Government

United States Attorney General Todd Blanche has defended the Department of Justice’s decision to sue to prevent the certification of a Republican loss in Alaska’s tight Senate race.

On Sunday, Blanche did a tour of the morning political shows in the US, making stops at CNN’s State of the Union TV programme and CBS’s Face the Nation.

In each appearance, he faced pointed questions about the legality of the Justice Department’s efforts, responding, in some cases, with open frustration.

“ Why is this controversial?” Blanche asked CNN host Dana Bash at one point. He proceeded to accuse one of the candidates in the Senate race of intentionally trying to confuse voters.

“We’re going to try to create a situation where that can be remedied,” he said. “That shouldn’t be something that is causing this shock and horror.”

But the Justice Department’s lawsuit, filed on October 22, has been the subject of bipartisan criticism.

Many have accused the administration of President Donald Trump of laying the groundwork to block a Democratic win in the race. Trump himself claimed to have authorised the lawsuit.

“I’m the one who said do it,” he told reporters on Friday.

Inside the Alaska Senate race

During the midterm elections on November 3, citizens in Alaska will be asked to vote in one of the closest Senate races in the country, one which will help decide whether Republicans maintain their majority in the chamber.

Senator Dan S Sullivan, the Republican incumbent, is seeking to defend his seat in the Senate. But he faces fierce competition from former US Representative Mary Peltola, a Democrat.

Also in the running is another candidate named Dan J Sullivan, a former Forest Service employee.

The second Sullivan’s decision to also run has raised concerns that he is a spoiler candidate, whose presence on the ballot is designed to draw votes away from the incumbent.

But the Forest Service worker has denied any such intent. Such allegations, he said, are “entirely false”.

“I am not a registered Democrat, and I have had no conversations whatsoever with the Peltola campaign about my candidacy,” the second Sullivan wrote in a letter to Alaska’s lieutenant governor before the state’s primaries.

“I have considered running for political office for over a decade. I made the decision to formally run for the United States Senate in the upcoming primary election because Senator Sullivan has routinely failed the people of Alaska, and they deserve a better representative. It is my right to do so.”

Four candidates advanced to the final round of voting after Alaska’s August primaries. They included Peltola and both Sullivans. The two men are running as Republicans.

A controversial lawsuit

The Department of Justice has argued that its lawsuit — filed less than two weeks before the midterm elections — is necessary “to protect the integrity” of the election.

Any result in the Senate race, it argues, would be “tainted by the inclusion on the ballot of Daniel J Sullivan”.

The department has therefore called on the US district court in Alaska to issue an order declaring the race’s certification “unlawful” and barring the state from “allowing such a certification to occur”.

Under the US Constitution, only states have the power to administer elections, though Congress has the right to pass regulations concerning federal votes.

It is highly unusual for a presidential administration to inject itself into issues of state election certification — and experts say such a move is likely to be deemed illegal.

Already, in June, Alaska’s Supreme Court ruled that both Sullivans could compete in the Senate race. The state’s Division of Elections has also taken steps to reduce voter confusion.

The November 3 ballot, for instance, will list Dan S Sullivan as the incumbent and as a “registered Republican”.

Dan J Sullivan, meanwhile, will have the suffix “Jr” added to his name, and his party affiliation will be left blank, despite the candidate identifying as Republican.

But in Sunday’s TV appearances, Blanche — who leads the Department of Justice and formerly served as Trump’s personal lawyer — argued that merely having two Sullivans on the ballot is a recipe for confusion.

“It is wrong,” Blanche told CNN. “Putting aside whether we’re going to win or lose in the courts, putting aside what the Alaskan Supreme Court has done, in our system we should not have a candidate who has to worry about another candidate being on the ballot for no other reason than to confuse voters.”

Blanche also denied any impropriety in Trump saying he ordered the lawsuit.

“He’s supposed to make sure that everything in this country is running right, including elections,” Blanche said.

The race for the Senate

Historically, the Department of Justice has embraced a norm of judicial independence, though critics have accused the Trump administration of wielding its prosecutorial powers for political gain.

Bash, the CNN host, raised some of those concerns, pointing to Trump’s comments accusing Democrats of cheating, as well as his history of election denialism.

The president has long denied his loss in the 2020 presidential race, and his supporters sought to block the certification of that election, notably by storming the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

When Bash pointed to that incident, Blanche chided her: “Oh, you’ve got to stop it with that.”

“Why are you yelling at me?” Bash responded, as the two talked over each other.

“You are not being a real person. Come on, man,” Blanche continued. “That is crazy.”

He also denied that Trump was setting the stage for a contested election if the Democrat Peltola were to win. Instead, he framed the lawsuit as setting the stage for further investigations into any eventual results.

“The relief that we’re seeking — which, again, isn’t to determine who the senator is, it’s not to try to overturn something the state is going to do — it’s just to make sure that the ballots that come in are kept in a way that may allow a court to investigate further,” Blanche said.

Speaking to CBS, Blanche also dodged a question about whether Trump personally asked him to file the lawsuit.

“I will never, ever, ever talk about communications that I have with the president of the United States. I never have, and I never will,” Blanche said.

The race to control the US Senate is expected to be a nail-biter, with the Republicans holding a slim majority at present: They have 53 seats in the 100-member chamber.

Only a third of the Senate’s seats — 35 in total — will be up for grabs in the midterm races, though, as terms in the chamber last six years and are staggered across different election years.

Trump’s Republican Party is projected to face an uphill battle to protect its congressional majorities, amid backlash against the rising cost of living and Trump’s own withering poll numbers.

Roughly seven Senate elections are considered toss-ups, including the Alaska race.

In early October, The New York Times and Siena College released a poll finding Peltola leading the incumbent Sullivan by nearly seven percentage points, one of the widest margins of any of the toss-up states.

Church mourners die on Kenya’s Nairobi-Mombasa Highway weeks after another crash killed 17 people.

A bus carrying mourners has collided with a truck on a major highway in southeastern Kenya, killing at least 24 people, police say.

The crash happened in the Kanga area near Mtito Andei, on the road linking the capital, Nairobi, to the coastal city of Mombasa, at about 7:45am (04:45 GMT) on Sunday, October 25.

Another 24 people were injured, hospital officials said.

The deaths came just over three weeks after another crash on the highway killed 17 people, prompting fresh government promises to improve road safety.

The bus belonged to Power of the Word Church International in Mombasa and was taking passengers home from their pastor’s funeral in western Kenya.

