Groups

On Tuesday night, President Trump once again emboldened the violent far-right when he deflected a debate moderator’s request to tell those groups to stand down, instead responding that one such organization, the Proud Boys, should “stand back and stand by,” adding, “Somebody has got to do something about antifa and the left.”

Here’s what you need to know about the far-right movement in the U.S. and why the president’s remarks were significant.

What does ‘far right’ mean?

There is no single definition of what it means to be “far right,” which is a broad term applied to a fragmented series of groups and ideologies that have operated along the fringes of U.S. politics, some for well over a century. Such groups embrace ideals of white racial purity, ultranationalism, “Western civilization” or male dominance. They have often expressed hostility to Black people, immigrants, members of certain religious groups (typically Jews, Muslims and Catholics), left-wing organizations, feminists, the federal government and even liberal democracy itself.

Far-right groups are also often labeled as racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, fascists, “alt-right,” neo-Nazis, neo-Confederates, chauvinists and militias, with the distinction frequently depending on their history or ideology. Historically, America’s best-known right-wing extremist organization is the Ku Klux Klan, which was violently dedicated to preserving white power after the Confederacy’s defeat in the Civil War brought new rights to formerly enslaved Black Americans.

The Klan’s power has waned, but such groups continue to appear in the public sphere. Many Americans will be most familiar with their gathering at the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., where far-right groups clashed with anti-racist protesters, killing one woman.

Who are the Proud Boys?

The Anti-Defamation League, which monitors extremists, describes the Proud Boys as “violent, nationalistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and misogynistic,” but says “its members represent a range of ethnic backgrounds, and its leaders vehemently protest any allegations of racism.”

Its membership is estimated to be in the hundreds, organized into local chapters that have attended public rallies and protests and sometimes violently confronted left-wing protesters. Its founder, Gavin McInnes, describes the group as a “pro-Western fraternity,” but the Anti-Defamation League says it has “many of the hallmarks of a gang, and its members have taken part in multiple acts of brutal violence and intimidation.”

On Wednesday, media outlets in Portland, Ore., reported that one Proud Boy member had been arrested on suspicion of assault and pointing a gun at anti-fascist protesters at an Aug. 22 confrontation in the city.

What is Trump’s relationship to the far right?

Trump’s groundbreaking 2016 presidential campaign energized far-right groups as he made harsh attacks on immigrants, Muslims, liberals and the idea of America as a collaborative participant in international diplomacy and trade. He embraced what are sometimes called “white grievance” politics, attracting large numbers of white voters, most frequently men, who believed that they themselves had been the victims of racial discrimination.

After winning, Trump populated his White House with hard-line conservatives such as Stephen K. Bannon, whose website Breitbart had been a key platform for elevating the so-called “alt-right,” which turned out to just be another name for fascism.

This drew praise from the far right, which felt that in Trump it now had a vessel to inject its own extremist politics into the mainstream after decades of marginalization, humiliation and defeat.

As The Times reported in 2016, David Duke, a former Klan grand wizard, declared that “the fact that Donald Trump’s doing so well, it proves that I’m winning.” Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute, who called for a separate white nation, said, “Before Trump, our identity ideas, national ideas, they had no place to go.” Andrew Anglin, operator of the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer, said, “Virtually every alt-right Nazi I know is volunteering for the Trump campaign.”

How has Trump talked about the far right in the past?

It’s typical for politicians to publicly distance themselves from their most extreme supporters, usually to avoid alienating moderates or energizing opponents. But Trump, who has sometimes retweeted Twitter accounts associated with white nationalists, has often stumbled, prevaricated, pleaded ignorance or shifted blame to the left when confronted about his support from the far right.

In 2016, after retweeting a quote by Benito Mussolini, the Italian fascist leader who was allied with Adolf Hitler, Trump said, “Look, Mussolini was Mussolini … and I know who said it,” calling it “a very good quote, an interesting quote.”

Asked to disavow Duke and the KKK, Trump evaded, saying, “I don’t know anything about David Duke. I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know.”

After the deadly 2017 Charlottesville rally, Trump told reporters: “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis; I’ve condemned many different groups,” but said he believed that not all of the right-wing participants were neo-Nazis, and that “you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.”

That comment caused an uproar among Trump’s critics, who took the remark as Trump calling neo-Nazis “very fine people” and who denounced his unwillingness to take a hard stand against racists while the nation was rattled by its largest fascist gathering in years.

What Trump said at the debate

At Tuesday night’s debate, moderator Chris Wallace gave Trump yet another chance to denounce far-right radicals, and the president once again created an uproar with his unwillingness to denounce extremist supporters.

“Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities … ?” Wallace asked.

“Sure, I’m willing to do that. I would say, I would say, almost everything I see is from the left wing, not from the right wing,” Trump said. “I’m willing to do anything. I want to see peace.”

“Then do it, sir,” Wallace said.

“Say it. Do it. Say it,” Democratic nominee Joe Biden said.

“You want to call ’em — what do you want to call ’em? Give me a name, give me a name,” Trump said. “Who would you like me to condemn?”

Wallace and Biden, talking over each other, suggested “white supremacists” and the right-wing group the Proud Boys.

“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by — but I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left,” Trump said.

Many listeners, including members of the Proud Boys, saw Trump’s response as a sign of support, the opposite of a denunciation.

Facing widespread criticism afterward, Trump attempted Wednesday to walk back his remark, saying, “I don’t know who Proud Boys are, but whoever they are, they have to stand down, let enforcement do their work.” But he reiterated, “now, antifa is a real problem, because the problem is on the left.”

Pressed again by a reporter to denounce white supremacists, Trump responded, “I’ve always denounced any form of any of that.”

White House cites groups’ alleged support for Hamas, accusing them of waging campaign against US interests and allies.

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump has ordered his aides to start a process to label the branches of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan as “terrorist” organisations, citing their alleged support for the Palestinian group Hamas.

Trump issued the decree on Monday as Washington intensified its crackdown on Israel’s foes in the region.

The decree accused Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Jordan of providing “material support” to Hamas and the Lebanese branch of the group – known as al-Jamaa al-Islamiya – of siding with Hamas and Hezbollah in their war with Israel.

It also claimed that an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader “called for violent attacks against United States partners and interests” during Israel’s war on Gaza. But it was not clear what the White House was referring to. The Muslim Brotherhood has been banned in Egypt and mostly driven underground.

