

On the day of his arrest, Baraka joined three members of the US Congress — LaMonica McIver, Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez — who arrived unannounced “to conduct lawful congressional oversight” of the facility, according to their statements afterwards.

Agarwal said that Baraka was the only person arrested in the incident. Baraka has maintained that he was invited in to the facility and shared a video on social media on Wednesday that he says shows a guard opening the gate to allow him inside the premises.

“Mayor Baraka was at Delaney Hall to join a tour of the detention facility with a congressional delegation as part of their authorized oversight responsibilities,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said in a statement on the arrest of Baraka last week.

“Mayor Baraka — and lawmakers across New Jersey and the country — are being targeted by the Trump administration for refusing to be complicit with its ongoing violations of due process.”

However, the government’s criminal complaint alleges that Baraka entered and remained inside the private facility despite multiple warnings to leave. He faces up to 30 days in prison.

“We believe there’s clear evidence that the mayor was within the property,” Assistant US Attorney Stephen Demanovich told US Magistrate Judge Andre Espinosa.

Video of the incident shows an official behind the gate at Delaney Hall telling Baraka he must return outside because “you are not a congressmember”.

Judge Espinosa on Thursday told Baraka he needed to be processed by US Marshals Service after proceedings came to an end.

The Associated Press said the request sparked a moment of confusion in the courtroom. Baraka pointed out that he had already been processed after his arrest, but ultimately agreed to give his fingerprints and take a mugshot a second time.

“They’re trying their best to humiliate and degrade me as much as they possibly can,” said Baraka. “I feel like what we did was completely correct. We did not violate any laws. We stood up for the constitution of this country, the constitution of the state of New Jersey.”

Baraka is considered a leading candidate in the 2025 New Jersey governor’s race.

Republicans have proposed the remittance tax as part of a broader push to crack down on undocumented immigration.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has denounced a provision in a tax bill being considered in the United States Congress that would impose duties on remittances — a term used to describe the money people send abroad for non-commercial reasons, often as gifts to family and loved ones.

On Thursday, during her morning news conference, Sheinbaum addressed the tax bill directly, calling the remittances proposal “a measure that is unacceptable”.

“It would result in double taxation, since Mexicans living in the United States already pay taxes,” she said.

She added that her government was reaching out to other countries with large immigrant populations to voice concern about the US proposition.

“This will not just affect Mexico,” she said. “It will also affect many other countries and many other Latin American countries.”

According to World Bank data from 2024, India is the top recipient of international remittances, with $129bn coming from abroad, followed by Mexico with more than $68bn.

In Mexico, in particular, experts estimate that remittances make up close to 4 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

But a far-reaching tax bill championed by US President Donald Trump includes language that would impose a 5-percent excise tax on remittances sent specifically by non-citizens, including visa holders and permanent residents.

That bill would affect nearly 40 million people living in the country. US citizens, however, would be exempt from the remittance tax.

Trump has led a campaign to discourage immigration to the US and promote “mass deportation” during his second term in office, as part of his “America First” agenda.

Proponents of that platform say taxing remittances would serve as clear deterrence to immigrants who come to the US looking for better economic opportunities for themselves and any loved ones they hope to support back home.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration think tank, told The Associated Press news agency that he believes barriers to remittances can help curb undocumented immigration to the US.

“One of the main reasons people come here is to work and send money home,” Krikorian said. “If that’s much more difficult to do, it becomes less appealing to come here.”

Under the bill being weighed in the House of Representatives, the 5-percent tax would be paid by the sender and collected by “remittance transfer providers”, who would then send that money to the US Treasury.

But President Sheinbaum and other leaders have called on Republicans in Congress to reconsider that provision, given the unintended consequences it could create. Sheinbaum even suggested that the tax could be seen as unconstitutional in the US.

“This is an injustice, apart from being unconstitutional,” she said on Thursday. “But in addition, it is the tax on those who have the least. They should charge taxes to those at the top, not those at the bottom.”

Critics of the measure point out that remittances can help stabilise impoverished areas abroad, thereby limiting the likelihood of undocumented migration from those areas.

Additional barriers to sending remittances could create economic setbacks for those communities, not to mention make the process more difficult for US citizens who are exempted from the proposed tax.