They had stopped for breakfast shortly before the collision, according to one survivor.

The other vehicle was a truck transporting cement.

Violet Mwandonyi, who survived the crash, told the Associated Press on Sunday that she remembered passengers crying out for passing motorists to help.

She said she did not know what had happened to her two children, who had been travelling on the bus.

The cause of the crash remains under investigation.

Makueni County Commissioner Abdullahi Khalif, the government’s senior administrator in the area, told Kenyan newspaper The Standard that the bus driver had tried to overtake several vehicles before colliding with an oncoming truck.

Kenya’s National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA) also identified dangerous overtaking as a possible cause. Another survivor said the truck struck the bus from behind.

On October 3, a crash involving several vehicles killed 17 people, most of them Catholic pilgrims travelling to a prayer site, near Salama on the same highway.

Police said a truck driver had tried to overtake another truck before the collision.

The NTSA had identified that stretch of road as an area with a history of crashes.

President William Ruto offered condolences on Sunday and ordered inspections of vehicles used for public transport.

Transport Minister Davis Chirchir said the government would step up enforcement against speeding and unsafe overtaking, improve dangerous sections of road and strengthen training and checks for commercial drivers.

In a statement on Sunday, Chirchir said the government would work with police, local authorities and lawmakers on the measures, including closer oversight of buses and heavy goods vehicles.

“We cannot continue treating road safety as business as usual,” he said, calling for stronger action to reduce deaths.

Figures from the NTSA, reported by Kenyan media, show that 5,009 people died in road crashes in 2025, with 2,150 deaths recorded in the first half of 2026.

The authority estimates that about 20,000 crashes occur across Kenya each year.

Following Sunday’s collision, it called for road crashes to be declared a national disaster.

Journalists prepare to strike as politicians push through changes that critics say threaten independence.

The Czech Republic’s governing coalition has advanced changes to the funding of public media, despite criticism that it could weaken broadcaster independence.

In a rare overnight vote in the early hours of Saturday, the coalition voted to send the bill to committees for further discussion.

The changes include scrapping the 205 crown ($9.45) household broadcasting fee, and replacing it with funding from the state budget.

The populist government of billionaire Prime Minister Andrej Babis, backed by the far-right SPD party, has frequently criticised public and private media coverage of its policies and accused some outlets of bias.

Babis promised to scrap the broadcasting fee before taking office last December, and says his three-party government is now fulfilling that pledge to voters.

Public media employees staged a strike against the move in June, saying it would make broadcasters vulnerable to government pressure.

Opposition parties have compared the changes with reforms under neighbouring Hungary’s former Prime Minister, Viktor Orban.

Babis has said the new funding model would be fairer to poorer households and encourage outlets to become more efficient.

“There is no war for independent media,” Babis said on Facebook late on Friday. “There is no fight for democracy and no nationalisation of media is being prepared.”

The proposal would cut funding for Czech Television and Czech Radio by about 15 percent and keep nominal funding unchanged for several years.

Public media are among the most trusted news sources in the Czech Republic, with Czech Television the most-watched broadcaster across several age groups.

A civic group has called a public protest for Sunday, while journalists and other employees at the broadcasters announced a strike for November 3.

Voters in Brazil are headed to the polls for the second time in one month, as Senator Flavio Bolsonaro and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva square off in a run-off election to decide who will hold the presidency for the next four years.

While Bolsonaro outperformed expectations during the first round of voting on October 4, when he beat Lula by less than two percentage points but failed to secure the majority needed to avoid a run-off, the leftist president has sought to rally supporters ahead of the second round.

The vote on Sunday will decide whether Brazil joins a growing list of countries across Latin America that have handed victories to far-right candidates promising closer ties with the United States, a hard hand on crime and insecurity, and market-friendly economic policies.

Brazil under Lula has emerged as a key holdout against that shift, and a Bolsonaro victory on Sunday would galvanise conservatives in the region seeking to extend their winning streak to the largest country in Latin America.

When is the second round of voting?

The run-off will take place on October 25, 2026.

What happened during the first round?

The first round on October 4 saw Bolsonaro win 47 percent of the vote compared with just more than 45 percent for Lula, with the remainder of the votes distributed among several largely conservative candidates who did not advance to the next round.

While most polls had anticipated a close race that would go to a run-off, Lula had been slightly favoured to win the first round of voting. While Bolsonaro’s margin of victory was small, his overperformance indicated a level of enduring appeal for the political right that caught many Lula supporters off guard.

In addition to Bolsonaro’s success, even as his father, former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, serves a 27-year prison sentence for his involvement in a coup plot following his loss to Lula in 2022, right-wing candidates also racked up wins in legislative races across the country.

Who is Lula?

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, simply referred to as Lula, is the incumbent president and the candidate for the Workers Party, or PT.

His time in office has been defined by an effort to pair political democracy with material improvement for the country’s poor and efforts to build ties between developing, non-Western countries on the global stage.

The 80-year-old is seeking his fourth, non-consecutive term, hoping that his record of popularity and support for social programmes, credited by supporters with transforming the country, will help stave off a Bolsonaro win.

Lula clinched a third term in 2022, marking a dramatic comeback following a stint in prison based on corruption charges that were later overturned following revelations of prosecutorial impropriety.

But a highly polarised political landscape has hindered Lula’s ability to usher in ambitious and sweeping reforms during his third term.

Notable successes, such as sharp drops in unemployment and poverty and tackling deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, have been countered by rising household indebtedness that has strained families across the country.

A corruption scandal centring on disgraced banker Daniel Vorcaro has also implicated powerful figures and institutions across the political spectrum, including Bolsonaro himself as well as several members of the country’s Supreme Court, a target of right-wing ire for the conviction and sentencing of the elder Bolsonaro.

Who is Flavio Bolsonaro?

Senator Flavio Bolsonaro is running as the candidate of the right-wing Liberal Party.

The 45-year-old has emerged as the de facto leader of the country’s political right, filling a role previously held by his father before his conviction for a plot to remain in power despite his loss to Lula in 2022.

The younger Bolsonaro has sought to project a more polished image than his father while pledging continuity with many of his beliefs and policy priorities and promising to fight for his release from prison if elected.

He has pledged a militarised approach towards crime and insecurity posed by organised gangs in close partnership with the administration of United States President Donald Trump, who has sought to expand US military involvement across Latin America through ties with right-wing allies in the name of combatting crime.