“President Trump is confronting the Muslim Brotherhood’s transnational network, which fuels terrorism and destabilization campaigns against US interests and allies in the Middle East,” the White House said.

Trump’s order directs the secretary of state and the treasury secretary to consult with the US intelligence chief and produce a report on the designation within 30 days.

A formal “foreign terrorist organisation” label would then officially apply to the Muslim Brotherhood branches within 45 days after the report.

The process is usually a formality, and the designation may come sooner. The decree also opens the door to blacklisting other Muslim Brotherhood branches.

The White House is also pushing to label the groups as “designated global terrorists”.

The designations would make it illegal to provide material support to the group. It would also mostly ban their current and former members from entering the US, and enable economic sanctions to choke their revenue streams.

Longstanding demand of right-wing activists

Established in 1928 by Egyptian Muslim scholar Hassan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood has offshoots and branches across the Middle East in the shape of political parties and social organisations.

Across the Middle East, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated parties take part in elections and say they are committed to peaceful political participation.

But the group has been outlawed by several countries across the region.

Blacklisting the Muslim Brotherhood has been a longstanding demand for right-wing activists in the US.

But critics say that the move could further enable authoritarianism and the crackdown on free political expression in the Middle East.

The decree could also be used to target Muslim American activists on allegations of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood or contributions to charities affiliated with the group.

Right-wing groups have long pushed to outlaw Muslim American groups with unfounded accusations of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said the designation should not have an impact on Muslim American advocacy groups and charities.

“The American Muslim organisations are solid,” Awad told Al Jazeera. “They are based in the US. The relief organisations serve millions of people abroad. I hope that this will not impact their work.”

But he noted that anti-Muslim activists have been trying to promote “the conspiracy theory that every Muslim organisation in the US is a front to the Muslim Brotherhood”.

Recently, Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott designated both the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR as “foreign terrorist organisations and transnational criminal organisations”.

CAIR has sued the governor’s office in response.

When Mariam* first started thinking of deserting Boko Haram’s settlement at Sambisa Forest, where she had been living for a decade, she was not entirely sure that it was the best idea. She still believed in the cause, for starters. But there was the matter of her body starting to fail her. 

Her husband had just died of HIV/AIDS, and she had unfortunately contracted the disease from him before he passed. Although the doctor in the forest tried to provide her with medication, it was not consistent. In addition, she had kids she feared infecting. Then, she started to hear that access to antiretroviral drugs was free in Maiduguri, the Borno State capital in northeastern Nigeria. So, she began to tinker with the idea, for the first time, of leaving the group behind. 

The group was all she had known for the past decade. She had even been prepared, at some point, to give her life for the cause by volunteering for a suicide bombing. She had been approved for it and had begun to undergo training and preparations when she realised she was pregnant. Her husband, previously supportive of what they collectively thought of as her noble martyrdom, then decided she could not blow herself up while carrying their child. She was heavily disappointed. That’s how far she was willing to go for the Boko Haram cause.

And so to leave it all behind seemed impossible. 

She had joined when the group first declared war on the Nigerian state over a decade ago, leaving state-controlled territories for the Sambisa Forest. They sought to establish what they believed to be an Islamic state, declaring formal education, democracy, and elections forbidden. Their campaign has killed over 35,000 people violently, displaced over two million others, and caused over 25,000 others to go missing. Mariam had been attending their sermons right from the early, non-violent days. 

Eventually, after nearly a decade, she left with her children in 2017. Since coming back to Maiduguri, she has had uninterrupted access to free medications for her condition, reducing her viral load and making her no longer infectious. And so, even though she considered the economic prospects and living conditions in Maiduguri to be worse than in Sambisa, she stayed because she could remain alive.

She keeps the truth of her condition from her children and everyone she knows. 

Earlier this year, however, the United States President Donald Trump announced the suspension of USAID, which was primarily responsible for the accessibility of antiretroviral drugs for people like Mariam. Without the USAID subsidy, the drugs are estimated to be unaffordably expensive for low-income earners like Mariam.

Word started to go around that the availability of the drugs would falter. When Mariam ran out of her six-month stash of medications, she returned to the Borno State Specialist Hospital to get a refill, as she has done for years now. There, she met a surprise that scared her. 

“They only gave me one small can of pills, not the usual two. They seemed to have changed the ratio. They didn’t say why, only that they had changed the ratio. The bottle will only last me three months,” she recounted.

It worried her. When she got home from the hospital, she poured the pills into a thin white plastic bag and hid it, as usual. That way, it is inconspicuous, and anyone who knew the kind of bottles the drugs came in would not be able to recognise hers. This is so that she would avoid stigma.

“Nobody knows I have HIV to date. Even my children. And they are HIV-free. I had them tested at the hospital. Even the eldest among them doesn’t know.”

Around the same time, NGO-run health facilities were also starting to shut down in many rural communities in Borno. For example, in Konduga, a primary healthcare centre run by Family Health International (FHI360) was shut down. The facility had been receiving hundreds of patients daily until its abrupt suspension, leaving many in need and others unemployed. 

For Mariam, this has made her begin to consider going back to the terror group, especially after she lost everything during the tragic Maiduguri floods last year. She and her children barely escaped with their lives. The flood had swept through Maiduguri and neighbouring areas, affecting over one million people in total. Her daughter had initially been swept away until a neighbour dove into the waves and rescued her.

“It was a young man who came to help. I was at the verge of diving into the water myself when he came and said not to worry, that he would get her back, and he did. We could not salvage anything else from the flood. We were displaced to the Bakassi IDP camp.” 

When Mariam ran out of the three-month stash and went back to the hospital for a refill, she was only handed a one-month stash this time. The two times she has gone back for more refills after she had exhausted each, she only received one month’s stash, further scaring her.

Though she is no longer as committed to the Boko Haram ideology as she used to be, the realisation that she and her children’s lives are not safe has made her seriously reconsider the prospect of returning

A medical doctor working in Borno State, who pleaded anonymity, confirmed that the drugs had become difficult to access after the USAID suspension. “Patients who showed up at the hospitals were being told that the drugs were not available,” the doctor told HumAngle. “But if you knew your way around and gave some pharmacists some money, they would then give you the drugs, but keep in mind that the drugs are meant to be free. The situation has mildly improved.”