Still, even if the tax bill is defeated or the provision on remittances removed, the Trump administration has signalled it plans to move forward with other measures designed to discourage migrants from sending funds abroad.

On April 25, Trump posted on his media platform, Truth Social, a list of “weekly policy achievements”.

On the final page, the top bullet point under “international relations” was “finalizing a Presidential Memorandum to shut down remittances sent by illegal aliens outside the United States”. Trump called the document a “MUST READ”.

As Bolivia hurtles towards a hotly contested August 17 presidential election, two major shake-ups may shape the outcome of the race.

On Wednesday, incumbent President Luis Arce announced he would abandon his bid for re-election after a five-year term defined by turmoil.

“Today I firmly inform the Bolivian people of my decision to decline my candidacy for presidential re-election in the elections next August,” he wrote on social media.

“I do so with the clearest conviction that I will not be a factor in dividing the popular vote, much less facilitate the making of a fascist right-wing project that seeks to destroy the plurinational state.”

That same day, Bolivia’s constitutional court also ruled that Arce’s former political mentor, now rival, Evo Morales, could not run for another term as president, upholding a two-term limit.

But the left-wing Morales, the embattled former president who previously served three terms in office and attempted to claim a fourth, remained defiant on social media afterwards.

“Only the people can ask me to decline my candidacy,” Morales wrote. “We will obey the mandate of the people to save Bolivia, once again.”

The two announcements on Wednesday have added further uncertainty to an already tumultuous presidential race, where no clear frontrunner has emerged so far.

Arce’s decline

Since his election in 2020, Arce has led Bolivia, following a political crisis that saw Morales flee the country and a right-wing president briefly take his place.

But Arce’s tenure has been similarly mired in upheaval, as his relationship with Morales fractured and his government saw its popularity slip.

Both men are associated with a left-wing political party known as the Movement for Socialism (MAS), which Morales helped to found. Since its establishment three decades ago, the group has become one of the most prominent forces in Bolivian politics.

Still, in the lead-up to August’s election, Arce saw his poll numbers decline. Bolivia’s inflation over the past year has ballooned to its highest level in a decade, and the value of its currency has plummeted.

The country’s central bank has run low on its reserves of hard currency, and a black market has emerged where the value of the Bolivian currency is half its official exchange rate. And where once the country was an exporter of natural gas, it now relies on imports to address energy shortages.

While experts say some of these issues predate Arce’s term in office, public sentiment has nevertheless turned against his administration. That, in turn, has led some to speculate that Bolivia could be in store for a political shift this election year.

Arce himself has had to deal with the power of a rising right-wing movement in Bolivia. In 2022, for instance, his government’s decision to delay a countrywide census sparked deadly protests in areas like Santa Cruz, where some Christian conservative activists expected surveys to show growth.

That population increase was expected to lead to more government funds, and potentially boost the number of legislative seats assigned to the department.

Arce also faced opposition from within his own coalition, most notably from Morales, his former boss. He had previously served as an economy and finance minister under Morales.

The division between the two leaders translated into a schism in the MAS membership, with some identifying as Morales loyalists and others backing Arce.

That split came to a head in June 2024, when Arce’s hand-picked army general, Juan Jose Zuniga, led an unsuccessful coup d’etat against him. Zuniga publicly blamed Arce for Bolivia’s impoverishment, as well as mismanagement in the government.

Morales has seized upon the popular discontent to advance his own ambitions of seeking a fourth term as president. After the coup, he launched a protest march against his former political ally and tried to set an ultimatum to force changes.

After dropping out of the 2025 presidential race on Wednesday, Arce called for “the broadest unity” in Bolivia’s left-wing political movement. He said a show of strength behind a single candidate was necessary for “defeating the plunderers of Bolivia”.

“Only the united struggle of the people ensures the best future for Bolivia. Our vote will be united against the threat of the right and fascism,” he wrote on social media.

Morales continues to fight term limits

But a wild card remains on the left of Bolivia’s political spectrum: Morales himself.

Considered Bolivia’s first Indigenous president, Morales remains a relatively popular figure, though recent scandals have dented his broad appeal.

First elected as president in 2005, Morales was re-elected twice. But his attempts to remain in office culminated with the 2019 election and subsequent political crisis, which saw Morales resign and flee abroad amid accusations that his victory was the result of electoral fraud.