Bolsonaro has also promised to rein in inflation and government spending, with an adviser stating that he would implement a debt ceiling if elected.

In the days after the first round, Bolsonaro has said he would “redemocratise” Brazil by reforming the constitution. The constitution was put in place after Brazil’s return to democracy in the 1980s, and Bolsonaro’s father has long expressed open nostalgia for the dictatorship period. There’s heavy speculation that Bolsonaro could be seeking to reform the judiciary, after his father’s legal setbacks. He has also promised to restore tax cuts for the events sector.

What has happened since the first round?

While many members of the PT were despondent following Bolsonaro’s first-round victory, Lula quickly urged his supporters to rally for the run-off and threw himself into campaigning.

He has also taken credit for his party’s long-sought constitutional amendment to reduce the six-day work week and promised free public transport on weekends.

Pro-Lula demonstrations in cities across the country have attracted millions of people, helping galvanise the president’s voters and cut into Bolsonaro’s lead. Bolsonaro has held his own rallies, hoping to capitalise on momentum and consolidate support from other conservative parties.

The two candidates held a combative debate on October 18, exchanging insults and accusing each other of corruption.

Questions of outside intervention have also been a theme in the campaign’s closing days, with US social media giant Meta facing allegations that it restricted pro-Lula activity online in a bid to support Bolsonaro.

Concerns about foreign interference, in particular from the US, have loomed over the campaign since the beginning.

The Trump administration has repeatedly sought to intervene in Brazilian politics, previously introducing steep tariffs and penalties against judicial officials in a bid to have the case against the elder Bolsonaro tossed out and mirroring rhetoric on the Brazilian right to cast doubt on the reliability of the country’s voting system.

Trump has himself used false claims of widespread fraud to ignore unfavourable election results, and observers have expressed concern that the US could throw its support behind Bolsonaro based on such claims even if he were to lose the race.

What do polls show?

After his victory in the first round, Bolsonaro emerged as the race’s de facto frontrunner. But polls continue to show a close race, with Lula cutting into Bolsonaro’s lead but continuing to trail within the margin of error.

Speculation that Bolsonaro might pull ahead decisively following the first round, after other conservative candidates failed to advance to the run-off, has not yet appeared in new polls.

A Nexus poll released on Monday showed Bolsonaro winning 46.5 percent of the vote in the second round, with Lula taking 45.9 percent. A poll from the previous week had shown Bolsonaro with 47.9 percent and Lula with 45.1 percent.

Another poll by AtlasIntel and Bloomberg, also released on Monday, showed Bolsonaro with 49.8 percent versus 47.6 percent for Lula. An October 9 poll had shown Bolsonaro with 51.1 percent and Lula with 45.7.

A Quaest poll released on October 21 showed Bolsonaro’s lead continuing to drop, with Lula winning 44 percent and Bolsonaro 45 percent.

Homeland Security targets nine states in a push to identify voting fraud, a move critics denounce as tantamount to voter intimidation.

A United States federal judge has ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to halt operations aimed at finding non-citizen voters in nine states ahead of the midterm elections.

The ruling by US District Court Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin said the investigations likely violate a provision of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits voter intimidation. She further said the DHS may have relied on flawed data in its investigations.

That leads to “an objectively reasonable fear of law enforcement entanglements that intimidates citizens from urging or aiding others in exercising their right to vote”, she wrote.

The order applies to federal efforts targeting California, Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.

The DHS has publicised what it has described as a push to identify individuals who have committed voter fraud, with some local offices posting photos of agents knocking on the doors of suspects.

The operations come as the administration of US President Donald Trump has sought to highlight instances of voter fraud ahead of the November 3 midterm vote.

While there are recorded instances of fraud in every election cycle, such isolated cases remain exceedingly rare.

There has been no evidence to indicate that non-citizen voters have influenced the outcome of any election at any level in the country.

In a statement following Thursday’s ruling, the DHS maintained that its investigations were aimed at “removing aliens who vote and dilute the votes of US citizens”.

“We have no plans to question or investigate people we believe to be US citizens,” it said.

In their lawsuit challenging the DHS’s efforts, the California Nurses Association and National Nurses United, along with the Voto Latino Foundation, San Francisco and Santa Clara County, said that some US citizens felt they were wrongly identified and questioned as part of the investigations.

A lawyer representing the groups said it was “clear from the start that DHS built its lists on bad data, never checked how often it was wrong, and recklessly sent agents to people’s homes weeks before an election”.

Benjamin Farley, the supervisory counsel for democracy defense at the National Immigration Law Center, said the ruling sent a strong message about voter intimidation ahead of the midterm vote.

“Yesterday’s decision is a clear rebuke of the government’s efforts to scare voters away from the polls this November and a reminder that all US citizens – regardless of color, place of birth, or the nationality of their family members – have the right to participate in American elections free of intimidation,” he said.

“No armed federal agent is going to stop us from casting our vote.”

Neil Bush says that he will vote for Democrat James Talarico due to reservations about Republican candidate Ken Paxton.

Neil Bush, brother of former Republican President George W Bush, has said that he voted for the Democratic candidate James Talarico in a crucial race for the United States Senate.

In a social media post on Tuesday, Bush said he voted for Talarico due to concerns about the Republican candidate, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Talarico and Paxton are in a tight race for Texas’s open Senate seat. Democrats are hoping to seize control of the 100-member Senate in the November 3 midterm elections, when 35 seats will be on the ballot.

Bush’s endorsement of Talarico is the latest sign of division among Texas Republicans.

Bush comes from a prominent Republican family: not only was his brother a president, but his father, the late George HW Bush, was too.

“My concerns about his judgment and conduct are hardly mine alone,” Bush wrote. “He was impeached by the Republican-controlled Texas House, although subsequently acquitted by the Texas Senate.”

To explain his decision, Bush pointed to Paxton’s divisive track record, including efforts to support President Donald Trump’s false claims about the 2020 presidential election.

“I have been deeply troubled by Paxton’s conduct as Texas Attorney General, particularly his decision to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election in other states in an effort to help Donald Trump remain in power,” Bush said.

“I believe that effort was an affront to our democratic institutions and the peaceful transfer of power.”

His brother, the former president, has largely receded from political life and has declined to endorse candidates in recent elections. Before serving in the White House from 2001 to 2009, George W Bush was governor of Texas.

But George W Bush’s daughter Barbara Bush has also shown her support for Talarico by donating to a political action committee backing his campaign.