The availability of healthcare among terror groups is traceable to many sources. They are notorious for abducting healthcare workers and forcing them to work for them. But they also took medical training very seriously during the early days when the group first started to tactically come together over a decade ago, according to a former member of the group. 

Now, as many people are coming back to state-controlled territories, the rewards for recidivism have reportedly become higher, as the groups struggle to maintain their followers. Mariam hears these whispers from many of her associates.

“In addition to the drugs they were giving me in Sambisa, they would also give me a litre of honey and some black seed,” she said, adding that the honey and black seed were to help build her immune system.

In northwestern Nigeria, children who escaped or were rescued from terror groups have reported similar experiences. Some boys told HumAngle in an investigation that they joined the groups for things like food and healthcare. They said these were some of the incentives that made staying easy, and why they were not so keen on returning to state-controlled territories.

“I collected the last batch exactly a week ago today,” Mariam said of her access to the drugs. “The flow has never stopped. They always give me on schedule; it is just that I now only get one-month refills.” 

“The life over there is way better,” she said of Sambisa. “If I were there, I would have received a lot of support, especially with my husband dead. Here, who will help me? Everyone is focused on themselves. There is peace of mind there.”

When asked how there could be peace of mind there, with the threat of military bombardment ever present, she said the military would not harm women and children, and so she still would have been safe. “They will only ‘rescue’ us and bring us back to Borno… Even recently, I said to myself that life over there would be better for me. There were so many things weighing down on me at that time. It was even before the flood.”

On whether her children’s lives would be better in Maiduguri, she said it would only be so if her children had access to formal education here, which they don’t. Now, they spend all their time either at home with her or roaming the streets.

When we first spoke in June 2023, she had told me that her children were opposed to the Nigerian army and would throw rocks at them on the road, chanting war songs. When I asked her if things had improved now, she said yes.

“They don’t do that anymore,” she laughed. “They have forgotten. They don’t even want to hear anything related to Boko Haram anymore.”

If she could make an appeal for help to the government, it would be for three things. “Healthcare, school for my children, and a means of livelihood.”

This work was produced as a result of a grant provided by the Wits Centre for Journalism’s African Investigative Journalism Conference.

*Mariam is a pseudonym used to protect her anonymity. 

The annual United Nations climate conference has ended with an agreement that urges action to address global warming, but falls short of endorsing a phase-out of fossil fuels.

After two weeks of heated debates, meetings and negotiations at the COP30 summit in the Brazilian city of Belem, world leaders on Saturday agreed to a deal that calls for countries to “significantly accelerate and scale up climate action worldwide”.

The text lays out a series of promises and measures – including a call for developed countries to triple their funding to help poorer nations respond to the crisis – but makes no mention of a fossil fuel phase-out.

Dozens of states had been calling forthe COP30 deal to lay out a framework to ease away from their reliance on oil, gas and coal – the major drivers of the climate crisis – but several countries that rely on fossil fuels had pushed back.

While observers say the deal marks a step forward in the world’s effort to address climate breakdown, several have argued that COP30 fell short of expectations.

Here’s a look at how some world leaders and climate advocates have reacted to the agreement.

COP30 President Andre Aranha Correa do Lago

“We know some of you had greater ambitions for some of the issues at hand. I know that you, civil society, will demand us to do more to fight climate change. I want to reaffirm that I will try not to disappoint you during my presidency,” he said during Saturday’s closing session.

“As [Brazilian] President [Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva] said at the opening of this COP, we need roadmaps so that humanity – in a just and planned manner – can overcome its dependence on fossil fuels, halt and reverse deforestation and mobilise resources for these purposes,” he said.

“I, as president of COP30, will therefore create two roadmaps: One on halting and reverting [reversing] deforestation and another to transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner.”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres

“COP30 has delivered progress,” Guterres said in a statement, including the call to triple climate adaptation financing and recognition that the world is going to surpass the 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) target for global warming set under the Paris Agreement.

“But COPs are consensus-based – and in a period of geopolitical divides, consensus is ever harder to reach. I cannot pretend that COP30 has delivered everything that is needed. The gap between where we are and what science demands remains dangerously wide,” the UN chief said.

“I understand many may feel dissapointed [sic] – especially young people, Indigenous Peoples and those living through climate chaos. The reality of overshoot is a stark warning: We are approaching dangerous and irreversible tipping points,” he added.

Wopke Hoekstra, European Union climate commissioner

“We’re not going to hide the fact that we would have preferred to have more, to have more ambition on everything,” Hoekstra told reporters.

“It is not perfect, but it is a hugely important step in the right direction.”

Colombian President Gustavo Petro

“I do not accept that the COP30 declaration does not clearly state, as science does, that the cause of the climate crisis is the fossil fuels used by capital. If that is not stated, everything else is hypocrisy,” Petro wrote on social media.

“Life on the planet, including our own, is only possible if we separate ourselves from oil, coal, and natural gas as energy sources; science has determined this, and I am not blind to science.

“Colombia opposes a COP30 declaration that does not tell the world the scientific truth.”

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla

“While the results fell short of expectations, the Belem COP strengthens and demonstrates the importance of multilateralism in addressing major global challenges such as combating #climatechange,” he wrote on X.

“Among its key outcomes are the call for developed countries to provide climate finance for adaptation in developing countries, at least tripling current levels by 2035; the establishment of a mechanism to support our countries in just transitions; and the commitment from developed countries to fulfill their obligations under the Paris Agreement.”

China

“I’m happy with the outcome,” Li Gao, head of China’s delegation at COP30, told the AFP news agency.

“We achieved this success in a very difficult situation, so it shows that the international community would like to show solidarity and make joint efforts to address climate change.”

Alliance of Small Island States

A group representing the interests of 39 small island and low-lying coastal states described the deal as “imperfect” but said it nevertheless was a step towards “progress”.

“Ultimately, this is the push and pull of multilateralism. The opportunity for all countries to be heard and to listen to each other’s perspectives, to collaborate, build bridges, and reach common ground,” the Alliance of Small Island States said in a statement.

Amnesty International

Ann Harrison, climate justice adviser at Amnesty International, noted that COP30 host Brazil had promised to make sure “every voice is heard and made strenuous efforts to broaden participation, which should be replicated”.