Morales has long sought a fourth term as president. In 2016, a referendum was put to Bolivia’s voters that would have scrapped presidential term limits, but it was rejected. Still, Morales appealed to Bolivia’s Constitutional Court, and in 2019, it allowed him to seek a fourth term.

That led to accusations that Morales had overturned the will of the voters in an anti-democratic power grab.

But the court has since walked back that precedent, reversing its decision four years later in 2023. It has since upheld that decision on term limits multiple times, most recently on Wednesday, effectively barring Morales from the upcoming August race.

Separately, last October, Morales faced charges of statutory rape for allegedly fathering a child with a 15-year-old girl while president. Morales has denied any wrongdoing and has sought to evade warrants issued for his arrest.

Media reports indicate he is holed up with supporters in the rural department of Cochabamba in the north of Bolivia.

Still, in February, Morales announced his bid for re-election. And on Wednesday, he denounced the Constitutional Court’s latest ruling upholding Bolivia’s two-term limit as a violation of his human rights. He also framed it as part of a broader pattern of foreign interference.

“It is a political and partisan ruling that obeys the orders of the eternal enemy of the people: the US empire,” he wrote on social media.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has slashed another $450m in grants from Harvard University, amid an ongoing feud over anti-Semitism, presidential control and the limits of academic freedom.

On Tuesday, a joint task force assembled under Trump accused Harvard, the country’s oldest university, of perpetrating a “long-standing policy and practice of discriminating on the basis of race”.

“Harvard’s campus, once a symbol of academic prestige, has become a breeding ground for virtue signaling and discrimination. This is not leadership; it is cowardice. And it’s not academic freedom; it’s institutional disenfranchisement,” the task force said in a statement.

“By prioritizing appeasement over accountability, institutional leaders have forfeited the school’s claim to taxpayer support.”

The elimination of another $450m in grants came in addition to the more than $2.2bn in federal funds that were already suspended last week, the task force added.

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 that had played host to pro-Palestinian protests over the last 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.

Columbia University was initially a centrepiece of the Trump administration’s efforts. The New York City school had seen the first major Palestine solidarity encampment rise on its lawn, which served as a blueprint for similar protests around the world. It also saw a series of mass arrests in the aftermath.

In March, one of Columbia’s protest leaders, Mahmoud Khalil, was the first foreign student to be arrested and have his legal immigration status revoked under Trump’s campaign to punish demonstrators. And when Trump threatened to yank $400m in grants and research contracts, the school agreed to submit to a list of demands to restore the funding.

The demands included adopting a formal definition of anti-Semitism, beefing up campus security and putting one of its academic departments – focused on Middle East, African and South Asian studies – under the supervision of an outside authority.

Free speech advocates called Columbia’s concessions a capitulation to Trump, who they say has sought to erode academic freedom and silence viewpoints he disagrees with.

On April 11, his administration issued another list of demands for Harvard that went even further. Under its terms, Harvard would have had to revamp its disciplinary system, eliminate its diversity initiatives and agree to an external audit of programmes deemed anti-Semitic.

The demands also required Harvard to agree to “structural and personnel changes” that would foster “viewpoint diversity” – a term left ambiguous. But critics argued it was a means for Trump to impose his values and priorities on the school by shaping its hiring and admissions practices.

Harvard has been at the centre of controversies surrounding its admissions in the past. In 2023, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s consideration of race in student admissions – through a process called affirmative action – violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.

Tuesday’s letter referenced that court decision in arguing that “Harvard University has repeatedly failed to confront the pervasive race discrimination and anti-Semitic harassment plaguing its campus”.

A pair of reports in April, created by Harvard University’s own task forces, also found that there were cases of anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish violence on campus in the wake of Israel’s war in Gaza, a divisive issue in US politics.

Ultimately, on April 14, Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, rejected the Trump administration’s demands, arguing they were evidence of government overreach.

“No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” Garber wrote in his response.

But Trump has continued to pressure the campus, including by threatening to revoke its tax-exempt status. Democrats and other critics have warned that it would be illegal for the president to influence the decisions of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with regard to individual taxpayers, like the university.