Texas has long been considered a Republican stronghold, and Democrats have not won a Senate race in the state since 1988.

But polls show Talarico locked in a close race with Paxton, who defeated incumbent Senator John Cornyn in the Republican Party’s primary run-off on May 26.

Paxton had secured an endorsement from Trump on May 19, days before the run-off.

In a statement, Trump criticised Cornyn as “not supportive of [him] when times were tough”, while praising Paxton as a “MAGA Warrior”.

Some Republicans have expressed frustration over Trump’s intervention on Paxton’s behalf, given the vulnerabilities posed by his state impeachment and other scandals.

A Marist poll released on October 14 found Talarico winning 47 percent of the vote compared to 45 percent for Paxton.

Far-right President Abelardo de la Espriella says he will wage a ‘counterrevolution’ against cultural institutions.

Colombian President Abelardo de la Espriella has announced he is spearheading a cultural “counterrevolution” that includes removing dozens of exhibits from the National Museum, drawing protests and comparisons to United States President Donald Trump.

De la Espriella, a conservative Trump ally, said last week that he wants to prevent cultural institutions from being taken over by what he calls “atheist social communism”.

Since then, exhibits have been taken down that once addressed the history of social movements, including feminist and LGBTQ+ activism, and Colombia’s political violence.

The changes have sparked protests by civil rights groups, artists and students who have accused the government of censorship and warn that important parts of the country’s history could be erased.

Dozens of demonstrators gathered on Wednesday outside the National Museum in downtown Bogota as riot police guarded its entrance.

“I find it outrageous that they want to erase part of our history,” said Azul Riascos, a history student.

He said the government was promoting a vision of Colombia as exclusively white, Catholic and Spanish-speaking. That image, he explained, excluded Black, Indigenous and LGBTQ+ communities.

Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli, director for the Andes at the Washington Office on Latin America, a research and advocacy organisation, said the Colombian government’s approach reflects a broader trend among Trump allies who are copying US political narratives and strategies.

Trump has been fiercely critical of museums in Washington, particularly those tied to the Smithsonian Institution.

The White House released a report in July branding leaders of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History as radical activists and has ordered signs to be installed outside the museum telling visitors that some of the exhibits are inaccurate.

Nearly three months after that order, such signs haven’t been installed. The museum’s director, Anthea Hartig, told Congress that the White House report “does not fairly or accurately characterise the full body of work at the museum”.

Sanchez-Garzoli said Trump’s cooperation with allied Latin American governments on security and counternarcotics efforts also has an ideological dimension.

“These are imported narratives about terrorism and about being ‘woke,’” anthropologist Arturo Sanabria said during Wednesday’s protest, describing the Colombian government’s approach as a form of neocolonial intervention.

Colombia’s Culture Minister Paola Holguin said the government was reviewing and redesigning exhibitions and curatorial practices at other museums overseen by her ministry.

The Foreign Ministry also renamed a courtyard previously honouring an Indigenous leader, describing the change as part of the president’s campaign against “woke” ideology.

“The government is making serious efforts in a cultural battle that probably doesn’t exist,” political scientist Estefania Cardozo said outside the museum. “It is inventing one to erase identities that cannot be erased because they already exist.”

Israeli forces detained U.S. Democratic congressional candidate Brad Lander on Wednesday as he helped Palestinian farmers harvest olives in the occupied West Bank, releasing him hours later while dozens of other volunteers, including a group of American rabbis, remained in custody.

The incident was the latest in an annual olive harvest that has been marked by violence between Israeli settlers and Palestinian villagers attempting to gather their crops.

The Israeli military said the farmers and volunteers had failed to seek prior approval for the harvest and were detained “due to the security risk posed by conducting an uncoordinated harvest near an Israeli community.” It later added that it viewed “the arrival of dozens of activists as an act intended solely to provoke, which undermines the harvesting process.”

Lander is running in the U.S. elections on Nov. 3 to represent a heavily Democratic New York district in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“The occupation is a crime under international law,” Lander wrote on social media after he was detained. “Harvesting olives isn’t a crime under any law I know.”

“These detentions by the IDF are one more attempt to undermine Palestinians’ right to harvest their olive groves, travel on their roads, and live in their homes,” he added in a post after his release.

This year, Palestinians have been required to coordinate with the Israeli military to access more of their privately owned farmland than in previous years. The anti-settlement group Peace Now said last week that the army had expanded by nearly 30% the area of farmland that Palestinians cannot enter without prior approval, to 34 square miles. The Israeli military declined to comment on the exact figures but said Palestinian farmers must coordinate access to areas under Israeli security control.

The detained volunteers were taken to a police facility. Lander was among them but “released after it became known that he was a congressional candidate,” the Israeli police said in a statement.

Israeli rights group Yesh Din and the Palestinian Farmers’ Union have said the 2026 harvest has been the most violent in recent history, with hundreds of reported thefts, clashes and arson attacks.

Much of the violence has unfolded on land outside Palestinian villages, where Palestinians have historically harvested olives and Israeli settlers have increasingly erected outposts without authorization from Israel’s government.

But there were no clashes before Israeli forces arrived Wednesday, according to Beck Strober, a spokesperson for Protect the Harvest, the advocacy group that organized the volunteers at the grove.

Jill Jacobs, one of a dozen American rabbis detained, condemned the Israeli government restricting the ability of Palestinians to harvest freely.

“The Israeli government is actively advancing the forced displacement of Palestinian communities across the West Bank, using its military to deny Palestinians access to their land and intimidate those who stand alongside them,” Jacobs, chief executive of T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, said in a statement.

Lander, who was endorsed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, defeated U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman in a primary for New York’s 10th congressional district. The race was viewed as a referendum on the Democratic party’s support for Israel. Both candidates are Jewish and have criticized Israel, but only Lander called the war in Gaza a genocide.

Lander was not the first U.S. politician detained in the West Bank this year. U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, said Israeli forces detained him during a visit in July.

Published on
21/10/2026 – 11:49 GMT+2

French yields have been rising for weeks as lawmakers wrangle over a 2027 budget that calls for billions of euros in spending cuts to reduce a debt pile that now stands at around 120% of France’s GDP – one of the highest levels in the eurozone and well above the EU limit of 60%.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The French Treasury’s OAT bond is also used to set interest rates across a wide swath of the economy, meaning borrowing costs could begin rising for businesses and households.

The last time it was that high was during the dot-com financial crisis.