“Yet the lack of participatory, inclusive, and transparent negotiations left both civil society and Indigenous Peoples, who answered the global mutirao [working together] call in large numbers, out of the real decision making,” Harrison said in a statement.

Still, she said “people power” had helped achieve “a commitment to develop a Just Transition mechanism that will streamline and coordinate ongoing and future efforts to protect the rights of workers, other individuals and communities affected by fossil fuel phase out”.

Oxfam

Viviana Santiago, executive director of Oxfam Brasil, said COP30 “offered a spark of hope but far more heartbreak, as the ambition of global leaders continues to fall short of what is needed for a liveable planet”.

“A truly just transition requires those who built their fortunes on fossil fuels to move first and fastest – and provide finance in the form of grants, not loans, so front-line communities can do the same. Instead, the poorest countries already in debt are being told to transition faster, with fewer funds,” Santiago said.

“The spark of hope lies in the proposed Belem Action Mechanism, which puts workers’ rights and justice at the centre of the shift away from fossil fuels. But without financing from rich countries, the just energy transition risks becoming stalled in many countries.”

Bola Tinubu says he suspended the trip in light of the abductions and a separate church attack in which armed men killed two people.

Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu has postponed his trip to South Africa for the Group of 20 summit, promising to intensify efforts to rescue 24 schoolgirls abducted by armed men earlier this week.

The president’s spokesperson, Bayo Onanuga, said in a statement on Wednesday that Tinubu suspended his departure in light of the girls’ abduction and a separate church attack in which gunmen killed two people.

Tinubu had been set to leave on Wednesday, days before the two-day summit of the world’s leading rich and developing nations was due to begin on Saturday.

“Disturbed by the security breaches in Kebbi State and Tuesday’s attack by bandits against worshippers at Christ Apostolic Church, Eruku, President Tinubu decided to suspend his departure” to the G20 summit, Onanuga said.

It was not clear immediately if or when Tinubu would leave for the weekend summit in Johannesburg.

Search for abducted girls ongoing

The schoolgirls were abducted by unidentified armed men from a secondary school in the northwestern town of Maga in Kebbi State late on Sunday night.

The attackers exchanged gunfire with police before scaling the perimeter fence and abducting the students.

One of the girls managed to escape, authorities said, but the school’s vice principal was killed. No group immediately claimed responsibility for abducting the girls, and their motivation was unclear.

Authorities say the gunmen are mostly former herders who have taken up arms against farming communities after clashes between them over strained resources.

In a separate attack on a church in western Nigeria on Tuesday, armed men killed two people during a service that was recorded and broadcast online.

Supporters of United States President Donald Trump have seized on the violence to embolden their claim that Christians are under attack in Nigeria.

Trump has threatened to invade Nigeria “guns-a-blazing” over what right-wing lawmakers in the US allege is a “Christian genocide“.

Nigeria has rejected the US president’s statements, saying more Muslims have been killed in the country’s various security crises.

Islamabad, Pakistan – At about 12:30pm (07:30 GMT) on Tuesday afternoon, Khalid Khan, a 25-year-old lawyer, was waiting for his lunch with his friend, Fawad Khan, at the cafeteria of Islamabad’s District Judicial Complex.

Suddenly, a loud boom shook the cafeteria and the entire judicial complex.

“I first thought that the roof will collapse on me,” Khalid told Al Jazeera outside the complex, two hours later.

The complex had been hit by a suicide attack. According to official figures, at least 12 people were killed and more than 30 were injured, several of them critically, when the bomber blew himself up at the entrance of the court complex.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif blamed “India-backed proxies” operating from Afghanistan for carrying out the attack.

India, where a car explosion on Monday evening killed at least 13 people, said that it “unequivocally” rejects the “baseless and unfounded allegations being made by an obviously delirious Pakistani leadership”.

In a statement issued on Tuesday evening, Randhir Jaiswal, the spokesperson for India’s Ministry of External Affairs, said Islamabad was attempting to “deflect the attention of its own public from the ongoing military-inspired constitutional subversion and power-grab unfolding within the country”, appearing to refer to the 27th constitutional amendment being debated in Pakistan’s National Assembly.

“The international community is well aware of the reality, and will not be misled by Pakistan’s desperate diversionary ploys,” Jaiswal added.

The constitutional amendment has sparked criticism from activists, sitting judges and opposition parties for granting lifelong immunity from criminal prosecution for the country’s senior-most military officers, and for setting up a parallel Federal Constitutional Court, which many fear could undermine the Supreme Court.

But on Tuesday, it was the District Judicial Complex in Islamabad that was shaken, as the impact blast there reverberated across South Asia.

The sound of the explosion was heard in nearby residential areas and office buildings. Soon after, videos of the incident went viral on social media, showing flames and plumes of smoke rising from a charred vehicle near a security barrier at the compound’s entrance.

In other clips, lawyers were seen rushing out to help those on the road as security personnel surrounded the premises.

Witnesses said that at the time of the blast, nearly 2,000 people were inside the complex, including judges, lawyers, litigants and court staff.

They described an explosion so powerful that windows in several courtrooms were shattered, and body parts were strewn across the site, including the head of the suicide bomber.

With different gates for entry and exit, and the main gate closed immediately after the blast, police initially instructed people to stay inside before allowing them to leave about 25 minutes later.

Muhammad Shehzad Butt, a 52-year-old lawyer, was among them. He said he had been heading towards the cafeteria when the explosion occurred.

“It was utter pandemonium, and in the panic, most of the people were trying to exit the complex, causing havoc at the gate, while many others tried to get back inside the building,” he told Al Jazeera outside the complex.

After the attack, authorities cordoned off the area, placing barriers to keep the media from entering or approaching the site where the suicide bomber detonated the explosives.

A large number of journalists gathered outside the compound, hoping to capture visuals, but officials initially denied them access.

By then, most litigants had left, though some lawyers lingered nearby, speaking with reporters and YouTube vloggers recording their accounts.

Butt, the lawyer, said that when he arrived at court in the morning, security checks appeared routine but thorough. However, he heard from colleagues that there was an additional layer of screening that day.

This was corroborated by Khalid, the lawyer from Quetta who has worked in Islamabad for the past five years.

“This morning, when Fawad and I reached the court premises, we had to wait slightly longer as there was extra checking at the entrance. There was no concern, but we just felt that maybe some VIP might be visiting the court or some delegation,” he said.