Under Trump, the Department of Homeland Security has also threatened to bar foreign students from enrolling at the university if Harvard did not hand over documents pertaining to the pro-Palestine protests.

On Monday, Garber, Harvard’s president, wrote a response to Trump’s secretary of education, Linda McMahon, defending his campus’s commitment to free speech while also addressing the spectre of anti-Semitism.

“We share common ground on a number of critical issues, including the importance of ending antisemitism and other bigotry on campus. Like you, I believe that Harvard must foster an academic environment that encourages freedom of thought and expression, and that we should embrace a multiplicity of viewpoints,” his letter read.

But, he added, Harvard’s efforts to create a more equitable learning environment were “undermined and threatened” by the Trump administration’s “overreach”.

“Harvard will not surrender its core, legally-protected principles out of fear of unfounded retaliation by the federal government,” Garber said.

“I must refute your claim that Harvard is a partisan institution. It is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is not an arm of any other political party or movement. Nor will it ever be.”

Jose “Pepe” Mujica, a former leftist rebel who became Uruguay’s president from 2010 to 2015, has died at the age of 89.

Uruguayan President Yamandu Orsi announced his death in a social media post on Tuesday. Mujica had been diagnosed with throat cancer in 2024.

“It is with deep sorrow that we announce the death of our comrade Pepe Mujica,” Orsi wrote. “Thank you for everything you gave us and for your deep love for your people.”

Mujica became an icon even beyond Uruguay’s borders, as he led his country to pursue environmental reforms, legalise same-sex marriage and loosen restrictions on marijuana.

He also was celebrated for maintaining his simple lifestyle even during his presidency, when he eschewed the presidential palace in favour of the farmhouse where he grew flowers. He told Al Jazeera in 2022 that such opulence can “divorce” presidents from their people.

“I believe that politicians should live like the majority of their people, not like how the privileged minority lives,” Mujica explained.

News of Mujica’s death has been met with tributes from around the world, particularly from figures on the Latin American left.

“We deeply regret the passing of our beloved Pepe Mujica, an example to Latin America and the entire world for his wisdom, foresight, and simplicity,” Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum wrote on social media.

Chile’s President Gabriel Boric, meanwhile, remembered Mujica’s optimism in a post of his own.

“If you left us anything, it was the unquenchable hope that things can be done better,” he wrote.

For his part, Colombian President Gustavo Petro offered a tribute to Mujica that doubled as a call for greater collaboration and integration across Latin America.

“Goodbye, friend,” Petro wrote in the wake of Mujica’s passing, as he envisioned a more unified region. “I hope that Latin America will one day have an anthem.”

Mujica became a symbol to a generation of political leaders helping to steer their countries out of military dictatorships during the latter half of the 20th century. Like Petro, Mujica was likewise a former rebel fighter.

As a young man in the 1960s, he led armed fighters as part of the far-left Tupamaros movement, which was known for robbing banks, taking over towns and even exchanging gunfire with local police.

Mujica was arrested multiple times and spent nearly a decade in solitary confinement, in a prison where he endured torture.

A government crackdown on the left-wing fighters helped pave the way for a coup in 1973, followed by a brutal military dictatorship that perpetrated human rights abuses like forced disappearances. But in 1985, Uruguay began its transition to democracy, and Mujica and other rebel fighters were released under an amnesty law.

He started to become a force in Uruguay’s politics, joining the Frente Amplio or Broad Front, a centre-left coalition with other former fighters.

After he was elected president at age 74, Mujica staked out progressive stances on civil liberties and social issues including abortion and gay marriage, and he even pushed for the legalisation of marijuana. He also emphasised the development of green energy practices, putting Uruguay at the forefront of addressing the climate crisis.

His long-term partner Lucia Topolansky, whom he met during his time with the Tupamaros, was also politically active, and she served as his vice president after they were married in 2005.

While president, Mujica famously shunned the presidential residence and remained at his flower farm on the outskirts of the capital of Montevideo. He also drove a weathered blue Volkswagen Beetle, one of his trademarks. His modest lifestyle led some to dub him the “world’s poorest president”.

“We elect a president, and it’s as if they’re a candidate to be king, someone with a court, a red carpet, who has to live in a fancy palace,” he told Al Jazeera in 2022, before adding with characteristic bluntness: “Don’t blame the pig, but those who scratch his back.”