The spread between the 10-year yield and the German 10-year bond, considered the European benchmark of creditworthiness, also surged to nearly 160 basis points.

The bond selloff puts further pressure on the government ahead of a decision Friday by the ratings agency Moody’s on France’s sovereign credit rating, with most economists expecting a downgrade that would automatically raise the government’s borrowing costs.

Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu is trying to get a 2027 budget approved in parliament despite not having a political majority for the €43 billion ($48bn) in spending cuts he seeks.

Even if approved, the budget would bring France’s deficit down to only 5% of GDP next year, well above the 3% limit for EU members.

Meanwhile, protests over the weekend calling in part for more spending on schools and other public services, degenerated into the worst street violence seen in years.

Additional sources • AFP

Italy has approved the deployment of troops and tougher legal penalties in a bid to quell cost-of-living protests in the north of the country that occasionally turned violent over the weekend.

The Italian cabinet on Tuesday approved sending 500 troops to Milan, a new legal offence covering violent participation in a demonstration, tougher penalties for rioters and financial liability for parents whose children take part in vandalism and looting.

Italy’s Ministry of Defence said the military will help reinforce security at key sites, step up surveillance of sensitive locations and enhance monitoring.

Unrest swept northern Italian cities at the weekend, including the financial capital Milan, where groups of mainly young people looted shops, smashed windows and clashed with the police. The demonstrations were driven by anger over soaring fuel and energy prices, high rents, low wages and the state of public services.

Public safety

As part of the new legal measures, which take effect immediately, anyone who takes part in a group of at least five people and endangers public safety during protests faces up to five years in prison and a maximum fine of €20,000 ($22,460).

Penalties increase if faces are concealed or people are injured.

Authorities can order prompt compensation for any damage inflicted and, in the case of minors, hold their parents liable.

Police will be allowed to detain youths aged between 14 and 17, even if they have not committed a crime, provided there is evidence they pose a danger, extending powers that previously applied only to adults.

But the cabinet did not approve giving soldiers policing powers, as expected, after opposition from President Sergio Mattarella, Italian media reported.

“Destroying and stealing is not protest, it is crime, and the state’s response must be firm,” Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said in a social media post after the cabinet meeting.

Echoing protests

The disturbances in northern Italy echoed riots in neighbouring France, where hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets on Saturday in some of the country’s most violent turmoil in years.

Meloni’s government is also facing mounting pressure from a separate wave of protests in southern Italy, where truck drivers angered by soaring diesel prices and the rising cost of living have staged roadblocks that are disrupting supply chains.

Protesters in both the north and the south say rising prices are pushing families into poverty, a concern for Meloni ahead of the 2027 national elections.

Police have arrested 55 people after protesters camp in Lisbon and Porto.

Thousands of protesters have returned to two central squares in Portugal for demonstrations against an intensifying housing crisis, hours after police cleared their camps in the capital, Lisbon, and the city of Porto, arresting 55 people.

Activists have demanded the centre-right government withdraw a bill that makes evictions easier and ends rent caps on new leases, which passed a first parliamentary reading.

The demonstrators in Lisbon sought to rebuild their sit-in camp at Rossio Square on Tuesday, while those in Porto were returning to the northern city’s Dom Joao I Square.

Organisers said more than 1,000 people had gathered at each square. Activists have occupied Lisbon’s Rossio Square since Saturday, pitching around 200 tents, and Porto’s Dom Joao I Square for around 10 days.

‘Enough is enough’

Debora Miranda, 41, a communications consultant, told Reuters she joined the Rossio Square protest to represent generations struggling with soaring costs. “If people don’t feel at home, in every sense of the word, they can’t move forward with their lives…enough is enough.”

The camps mirrored housing protests in neighbouring Spain, and coincided with unrest over rising living costs in countries such as France, Belgium and Italy.

Shortly before 6am, after warning protesters that the camps were illegal, police launched coordinated operations in both cities. Demonstrators in Porto followed orders and dismantled their own tents. Officers cleared Lisbon’s Rossio Square in what Carla Valadao, a spokesperson for the camp, described as “very aggressive”.

Public Security Police superintendent Sergio Soares told reporters that the eviction had been “calm, proportionate and appropriate, with no police charge”.

The 55 detainees were later released pending a court appearance in Lisbon on Wednesday.

One of Europe’s worst housing crises

Portugal is grappling with one of Europe’s worst housing affordability crises as purchase prices have more than doubled since 2017 and rents for new leases have nearly doubled.

Jorge Paixao, 19, a history student, called it “a societal crisis”, saying his generation needed “the ability to live with dignity, start families and rejuvenate Portugal”.

The squeeze is most acute in the major cities, where there has also been opposition to excessive tourism and an influx of so-called digital nomads, people who travel while working remotely.

Federal authorities this week teased a “separate batch” of 17,000 potential noncitizen voters in their federal court challenge to California’s handling of alleged voter fraud.

In response, Los Angeles County officials questioned the accuracy of the government’s earlier list of 20,000 alleged noncitizen voters — saying a preliminary review of a subset of those voters found evidence that nearly 40% were born in the U.S.

The claims came in filings shedding new light on the unprecedented Homeland Security inquiry into California’s voter rolls just weeks before the Nov. 3 election.

On Monday, Nicolas Bartell, a Homeland Security official, wrote in a sworn affidavit that — in addition to developing the disputed list of 20,000 “likely noncitizen” voters at the heart of the litigation — his agency has also developed a “separate batch of more than 17,000 voting records potentially tied to noncitizens.”

“Our review is ongoing as USCIS receives records on a rolling basis before the election date,” wrote Bartell, the associate director of the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

On Tuesday, Monica Flores, a top official in the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, wrote in an affidavit that staff members had reviewed a sample of 200 registrations from the list of 20,000 voters whom the Justice Department alleged last week were “likely noncitizens.” The office found that more than half — 112 — had been canceled or were inactive, meaning no ballot was sent to those voters.

In instances where those voters’ birthplace was “meaningfully reported, 38.9% indicate that they were born in the United States, which is strong evidence of citizenship,” Flores wrote, while 71.2% showed no record of ever voting.

Flores wrote that similarly vetting the citizenship of thousands of additional voters before the election would not only be “administratively impossible and take key personnel away from their critical election duties,” but would also “risk disenfranchising voters who are validly registered.”