Despite the dozen people killed, including one lawyer, both Khalid and Fawad, who is originally from Swat, said they felt no fear about returning to work the next day.

“We have seen enough of this [violence],” Khalid said. “These things don’t scare us.”

Islamabad, Pakistan – Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has blamed India for the “suicide attack” that struck outside the district and sessions court building in Islamabad on Tuesday afternoon.

Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi said at least 12 people were killed and hospital authorities confirmed more than 30 wounded, including at least five in critical condition.

The blast occurred as Islamabad hosted several international conferences and while sports events were also under way nearby. The Sri Lankan cricket team, which was attacked in March 2009 by gunmen in Pakistan, was playing a one-day international match in Rawalpindi, about 10km (6 miles) from the court.

The suicide attack marked a dramatic escalation of violence at a time when the military was focused on rescuing hundreds of cadets held by fighters in a separate incident at Cadet College in South Waziristan, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, near the Afghan border.

The assault on the college in Wana, the district capital, occurred a day earlier when an explosives-laden car rammed the campus entrance. Security forces say at least 300 cadets have been rescued so far and that operations to free the remainder are ongoing.

On Tuesday, another bomb in Dera Ismail Khan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, injured at least 14 security personnel.

Sharif blamed India for both the Islamabad and Wana incidents without offering evidence. “Both attacks are the worst examples of Indian state terrorism in the region. It is time for the world to condemn such nefarious conspiracies of India,” he said.

A day earlier, a car explosion in New Delhi killed at least 13 people. India’s Home Minister Amit Shah said on X that India would “hunt down each and every culprit behind this incident”.

Here is what we know so far about the Islamabad blast.

Where did the blast happen?

The suicide bomber struck after 12:30pm (07:30 GMT) at the entrance of the District Judicial Complex on Srinagar Highway, one of Islamabad’s main arteries.

Opened three years ago, the complex handles thousands of litigants and draws large numbers of lawyers daily. The complex has several gates, with a side entrance used primarily by judges and a main gate for litigants.

Key political and civic institutions – the Parliament, Supreme Court, and offices of the president and prime minister – are about 15km (9 miles) away.

Has anyone claimed responsibility?

The Jamaa-ul-Ahrar, a breakaway faction of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) armed group, claimed responsibility for the attack.

The TTP, an ideological ally of the Afghan Taliban, itself denied any role in the Islamabad attack.

Pakistan has suffered a series of attacks from the TTP in recent years that have led to the deaths of hundreds of security officials and civilians. Pakistan has repeatedly accused the Afghan Taliban of sheltering the TTP, a charge Kabul denies. The TTP are at the centre of recent tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan, including a series of deadly cross-border clashes.

Pakistan’s capital, however, has largely stayed peaceful in recent years. The last major attack in Islamabad was in December 2022, when a car rammed a police post and a police officer died. The TTP had claimed responsibility for that attack.

What did witnesses see?

As Islamabad’s main district court, the judicial complex sees thousands of litigants visiting the court premises for their various cases. Thousands of lawyers also come to the complex for their daily duties.

Raja Aleem Abbasi, a member of the Islamabad Bar Council, was taking a break in the main courtyard when the blast shook the compound.

“It was a deafening blast, and complete chaos and panic set in. As we regained composure, I saw the head of the suicide bomber, which had flown from outside, rolling just in front of me, merely a few feet away,” a shaken Abbasi told Al Jazeera.

Abbasi, 60, said hundreds tried to flee, but the main entrance was blocked. “Soon, the entrance used for the judges was open for the public, allowing us to escape,” he added.

He estimated about 2,000 people were on the premises when the device detonated.

Mushahid Dawar, another lawyer, said he had left the compound on his motorcycle minutes before the blast but returned when he heard it.

“I had left for the office from the court when I heard the blast, and instinctively I turned back. However, as I saw so many bodies strewn on the road, I just could not bear the sight and decided to leave,” Dawar told Al Jazeera.

What is the wider context?

The attacks coincide with a fraught period in Pakistan-Afghanistan ties. The two neighbours were locked in a week of clashes last month before Qatar and Türkiye mediated a ceasefire in Doha on October 19.

Follow-up talks in Istanbul have, however, failed to resolve differences, and negotiations collapsed again over the weekend following the third round of talks.

Pakistan long enjoyed close ties with the Afghan Taliban and many Pakistanis welcomed the militants’ return to power in August 2021.

But relations have soured, largely over Pakistan’s accusations that Kabul has provided sanctuary to the TTP, an armed group that emerged in 2007 and has waged a sustained campaign against Islamabad.

Besides the TTP, Pakistan also accuses Afghanistan of sheltering the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and the ISIL affiliate in Khorasan Province (ISKP). The Taliban government denies responsibility for Pakistan’s internal security concerns.

Regional powers including China, Iran and Russia have urged the Taliban to act against the TTP. That message was reiterated at the Moscow Format consultations in early October, attended by Amir Khan Muttaqi, the Taliban’s foreign minister.

Shortly after the blast, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif wrote on X that the country was “in a state of war”.

“Anyone who thinks that the Pakistan Army is fighting this war in the Afghan-Pakistan border region and the remote areas of Balochistan should take today’s suicide attack at the Islamabad district courts as a wake-up call: this is a war for all of Pakistan, in which the Pakistan Army is giving daily sacrifices and making the people feel secure,” he wrote.

Why is India being blamed?

The year 2025 has seen shifting regional alignments. Relations between Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban, once close, now stand at a breaking point, despite the current year seeing several attempts to patch up the relationship.

Pakistan appointed an ambassador to Kabul and engaged in multiple diplomatic dialogues, but relations have deteriorated.

India, which long treated the Taliban as a Pakistani proxy and shunned contact, has, on the other hand, strengthened its diplomatic and strategic ties in recent years, as witnessed by a visit by Afghanistan’s foreign minister to India last year.

Islamabad has historically accused New Delhi of stoking unrest in Balochistan and has more recently alleged Indian support for the TTP, charges India rejects.

What do experts say?

Analysts warn that if tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan remain unresolved, instability is likely to spill across borders and provoke further attacks inside Pakistan’s cities.

Ihsanullah Tipu Mehsud, a security analyst in Islamabad, said the TTP has the capability to strike major cities but has largely concentrated its operations in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

“The Pakistani Taliban believe that if they continue attacking security personnel in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, they can weaken the control of administration and that will allow them opportunity to capture parts of the province, where they can make their bases,” Mehsud told Al Jazeera.