Mujica remained a prominent public figure even after leaving the presidency, attending the inauguration of political leaders across Latin America and offering support to candidates in Uruguay, among them Orsi, who was elected in 2024.

“The problem is that the world is run by old people, who forget what they were like when they were young,” Mujica said during a 2024 interview with the news agency Reuters.

Mujica was informed in September 2024 that radiation treatment had effectively targeted cancer of the esophagus, but a doctor reported in January 2025 that the cancer had returned and spread to his liver.

The former rebel and president did not seem overly concerned.

“Honestly, I’m dying,” Mujica told the weekly magazine Busqueda in what he said would be his last interview. “A warrior has the right to rest.”

President Trump has spent the first major overseas trip of his second administration — next stop Wednesday in Qatar — beating back allegations that he was personally profiting from foreign leaders by accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from the Gulf state’s royal family.

Trump has bristled at the notion that he should turn down such a gift, saying he would be “stupid” to do so and that Democrats were “World Class Losers” for suggesting it was not only wrong but also unconstitutional.

But Democrats were hardly alone in criticizing the arrangement as Trump prepared for broad trade discussions in Doha, the Qatari capital.

Several top Republicans in Congress have expressed concerns about the deal, including that the plane would be a security risk. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Tuesday said there were “lots of issues associated with that offer which I think need to be further talked about,” and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), another member of the Republican leadership team, said that Trump and the White House “need to look at the constitutionality” of the deal and that she would be “checking for bugs” on the plane, a clear reference to fears that Qatar may see the jetliner as an intelligence asset.

Criticism of the deal has even arisen among the deep-red MAGA ranks. In an online post echoed by other right-wing influencers in Trump’s orbit, loyalist Laura Loomer wrote that while she would “take a bullet for Trump,” the Qatar deal would be “a stain” on his administration.

The broad outrage in some ways reflected the stark optics of the deal, which would provide Trump with the superluxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet — known as the “palace in the sky” — for free, to be transferred to his personal presidential library upon his departure from office.

Accepting a lavish gift from the Persian Gulf nation makes even some stolid Trump allies queasy because of Qatar’s record of abuses against its Shiite Muslim minority and its funding of Hamas, the militant group whose attack on Israel touched off a prolonged war in the region.

Critics have called the deal an out-and-out bribe for future influence by the Qatari royal family, and one that would clearly come due at some point — raising serious questions around the U.S.’ ability to act with its own geopolitical interests in mind in the future, rather than Qatar’s.

Trump and Qatar have rejected that framing but have also deflected questions about what Qatar expects to receive in return for the jet.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in response to detailed questions from The Times, said in a statement that Trump “is compliant with all conflict-of-interest rules, and only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media.”

Leavitt has previously said it was “ridiculous” for the media to “suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit,” because he “left a life of luxury and a life of running a very successful real estate empire for public service, not just once, but twice.”

Ali Al-Ansari, media attache at the Qatari Embassy in Washington, did not respond to a request for comment.

Beyond the specific concern about Qatar potentially holding influence over Trump, the jet deal also escalated deeper concerns among critics that Trump, his family and his administration are using their political influence to improperly enrich themselves more broadly — including through the creation of a $Trump cryptocurrency meme coin and a promised Washington dinner for its top investors.

Experts and other critics have for years accused Trump of violating constitutional constraints on the president and other federal officials accepting gifts, or “emoluments,” from foreign states without the express approval of Congress.

During Trump’s first term, allegations that he was flouting the law and using his office to enrich himself — including by maintaining an active stake in his golf courses and former Washington hotel while foreign dignitaries seeking to curry favor with him racked up massive bills there — went all the way to the Supreme Court before being dismissed as moot after he’d been voted out of office.

Since Trump’s return to office, however, concerns over his monetizing the nation’s highest office and the power and influence that come with it have exploded once more — and from disparate corners of the political landscape.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), left, speaks with Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security oversight hearing on May 8, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

In a speech last month on the Senate floor, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) alleged dozens of examples of Trump and others in his family and administration misusing their positions for personal gain — what Murphy called “mind-blowing corruption” in Trump’s first 100 days.