Also Tuesday, Rachel Evans, an attorney in the California secretary of state’s office, wrote in an affidavit that the office since August has received and been complying with grand jury subpoenas for the detailed voter records of about 300 people.

Evans’ acknowledgment came a day after federal prosecutors charged 28 people across California with federal election-related crimes, including fraudulent voter registration and making false statements in a naturalization application, and suggests federal prosecutors are pursuing criminal cases against hundreds more.

Taken together, the filings indicate that the legal battle between the Trump administration and California over alleged fraudulent voting is only just gearing up — with no end in sight before Nov. 3 — as is the political sparring over the issue.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, posted to X on Tuesday that Flores’ acknowledgment that her office could not possibly vet voters’ citizenship before the election was a “massive concession,” proving the federal government’s case.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said that “any credible allegation of voter fraud should be taken seriously and investigated,” but that federal officials charging just 28 people in a state with 23 million voters showed they have no evidence of widespread fraud.

“Yes, non-citizen voter registration and voting does happen in isolated instances — in California and the rest of the country alike — but it is so rare that the Trump admin is parading around town about .0001% of California voters,” Newsom’s office wrote on X.

The broader case

On Monday, Justice Department lawyers filed a request for an emergency restraining order requiring state election officials to segregate any ballots from the 20,000 voters flagged on the initial Homeland Security list until their citizenship is proved. They argued the state is violating the law — and harming the federal government — by refusing to do so.

State attorneys argued Tuesday that the federal government has no authority over California elections and seeks to violate federal law precluding voter roll purges in the 90 days before an election.

State officials wrote that the Justice Department appeared to have “individualized evidence” of noncitizenship for the 28 people it had charged, and that nothing was preventing it from working through existing “statutory channels” to block those individuals’ ballots. But they argued that it does not have evidence to back its claims against all 20,000 voters whose ballots it is seeking to sequester.

Those contentions — and Bartell’s claim of a second list of 17,000 potential noncitizen voters — only add to an already heated debate about the scope of the inquiry and its legitimacy.

In July, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin alleged in a letter to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber that there “may be as many as 190,832 noncitizens registered to vote in California,” and demanded that the state work with federal authorities to investigate. The state asked that Homeland Security first provide more information, including about its methodology for identifying that figure.

Last week, acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter wrote follow-up letters to Weber and Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County registrar’s office, asserting that 20,000 “likely noncitizens” were on state rolls, and again demanding state cooperation within 48 hours to remove them. Weber balked, arguing that federal law precludes systematic roll purges within 90 days of an election to protect eligible voters.

Weber and other state officials also questioned the drop from 190,000 to 20,000, and the reliability of the federal government’s underlying data and methodology. “What happened to the 170,000? You just got those wrong?” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta asked.

On Monday, McCotter said the 190,000 figure was “the ceiling,” inclusive of cases that federal authorities had high, medium and low confidence in, while the 20,000 figure was “the floor,” inclusive of only high confidence cases.

Potential flaws in the list have been a major point of contention among California officials, who have pointed to substantial inaccuracies in lists elsewhere, including in Nevada, where a state review found that the 185 voters whose citizenship was questioned by the Trump administration were all citizens.

Now, it appears the federal government’s disputed list of 20,000 voters won’t be the last in California.

How voters were identified

In court filings, federal officials described purchasing California voter registration information before USCIS and Homeland Security Investigations agents worked to identify any voters who are not citizens. They said that they did so in part by comparing the state data with “third party commercial data” sets and law enforcement data sets, and that they further vetted their list by culling dead people.

Essayli pointed to those descriptions to dispel arguments that federal authorities have not provided their methodology for identifying potential noncitizens on voter rolls. He said that the federal process was robust and trustworthy and that federal authorities had compiled “overwhelming evidence of tens of thousands of ineligible voters on the state’s rolls.”

Independent election experts saw it differently.

“They admitted to using some of the same tools amateur election conspiracy theorists use, like unidentified third party software, commercial lists, and public versions of [the state’s] voter roll,” Gowri Ramachandran, an election administration expert at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. “These amateur data matching efforts don’t get any better merely because the Department of Justice relies on them.”

“If DOJ could prove many more cases, we would have heard about it,” Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, wrote in a blog post. “They’ve been on an aggressive hunt nationally for such fraud. It’s not surprising they’ve found little because it is a small problem.”

The top 1 percent in Peru captured 42 percent of all new wealth generated between 2019 and 2025, an analysis by the nonprofit group Oxfam has found.

The report, released on Tuesday, highlights growing inequality in the South American country and raises questions about how the government is addressing deepening social divisions.

“Economic inequality in Peru has remained stubbornly high for decades. And when people feel that the same people always win, that nothing changes and nothing can change, inequality starts to look less like an injustice and more like the natural order of things,” said Alejandra Alayza, the executive director of Oxfam in Peru.

“That is a dangerous kind of fatalism, and we must tear it down.”

The nonprofit told Al Jazeera in an email that the 42 percent figure represents an increase from the 2000 to 2019 period, when the top 1 percent captured about 39 percent of all new wealth.

Just 1.4 percent of new wealth from 2019 to 2025 went to the poorest 50 percent of the country’s population, according to the group.

Experts warn the trend bodes poorly for public faith in government and democratic institutions.

Oxfam worked with the Institute for Peruvian Studies, a think tank in Lima, to publish a report this month on Peruvians’ perceptions of inequality in their country.

The groups found that 84 percent of Peruvians believed their country is governed by powerful interests that shape politics to their benefit. More than 75 percent also said that wealthy corporations and individuals avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

The survey also suggested that public opinion was in favour of action to address the issue.

About 70 percent of respondents said they want the government to do more to reduce inequality, which a majority felt had limited access to services such as healthcare, employment, education and justice.

“The undeniable scale of public support for action to reduce inequality leaves no room for complacency,” Alayza said.

“Inequality is not a force of nature; it is made by political choices. And different choices can build a different Peru.”

Political instability

Peru’s rising inequality has been accompanied by a period of political turmoil, particularly in the presidential palace.

A stream of probes, scandals and impeachments has led to Peru being governed by nine presidents in the last 10 years.

The latest, right-wing President Keiko Fujimori, was sworn into office in July after a narrow race that saw voting delays and heated recriminations among the leading candidates.

Experts believe powerful interests have found opportunity amid the political tumult.

“It’s sort of a paradox. How can you have such a rotation among elites but still have a relatively narrow political-criminal-business elite that holds a lot of power? I think both things are true in Peru,” Will Freeman, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a US-based think tank, told Al Jazeera.