Referring to the recent Pakistan-Afghanistan clashes and the failed talks, Mehsud warned of a possible surge of violence in major cities. “If there is a war to take place against Afghanistan, Pakistan must be ready for the blowback, and to suffer losses,” he said. “There can be attacks against its key installations and symbols.”

A U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington on Tuesday overturned a decision requiring organizations that run election-related television ads to reveal their funders, saying a lower court erred in finding that Congress intended to require such disclosure — a victory for some of the biggest groups participating in the 2012 campaign.

In an unsigned decision, the three-judge panel wrote that it was “doubtful” that Congress anticipated how campaign finance rules would change and sent the case back to the lower court for further review.

But for the remainder of this election the ruling lets up the pressure on GOP-allied organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads GPS, which changed their ad strategies after a federal judge ruled this spring that Congress intended such groups to disclose their donors.

INTERACTIVE: Spending during the 2012 election

“We’re just delighted,” said Thomas Kirby, an attorney for the Center for Individual Freedom, one of two groups that pursued an appeal of the case. “CFIF believes that the right to engage in political speech should not be needlessly conditioned upon the loss of anonymity.”

Rep. Christopher Van Hollen (D-Md.), who brought the original case against the Federal Election Commission that upheld the donor disclosure requirement, issued a statement saying the appellate decision “struck a blow against transparency in the funding of political campaigns.”

“The Court of Appeals’ decision today will keep the American people, for the time being, in the dark about who is attempting to influence their vote with secret money,” he added.

The case hinges on the FEC’s interpretation of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act, a landmark campaign finance reform measure that, among other things, required groups that engage in “electioneering communications” to reveal all their contributors.

Five years later, the FEC issued a rule stating that such organizations only had to reveal the donors who gave for the purpose of financing TV ads.

Van Hollen — backed by lawyers from the campaign finance reform organizations Democracy 21, Public Citizen, Campaign Legal Center and the law firm WilmerHale — sued the FEC, arguing that the rule created a major loophole that undermined the intent of the McCain-Feingold Act. A federal judge agreed, ruling on March 30 that the FEC had overstepped its authority.

“Congress intended to shine light on whoever was behind the communications bombarding voters immediately prior to elections,” Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote in her decision.

Her ruling threw out the 2007 rule and reinstated a 2003 FEC regulation that required organizations doing electioneering to report all donations of $1,000 or more dating back to the first day of the preceding year.

That triggered a scramble among politically active groups on the right that have been fighting efforts to force them to reveal their funders. Despite the fact that they are organized as nonprofit social welfare organizations – or, in the case of the Chamber, as a trade group — the groups began running explicitly political ads, taking advantage of the conflicting patchwork of campaign finance rules that did not require disclosure of those doing “express advocacy.”

That move came with its own risk: paying for overtly political spots could jeopardize their tax status.

INTERACTIVE: Battleground states map

Such a tactic is no longer necessary after Tuesday’s ruling by the appellate court, which declared that the McCain-Feingold Act is “anything but clear” in light of major court cases that have followed it, including the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United.

The panel chided the FEC for not clearly dealing with the changes in the law or defending its stance in court. The appellate court sent the case back to the lower court, ordering it to refer the matter back to the FEC to defend its current rules or issue new ones.

But with the FEC locked in partisan gridlock, it remains unclear whether the six commissioners will be able to come to agreement on how to proceed.

Campaign finance reform advocates said they were not giving up, saying they still believed they had a strong argument to make at the district court level if the FEC chooses to defend the current rules.

“The Court of Appeals got it wrong,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21. “There is no way Congress enacted a statute to result in no disclosure of contributors when the statute calls for all disclosure of contributors.”

Wertheimer said his group would also continue to press the Internal Revenue Service to scrutinize the activities of groups such as Crossroads GPS that claim to be nonprofit social welfare organizations.

But he admitted that in the prospect of forcing such organizations to reveal their donors this year has been effectively shut down.

“They’ll go back to doing electioneering and claim that their campaign ads are not campaign ads,” Wertheimer said.

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook[email protected]

Twitter: @mateagold

A months-long siege on the Malian capital, Bamako, by the armed al-Qaeda affiliate group, Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), has brought the city to breaking point, causing desperation among residents and, according to analysts, placing increasing pressure on the military government to negotiate with the group – something it has refused to do before now.

JNIM’s members have created an effective economic and fuel blockade by sealing off major highways used by tankers to transport fuel from neighbouring Senegal and the Ivory Coast to the landlocked Sahel country since September.

While JNIM has long laid siege to towns in other parts of the country, this is the first time it has used the tactic on the capital city.

The scale of the blockade, and the immense effect it has had on the city, is a sign of JNIM’s growing hold over Mali and a step towards the group’s stated aim of government change in Mali, Beverly Ochieng, Sahel analyst with intelligence firm Control Risks, told Al Jazeera.

For weeks, most of Bamako’s residents have been unable to buy any fuel for cars or motorcycles as supplies have dried up, bringing the normally bustling capital to a standstill. Many have had to wait in long fuel queues. Last week, the United States and the United Kingdom both advised their citizens to leave Mali and evacuated non-essential diplomatic staff.

Other Western nations have also advised their citizens to leave the country. Schools across Mali have closed and will remain shut until November 9 as staff struggle to commute. Power cuts have intensified.

Here’s what we know about the armed group responsible and why it appears to have Mali in a chokehold:

What is JNIM?

JNIM is the Sahel affiliate of al-Qaeda and the most active armed group in the region, according to conflict monitor ACLED. The group was formed in 2017 as a merger between groups that were formerly active against French and Malian forces that were first deployed during an armed rebellion in northern Mali in 2012. They include Algeria-based al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) and three Malian armed groups – Ansar Dine, Al-Murabitun and Katiba Macina.

JNIM’s main aim is to capture and control territory and to expel Western influences in its region of control. Some analysts suggest that JNIM may be seeking to control major capitals and, ultimately, to govern the country as a whole.

It is unclear how many fighters the group has. The Washington Post has reported estimates of about 6,000, citing regional and western officials.

However, Ulf Laessing, Sahel analyst at the German think tank, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS), said JNIM most likely does not yet have the military capacity to capture large, urban territories that are well protected by soldiers. He also said the group would struggle to appeal to urban populations who may not hold the same grievances against the government as some rural communities.