Murphy mentioned, among other examples, the meme coin and dinner; corporations under federal investigation donating millions to Trump’s inaugural fund and those investigations being halted soon after he took office; reports that Trump has sold meetings with him at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for millions of dollars; and Donald Trump Jr.’s creation of a private Washington club with million-dollar dues and promises of interactions with administration officials.

Murphy also noted Trump’s orders to fire inspectors general and other watchdogs meant to keep an eye out for corruption and pay-to-play tactics in the federal government, and his scaling back of laws meant to discourage it, such as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Corporate Transparency Act.

“Donald Trump wants to numb this country into believing that this is just how government works. That he’s owed this. That every president is owed this. That government has always been corrupt, and he’s just doing it out in the open,” Murphy said. “But this is not how government works.”

When news of the Qatar jet deal broke, Murphy joined other Democratic colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a statement denouncing it.

“Any president who accepts this kind of gift, valued at $400 million, from a foreign government creates a clear conflict of interest, raises serious national security questions, invites foreign influence, and undermines public trust in our government,” the senators wrote. “No one — not even the president — is above the law.”

Other lawmakers — from both parties — have also weighed in.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) blasted Trump’s acceptance of the plane as his “lastest con” and a clear attempt by the Qatari government to “curry favor” with him.

“This is why the emoluments clause is in the Constitution to begin with. It was put in there for a reason,” Schiff said. “And the reason was that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that any action taken by the president of the United States, or frankly any other person holding federal public office, wasn’t going to be influenced by getting some big gift.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in an interview with MSNBC on Monday that he did not think it was a “good idea” for Trump to accept the jet — which he said wouldn’t “pass the smell test” for many Americans.

Experts and those further out on the American political spectrum agreed.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law and an expert in constitutional law, said the gift of the jet, “if it is to Trump personally,” clearly violates a provision that precludes the president from receiving any benefit from a foreign country, which America’s founders barred because they were concerned about “foreign governments holding influence over the president.”

Richard Painter, the top White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said that Trump accepting the jet would be unconstitutional. And he scoffed at the ethics of doing business with a nation that has been criticized as having a bleak human rights record.

“After spending millions helping Hamas build tunnels and rockets, Qatar has enough to buy this emolumental gift for” Trump, Painter wrote on X. “But the Constitution says Congress must consent first.”

Painter criticized the White House justifying the deal by saying that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi had “signed off” on it, given Bondi’s past work for the Qatari government, and said he knew of no precedent for a president receiving a lavish gift without the approval of Congress. He noted that Ambassador Benjamin Franklin received a diamond-encrusted snuff box from France’s King Louis XVI, but only with the OK from Congress.

Robert Weissman, co-president of the progressive nonprofit Public Citizen, said that it was unclear whether Trump would heed the cautionary notes coming from within his own party, but that the Republican-controlled Congress should nonetheless vote on whether the jet was a proper gift for him to receive.

“If the members of Congress think this is fine, then they can say so,” Weissman said, “and the voters can hold them accountable.”

Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro, a prominent backer of Trump, criticized the deal on his podcast Monday, saying that Trump supporters would “all be freaking out” if Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, had accepted it.

“President Trump promised to drain the swamp,” Shapiro said. “This is not, in fact, draining the swamp.”

Human rights groups say politicians have been forcibly disappeared in recent days

Mali’s military government has dissolved all political parties after accusations from rights groups that opposition figures have been arrested.

Assimi Goita, who seized power in two army coups in 2020 and 2021, validated the decision after it was broadcast to Malians in a televised statement on Tuesday.

The parties were disbanded after demonstrations this month, demanding the country returned to democratic rule.

Protesters gathered on May 3 and 4, carrying placards with slogans reading, “Down with dictatorship, long live democracy,” in a rare public rebuke of the military government, which had promised to hold elections in 2022.

A national conference held in April recommended extending Goita’s presidency until 2030, drawing condemnation from opposition figures and human rights groups.

In response to another protest that had been planned on Friday, the military government issued a decree suspending all political activities across the country.

The move forced opposition groups to cancel the demonstration, and the government has now tightened its grip further.

The clampdown has coincided with reports of disappearances of opposition figures. Human rights groups said several politicians have been forcibly disappeared in recent days.