Part of the political upheaval has come from clashes between the presidency and Peru’s powerful Congress, which has the power to impeach executive leaders on the basis of “moral incapacity”, an ambiguous term.

The repeated leadership shakeups have weakened Peru’s democracy, according to analysts.

In December 2022, for instance, then-President Pedro Castillo announced that he would illegally dissolve Congress in response to repeated attempts to impeach him.

His subsequent removal and arrest prompted widespread protests. The government of Castillo’s successor, Dina Boluarte, implemented a months-long crackdown on the demonstrations that rights groups say included widespread abuses for which there has been little accountability.

In the years since, the Peruvian government has also taken steps to weaken judicial oversight and hollow out anticorruption watchdogs.

The nonprofit Freedom House, which measures political freedom in countries around the world, ranked Peru as “free” in 2022. But its ranking dropped the following year to “partly free”, in light of the deadly clashes between security forces and protesters.

In its 2026 report, Freedom House maintained that Peru was only “partly free”, citing in part the denial of full political rights to certain groups, including Indigenous peoples.

“High-profile corruption scandals have eroded public trust in government, and the weakening of judicial independence has impacted the country’s governing bodies,” the nonprofit said.

Powerful interests, both licit and illicit, have taken advantage of those changes.

“The groups themselves are unstable and fluid,” said Freeman. “And yet, I think Peruvians are right to conclude that, generally, they are wielding outsized influence in defence of their own commercial interests or political power rather [than] in service of some kind of general welfare.”

Vice President JD Vance declined Monday to endorse Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for reelection a day after President Trump endorsed the embattled Israeli leader.

“The president has the most influential endorsement in American or international political history,” Vance said during an interview with journalist Mark Halperin.

“I endorse American candidates, and that’s where I’m focused on the midterms,” Vance said, while traveling Monday to campaign for Republican Senate nominee Michael Whatley of North Carolina. “So, I’m not getting involved in Israeli elections.”

Vance has campaigned for a foreign leader — then-Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, last spring before the right-wing leader’s party lost that country’s parliamentary election.

Vance’s deference to Trump on Netanyahu comes at an extraordinarily sensitive time for Jewish Americans and the U.S. alliance with Israel. Concerns about antisemitism have surged across the political spectrum ahead of the midterm elections.

Republicans have been eager to portray Democrats, notably Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, as hostile toward Jews and Israel, while they deal with their own internal schisms.

Vance has faced skepticism from Jewish Republicans about his commitment to Jewish Americans and the U.S. alliance with Israel.

Last month, Vance spoke privately in Las Vegas to the Republican Jewish Coalition, a leading GOP group committed to advocating for a strong U.S. relationship with Israel and against antisemitism.

Vance left a positive impression on his RJC audience while stopping short of disavowing influential conservative podcast host Tucker Carlson.

Vance has faced general questions about his association with Carlson, a former Fox News host who faced backlash last year for interviewing antisemite Nick Fuentes on his podcast.

In June, Vance sharply criticized members of Israel’s government for opposing Trump’s efforts to resolve the war with Iran.

In July, Vance said elements of the Israeli government had tried to influence American sentiment to derail negotiations.

“There are some people within their system that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt are manipulating and trying to change American public opinion to keep the war going on indefinitely,” Vance said during an appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast.

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press.

In what may be one of the most comical self-owns in recent politics, the esteemed attorneys of the U.S. Department of Justice announced Monday that despite the extravagant and terrifying misuse of their investigative power under the Trump administration, they have so far been able to identify only 28 people in all of California who may have voted illegally.

“The announcement today by the United States DOJ makes the point that there is no widespread voter fraud,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said after the news conference announcing the results of “Operation Protect the Vote.”

Twenty-eight people out of about 23 million registered voters in the state — and not all of them even tried to vote, according to the feds. That’s about 1 in 820,000 folks allegedly registering or voting illegally, a rate that roughly matches how often people in the United States get struck by lightning in a given year.

So much for Trump’s endless claims that there is a vast, organized conspiracy between Democrats and undocumented people to have them vote in large numbers to steal elections. I’ll point out here that none of those charged Monday have been accused of colluding with one another or with Democratic overlords.

All the power of the government — investigative, technological, legal — has been thrown at finding these mysterious, diabolically clever ballot baddies. And now, thanks to Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, and his colleagues across this great state, we now know that all 28 of them will be held accountable, if the government can prove wrongdoing. And let’s be clear — people who vote illegally should be held accountable.

But wait, there’s more, because this election-stealing plot by immigrants certainly doesn’t stop at the state line. Seamus Hughes of Court Watch, an excellent site that tracks federal litigation, reported Monday that since the start of this administration, 169 people have been charged federally with illegally registering or voting.

That number includes the new California cases, so it means an additional 141 potentially illegal voters have been charged across the U.S. — all told about 1 in 1.25 million registered voters being accused of illegally registering or voting, making this crime slightly less likely than guessing a six-digit pin code on the first try.

There. Is. No. Election. Stealing.

But that’s where the funny part ends, because this attack on California elections is serious and just getting started.

The federal government, you’ve probably read, is suing California, claiming it gave the state a janky thumb drive with 20,000 names of registered voters that it sort of strongly suspects maybe aren’t legal voters. Important note here: The government has been very careful not to claim that these people voted illegally, just that it might be so based on questionable data, which I’ll get to in a minute.

The feds gave the state a silly 48-hour deadline to agree to change constitutional law, dump common sense and sequester these 20,000 ballots, if they were even returned, to double-check they were cast by valid voters.

When California rightfully refused — because elections are run by states, not the federal government — the federal government sued on the thinnest of legal grounds. It basically claimed that voting illegally is illegal, and if California doesn’t do exactly what Trump wants, it could be violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by impeding the feds from enforcing the crime of voter fraud.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli speaks at a news conference Monday at which officials announced that 28 people in California had been charged with voter fraud.

(David Butow / For The Times)

Which is basically arguing that if the state government fails to stop voter fraud using the flawed methods Trump likes, then the state is somehow stopping federal authorities from prosecuting voter fraud themselves. But didn’t they just enforce it with 28 cases?

Get ready, because “state-facilitated voter fraud,” is a new right-wing thing.

California is “being complicit in non-citizens voting in our elections, and as they were warned last week, not only is it a civil violation, but they could also face criminal consequences,” Essayli said, which if it happened would give Trumped-up charges a whole new meaning.