While JNIM’s primary base is Mali, KAS revealed in a report that the group has Algerian roots via its members of the Algeria-based al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM).

The group is led by Iyad Ag-Ghali, a Malian and ethnic Tuareg from Mali’s northern Kidal region who founded Ansar Dine in 2012. That group’s stated aim was to impose its interpretation of Islamic law across Mali.

Ghali had previously led Tuareg uprisings against the Malian government, which is traditionally dominated by the majority Bambara ethnic group, in the early 1990s, demanding the creation of a sovereign country called Azawad.

However, he reformed his image by acting as a negotiator between the government and the rebels. In 2008, he was posted as a Malian diplomat to Saudi Arabia under the government of Malian President Amadou Toumani Toure. When another rebellion began in 2012, however, Ghali sought a leadership role with the rebels but was rebuffed, leading him to create Ansar Dine.

According to the US Department of National Intelligence (DNI), Ghali has stated that JNIM’s strategy is to expand its presence across West Africa and to put down government forces and rival armed groups, such as the Mali-based Islamic State Sahel, through guerrilla-style attacks and the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

Simultaneously, it attempts to engage with local communities by providing them with material resources. Strict dress codes and bans on music are common in JNIM-controlled areas.

JNIM also destroys infrastructure, such as schools, communication towers and bridges, to weaken the government off the battlefield.

An overall death toll is unclear, but the group has killed thousands of people since 2017. Human rights groups accuse it of attacking civilians, especially people perceived to be assisting government forces. JNIM activity in Mali caused 207 deaths between January and April this year, according to ACLED data.

How has JNIM laid siege to Bamako?

JNIM began blocking oil tankers carrying fuel to Bamako in September.

That came after the military government in Bamako banned small-scale fuel sales in all rural areas – except at official service stations – from July 1. Usually, in these areas, traders can buy fuel in jerry cans, which they often resell later.

The move to ban this was aimed at crippling JNIM’s operations in its areas of control by limiting its supply lines and, thus, its ability to move around.

At the few places where fuel is still available in Bamako, prices soared last week by more than 400 percent, from $25 to $130 per litre ($6.25-$32.50 per gallon). Prices of transportation, food and other commodities have risen due to the crisis, and power cuts have been frequent.

Some car owners have simply abandoned their vehicles in front of petrol stations, with the military government threatening on Wednesday to impound them to ease traffic and reduce security risks.

A convoy of 300 fuel tankers reached Bamako on October 7, and another one with “dozens” of vehicles arrived on October 30, according to a government statement. Other attempts to truck in more fuel have met obstacles, however, as JNIM members ambush military-escorted convoys on highways and shoot at or kidnap soldiers and civilians.

Even as supplies in Bamako dry up, there are reports of JNIM setting fire to about 200 fuel tankers in southern and western Mali. Videos circulating on Malian social media channels show rows of oil tankers burning on a highway.

What is JNIM trying to achieve with this blockade?

Laessing of KAS said the group is probably hoping to leverage discontent with the government in the already troubled West African nation to put pressure on the military government to negotiate a power-sharing deal of sorts.

“They want to basically make people as angry as possible,” he said. “They could [be trying] to provoke protests which could bring down the current government and bring in a new one that’s more favourable towards them.”

Ochieng of Control Risks noted that, in its recent statements, JNIM has explicitly called for government change. While the previous civilian government of President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita (2013-2020) had negotiated with JNIM, the present government of Colonel Assimi Goita will likely keep up its military response, Ochieng said.

Frustration at the situation is growing in Bamako, with residents calling for the government to act.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, driver Omar Sidibe said the military leaders ought to find out the reasons for the shortage and act on them. “It’s up to the government to play a full role and take action [and] uncover the real reason for this shortage.”

Which parts of Mali is the JNIM active in?

In Mali, the group operates in rural areas of northern, central and western Mali, where there is a reduced government presence and high discontent with the authorities among local communities.

In the areas it controls, JNIM presents itself as an alternative to the government, which it calls “puppets of the West”, in order to recruit fighters from several ethnic minorities which have long held grievances over their perceived marginalisation by the government, including the Tuareg, Arab, Fulani, and Songhai groups. Researchers note the group also has some members from the majority Bambara group.

In central Mali, the group seized Lere town last November and captured the town of Farabougou in August this year. Both are small towns, but Farabougou is close to Wagadou Forest, a known hiding place of JNIM.

JNIM’s hold on major towns is weaker because of the stronger government presence in larger areas. It therefore more commonly blockades major towns or cities by destroying roads and bridges leading to them. Currently, the western cities of Nioro and gold-rich Kayes are cut off. The group is also besieging the major cities of Timbuktu and Gao, as well as Menaka and Boni towns, located in the north and northeast.

How is JNIM funded?

For revenue, the group oversees artisanal gold mines, forcefully taxes community members, smuggles weapons and kidnaps foreigners for ransom, according to the US DNI. Kayes region, whose capital, Kayes, is under siege, is a major gold hub, accounting for 80 percent of Mali’s gold production, according to conflict monitoring group Critical Threats.

The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organised Crime (Gi-Toc) also reports cattle rustling schemes, estimating that JNIM made 91,400 euros ($104,000) in livestock sales of cattle between 2017 and 2019. Cattle looted in Mali are sold cheaply in communities on the border with Ghana and the Ivory Coast, through a complex chain of intermediaries.

In which other countries is JNIM active?

JNIM expanded into Burkina Faso in 2017 by linking up with Burkina-Faso-based armed group Ansarul-Islam, which pledged allegiance to the Malian group. Ansarul-Islam was formed in 2016 by Ibrahim Dicko, who had close ties with Amadou Koufa, JNIM’s deputy head since 2017.

In Burkina Faso, JNIM uses similar tactics of recruiting from marginalised ethnic groups. The country has rapidly become a JNIM hotspot, with the group operating – or holding territory – in 11 of 13 Burkina Faso regions outside of capital Ouagadougou. There were 512 reported casualties as a result of JNIM violence in the country between January and April this year. It is not known how many have died as a result of violence by the armed group in total.