On Thursday, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Abba Alhassane, the secretary-general of the Convergence for the Development of Mali (CODEM), was “arrested” by “masked gunmen”.

That same day, El Bachir Thiam, the leader of the Yelema party, was reportedly seized by unidentified men in Kati, a town outside the capital.

On Tuesday, a CODEM member speaking on condition of anonymity told the Reuters news agency that the party had lost contact with Abdoul Karim Traore, a youth leader, and feared he too had been abducted.

Malian authorities have not commented on the reported arrests.

Goita first seized power in August 2020 amid escalating attacks from armed groups affiliated with ISIL (ISIS) and al-Qaeda’s regional affiliate Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM).

In July 2020, protests against the former civilian government were violently repressed with at least 14 people killed during a crackdown by security forces.

The military then ousted the elected government, citing its failure to tackle the armed groups.

In December last year, HRW reported that Malian soldiers alongside Russian Wagner Group fighters “deliberately killed” at least 32 civilians and burned more than 100 homes in central and northern Mali.

PM Starmer’s shift to the right on immigration risks alienating Labour’s large base of left-of-centre supporters.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer promises to “finally take back control” of the United Kingdom’s borders as his Labour government unveils policies designed to reduce legal immigration and fend off rising support for the hard right.

“Every area of the immigration system, including work, family and study, will be tightened up so we have more control,” he told reporters at a Downing Street news conference on Monday.

Starmer announced he was ending an “experiment in open borders” that saw net migration rise to nearly one million people under the previous Conservative government, which lost last year’s general election.

Labour has been traditionally more sympathetic to immigration than the Conservative Party. Starmer, a former human rights lawyer who voted for the UK to remain part of the European Union, is under renewed pressure to tackle the issue after the anti-immigration Reform UK party’s gains in recent local elections.

However, Starmer’s shift to the right on immigration risks alienating Labour’s large base of left-of-centre supporters and losing their votes to the Liberal Democrats and the Greens.

The government’s Immigration White Paper policy document includes plans to cut overseas care workers and increase from five to 10 years the length of time people will have to live in the UK before qualifying for settlement and citizenship.

English-language rules would also be strengthened with all adult dependants required to demonstrate a basic understanding while the length of time students may stay in the UK after completing their studies would be reduced.

The white paper also proposes new powers to deport foreigners who commit offences in the country. Currently, the government is only informed of foreign nationals who receive prison sentences while under the new arrangements all foreign nationals convicted of offences would be flagged for the government.

The document also proposes new visa controls requiring foreign skilled workers to have a university degree to secure a job in the UK.

The prime minister acknowledged that migrants “make a massive contribution” to Britain but alleged the country risks becoming an “island of strangers” without more controls. He added that he wants net migration to fall “significantly” by the next election, likely in 2029, but refused to say by how much.

Labour promised in its general election manifesto last year to significantly reduce net migration, which stood at 728,000 in the 12 months to June. It had peaked at 906,000 in 2023 after averaging 200,000 a year for most of the 2010s.

Arch-eurosceptic Nigel Farage’s Reform party won more than 670 local council seats this month as well as its first two mayoral posts. It is also riding high in national polls while Labour is struggling after its 2024 landslide general election victory.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — As a trade war sparked by President Trump’s tariffs stokes worry and uncertainty in the global economy, Puerto Rico sees an opportunity.

Government officials in the U.S. territory are jumping on planes to try to persuade international companies to relocate their manufacturing plants to the island, where they would be exempt from tariffs.

Any relocation would be a boost to Puerto Rico’s shaky economy as the government emerges from a historic bankruptcy and continues to struggle with chronic power outages. The island also is bracing for potentially big cuts in federal funding under the Trump administration, with federal funds accounting for more than half of Puerto Rico’s budget.

“The tariff issue is a controversial one, but for Puerto Rico, it’s a great opportunity,” said Gov. Jenniffer González.

Manufacturing remains the island’s biggest industry, representing nearly half of its gross domestic product. But the government wants to recapture Puerto Rico’s heyday, when dozens of big-name companies, especially in the pharmaceutical sector, were based here and kept the economy humming.

So far, officials have identified between 75 and 100 companies that might consider relocating operations to Puerto Rico given the ongoing trade war, said Ella Woger-Nieves, chief executive of Invest Puerto Rico, a public-private partnership that promotes the island as a business and investment destination.