Essayli said state officials are not being “good faith actors,” but I’ll argue that shoe is on the other foot. The list of 20,000 alleged, suspected, maybe-maybe-not illegal voters was likely drawn from the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, created by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, if you can remember that unfortunate relic.

It sought to draw data from more than a dozen government databases that were not only not compatible with such information sharing, but which had been kept separate until now for privacy reasons. Americans in general did not want the government collecting unified, know-all records of every citizen.

Luckily for us, I guess, the SAVE system can’t actually create reliable, unified records. It confuses people, convolutes them, merges records of people with similar names, and in general has been deemed unreliable by data experts.

In September, the good folks at the UCLA Voting Rights Project joined with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights to sue the federal government over its use of that system to target naturalized citizens for removal from voter rolls. Turns out, the government appears to be targeting immigrants who are now citizens with these voter fraud accusations.

As I wrote about a few weeks ago, naturalized citizens make up about 1 in 10 eligible voters, and nearly a quarter of them live in California. But they also live in swing states such as Michigan, where Democrat Abdul El-Sayed may draw such voters, and in other places such as Georgia and Nevada where races might be decided by only a few votes.

These arrests and lawsuits while voting is already underway in the midterms are a not-subtle form of voter suppression. Imagine being a naturalized citizen in the Central Valley, where ICE is driving rampant fear and where Republican Rep. David Valadao is running against Democrat Randy Villegas in California’s 22nd Congressional District — one of the nation’s most closely contested races.

Would you consider sitting this election out just in case your ballot draws the frightening eye of the federal government? Even knowing that your vote is legal, what if you lived in a mixed-status household? Would it be worth risking voting if it meant a knock at the door from immigration checking on your status, and maybe finding that family member who lacks it?

Why take the risk?

“Basically, what they’re doing now is just completely harassing and intimidating naturalized citizens who are legally eligible to vote through these actions,” said Matt Barreto, co-founder of the Voting Rights Project.

And if the vote isn’t suppressed enough to give Trump the results he wants, these prosecutions and lawsuits feed the beast of conspiracy, giving Trump fodder to claim the results are fake, the election stolen.

And round and round we go, reckoning with Trump’s claims that lightning is striking everyone, everywhere, all at once, because the vote didn’t go his way.

On October 16, King Mohammed VI of Morocco appointed a new government headed by Prime Minister Fatima Zohra Al Mansouri. This is the first time in Moroccan history that a woman is leading the government – a precedent that was covered widely in international media.

In the Moroccan context, however, what is important is that Al Mansouri hails from the Authenticity and Modernity Party (PAM), which won the most seats in parliamentary elections in September. The party was founded by Ali Himma, a close associate and adviser to the king.

PAM, which has formed a coalition with three other parties, dominates the new government. This signals continuity rather than potential for change.

A party aligned with the monarchy

When thinking about what trajectory the new government is likely to take, it is important to consider PAM’s evolution.

The party was established in 2008 with the aim of countering the rise of political Islam in Morocco and in particular, the Justice and Development Party (PJD). The Arab Spring, which saw mass protests across the country, brought changes to the Moroccan political scene, allowing more space for political forces like the PJD and, to an extent, curbing the influence of the establishment, known as the Makhzen.

In 2011, Himma distanced himself from PAM and became an adviser to the king. Yet, the party continued to be perceived by other political groups as tied to the Makhzen.

For years, PAM carried the stigma of its origins, but it persisted in trying to gain acceptance. In the 2016 elections, it challenged the PJD and secured the second-biggest number of votes, thus establishing itself as a legitimate political force. Yet this was still not enough to enable it to lead the government.

The party subsequently reinvented itself by rejuvenating its ranks and gaining experience in public affairs through its participation in the 2021 government as a coalition partner. In the latest elections, PAM finally won.

This election victory, however, needs to be put into perspective: 62 percent of eligible voters stayed away from the polls. On election day, the authorities had to call on people to go out and vote.

Apart from the low turnout, there were suspicions of irregularities, but because in some cases the official election records were not released, observers and political parties were unable to obtain tangible evidence.

There was also the familiar phenomenon of influential figures being brought into political parties at the last minute to boost electoral prospects. For example, just two months before the election, Faouzi Laaqjea, president of the Royal Moroccan Football Federation, whose popularity stems from the achievements of Moroccan football, officially joined PAM.

To secure a majority in parliament, the party has had to form a coalition with forces which had previously questioned its legitimacy. While PAM has gained legitimacy through this alliance, the other parties and their leaders may now lose credibility.

The newly formed government has retained more than half the members of its predecessor, not to mention the so-called sovereign ministries, which fall directly within the king’s reserved powers. Some Moroccans are already asking what was the point of holding elections if the same people are brought back to govern.

Challenges ahead

The new government has an ambitious programme to respond to growing domestic pressure as the cost-of-living crisis deepens. At the first Council of Ministers meeting chaired by the king on October 17 , a 2027 Finance Bill was put forward that featured greater emphasis on addressing social issues, citizens’ purchasing power and youth inclusion.

However, this agenda is facing an unfavourable international economic and financial environment, marked by rising energy prices and increasing costs of inputs for some of Morocco’s leading sectors, including phosphate production.

The state-owned OCP Group, which is in charge of phosphate extraction and the industrial processing of phosphate derivatives and is one of Morocco’s principal sources of wealth, is now experiencing difficult times.

There are also concerns about the potential effects of El Nino, which could bring more dry weather and threaten food security in a country that just endured seven consecutive years of drought.

Tourism, another major source of revenue, could also suffer from the global slowdown in travel, rising transport costs and the uncertainties arising from tensions in the Gulf and Europe.

The circumstances are therefore far from favourable for the new government, and public opinion appears broadly sceptical.

Last but not least, this government will face an experienced and outspoken opposition, represented by both the Islamist PJD and the radical left.

Even the ministers holding the so-called sovereign portfolios face serious challenges. The foreign minister must contend with public opposition to the normalisation of relations with Israel. The interior minister has to tackle allegations of electoral manipulation.

The minister of religious affairs is facing the fallout of controversial statements concerning Morocco as a secular country and remarks about Ceuta, known in Morocco as Sebta, made during a religious ceremony. These comments were poorly received by the Spanish authorities.

The new government has an ambitious agenda, indeed, but its tenure will be shaped by difficult circumstances – both at home and abroad – that are largely out of its control.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.