The companies identified work in sectors including aerospace, pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

Officials also have welcomed site selectors to Puerto Rico and organized tours to show them the island’s infrastructure and emphasize that tariffs wouldn’t apply here.

“This is the moment to plant those seeds,” Woger-Nieves said.

She said officials with Invest Puerto Rico and various government agencies are expected to make nearly 20 more trips this year in a bid to attract more manufacturing. The government praised an executive order that Trump signed May 5 that aims to reduce the time it takes to approve construction of pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities in the U.S.

From needlework to chemicals

In the mid-1900s, needlework was one of Puerto Rico’s largest industries, employing about 7,000 workers who labored on handkerchiefs, underwear, bedspreads and other items, according to a 1934 fair competition code signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Manufacturing later shifted to chemicals, clothes and electronics. By the late 1970s, a growing number of pharmaceutical companies began moving their operations to Puerto Rico, lured by a federal tax incentive created in 1976 to help boost the island’s economic growth. However, in 1996, the U.S. government began phasing out the incentive, which had exempted the subsidiaries of U.S. companies operating in Puerto Rico from federal taxes on local profits.

From 1995 to 2005, overall manufacturing employment fell by nearly 30%, but employment in the sectors of pharmaceuticals, medicines and chemicals increased by at least 10%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Puerto Rico continues to lead U.S. exports of pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing, representing nearly 20% of total U.S. exports in 2020, according to the bureau.

In 2024, the island exported nearly $25 billion worth of goods, including $11 billion in vaccines and certain cultures; $7 billion worth of packaged medicaments; $1 billion in hormones; $984 million in orthopedic items; and $625 million worth of medical instruments, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity.

Sergio Marxuach, policy director and general counsel for the Center for a New Economy, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, said the push to attract more companies makes sense, especially recruiting those in the pharmaceutical and medical device sectors.

“If I were advising the government, begin there, because you already have a footprint,” he said.

Marxuach noted that outside of those areas, Puerto Rico could have an advantage when it comes to national defense and security contracts, including the manufacturing of drones or underwater surveillance systems.

“They need a place to manufacture in scale,” he said, adding that doing so in a U.S. jurisdiction is key.

Puerto Rico’s government also is meeting with university officials to potentially change curriculums if needed to ensure students are graduating with the skills required by companies.

The Achilles’ heel

Puerto Rico touts its U.S. jurisdiction, tax incentives and skilled workforce as reasons international companies should relocate to the island.

But it cannot escape its well-known energy problems.

Chronic power outages continue to plague Puerto Rico, with two island-wide blackouts occurring, on Dec. 31 and April 16.

Crews are still repairing the power grid after it was razed by Hurricane Maria in September 2017, a powerful Category 4 storm. But the grid was already fragile from lack of maintenance and investment for decades.

“Puerto Rico needs more reliable energy for the economic growth to improve,” said Robert F. Mujica, executive director of a federal control board that oversees the island’s finances.

Woger-Nieves, of Invest Puerto Rico, said that when officials meet with company leaders, they explain the state of the island’s energy infrastructure and offer alternatives including cogeneration and renewables.

“Power doesn’t have to necessarily be an impediment,” she said.

Marxuach, with the Center for a New Economy, said Puerto Rico’s energy system is costly and inefficient, and he noted that alternatives can be expensive.

“Puerto Rico has to address some issues that actually create additional costs for investors to come here,” he said.

One of those costs is that any goods sent to the U.S. from Puerto Rico must by law be sent aboard a U.S.-flagged vessel with a U.S. crew.

Other challenges remain.

Currently, the short-term reaction of many CEOs and companies “is basically to wait and see” how the tariff war plays out, Marxuach said.

Trump has said that he wants to keep some tariffs in place, but he also has mentioned efforts to reach deals with trading partners. His team said Trump is using “strategic uncertainty” to his advantage.

Another problem is that relocating operations takes years, not months, and foreign competitors also are vying for the attention of international companies.

“We’re competing with Vietnam, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, that have very advanced manufacturing facilities already,” Marxuach said. “It’s not a slam dunk.”

Coto writes for the Associated Press.