Since 2022, JNIM has laid siege to the major northern Burkinabe city of Djibo, with authorities forced to airlift in supplies. In a notable attack in May 2025, JNIM fighters overran a military base in the town, killing approximately 200 soldiers. It killed a further 60 in Solle, about 48km (30 miles) west of Djibo.

In October 2025, the group temporarily took control of Sabce town, also located in the north of Burkina Faso, killing 11 police officers in the process, according to the International Crisis Group.

In a September report, Human Rights Watch said JNIM and a second armed group – Islamic State Sahel, which is linked to ISIL (ISIS) – massacred civilians in Burkina Faso between May and September, including a civilian convoy trying to transport humanitarian aid into the besieged northern town of Gorom Gorom.

Meanwhile, JNIM is also moving southwards, towards other West African nations with access to the sea. It launched an offensive on Kafolo town, in northern Ivory Coast, in 2020.

JNIM members embedded in national parks on the border regions with Burkina Faso have been launching sporadic attacks in northern Togo and the Benin Republic since 2022.

In October this year, it recorded its first attack on the Benin-Nigeria border, where one Nigerian policeman was killed. The area is not well-policed because the two countries have no established military cooperation, analyst Ochieng said.

“This area is also quite a commercially viable region; there are mining and other developments taking place there … it is likely to be one that [JNIM] will try to establish a foothold,” she added.

Why are countries struggling to fend off JNIM?

When Mali leader General Assimi Goita led soldiers to seize power in a 2020 coup, military leaders promised to defeat the armed group, as well as a host of others that had been on the rise in the country. Military leaders subsequently seizing power from civilian governments in Burkina Faso (2022) and in Niger (2023) have made the same promises.

However, Mali and its neighbours have struggled to hold JNIM at bay, with ACLED data noting the number of JNIM attacks increasing notably since 2020.

In 2022, Mali’s military government ended cooperation with 4,000-strong French forces deployed in 2013 to battle armed groups which had emerged at the time, as well as separatist Tuaregs in the north. The last group of French forces exited the country in August 2022.

Mali also terminated contracts with a 10,000-man UN peacekeeping force stationed in the country in 2023.

Bamako is now working with Russian fighters – initially 1,500 from the Wagner Mercenary Group, but since June, from the Kremlin-controlled Africa Corps – estimated to be about 1,000 in number.

Russian officials are, to a lesser extent, also present in Burkina Faso and Niger, which have formed the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) with Mali.

Results in Mali have been mixed. Wagner supported the Malian military in seizing swaths of land in the northern Kidal region from Tuareg rebels.

But the Russians also suffered ambushes. In July 2024, a contingent of Wagner and Malian troops was ambushed by rebels in Tinzaouaten, close to the Algerian border. Between 20 and 80 Russians and 25 to 40 Malians were killed, according to varying reports. Researchers noted it was Wagner’s worst defeat since it had deployed to West Africa.

In all, Wagner did not record much success in targeting armed groups like JNIM, analyst Laessing told Al Jazeera.

Alongside Malian forces, the Russians have also been accused by rights groups of committing gross human rights violations against rural communities in northern Mali perceived to be supportive of armed groups.

Could the Russian Africa Corps fighters end the siege on Bamako?

Laessing said the fuel crisis is pressuring Mali to divert military resources and personnel to protect fuel tankers, keeping them from consolidating territory won back from armed groups and further endangering the country.

He added that the crisis will be a test for Russian Africa Corp fighters, who have not proven as ready as Wagner fighters to take battle risks. A video circulating on Russian social media purports to show Africa Corps members providing air support to fuel tanker convoys. It has not been verified by Al Jazeera.

“If they can come in and allow the fuel to flow into Bamako, then the Russians will be seen as heroes,” Laessing said – at least by locals.

Laessing added that the governments of Mali and Burkina Faso, in the medium to long term, might eventually have to negotiate with JNIM to find a way to end the crisis.

While Goita’s government has not attempted to hold talks with the group in the past, in early October, it greenlit talks led by local leaders, according to conflict monitoring group Critical Threats – although it is unclear exactly how the government gave its approval.

Agreements between the group and local leaders have reportedly already been signed in several towns across Segou, Mopti and Timbuktu regions, in which the group agrees to end its siege in return for the communities agreeing to JNIM rules, taxes, and noncooperation with the military.

Catatumbo, Colombia – The Catatumbo region, which stretches along the border with Venezuela in the department of Norte de Santander, is Colombia’s most volatile frontier.

Endowed with oil reserves and coca crops but impoverished and neglected, this border area has historically been a site of violent competition between armed groups fighting for territorial control.

The National Liberation Army (ELN), Colombia’s largest remaining guerrilla force, maintains a strong and organised presence, operating across the porous border with Venezuela.

It is there that some of their fighters pick up an Al Jazeera reporting team and drive us to meet their commanders.

Tensions remain high in this region. In January, thousands of people were displaced because of the fighting between the ELN and a dissident faction from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) that continues to operate in some parts of the country in spite of peace agreements brokered in 2016.

The fight is over control of the territory and access to the border with Venezuela, which is a crucial way to move drugs out of the country.

Entering the area, it’s immediately apparent that the ELN is in total control here. There is no evidence of the country’s military. ELN flags decorate the sideroads, and the signs give a clear message of the way the group’s members see Colombia right now.

“Total peace is a failure,” they say.

There is also no mobile phone signal. People tell the Al Jazeera team that telephone companies do not want to pay a tax to the armed groups controlling the territory.

When President Gustavo Petro took office, he promised to implement a total peace plan with Colombia’s armed groups. But the negotiations have not been easy, especially with the ELN.

Government offcials suspended the peace talks because of the fighting in Catatumbo, but now say they are ready to reinitiate talks.

Al Jazeera meets with Commander Ricardo and Commander Silvana in a small house in the middle of the mountains. The interview has to be fast, they say, as they are concerned about a potential attack and reconnaissance drones that have been circulating in the area.

The commanders are accompanied by some of their fighters. Asked how many they have in the area, they respond, “We are thousands, and not everyone is wearing their uniforms. Some are urban guerrillas.”

The government estimates the ELN has around 3,000 fighters. But the figure could be much higher.

Commander Ricardo, who is in charge of the region, says he believes there could be a chance for peace.

“The ELN has been battling for a political solution for 30 years with various difficulties,” he says. “We believed that with Petro, we would advance in the process. But that did not happen. There’s never been peace in Colombia. What we have is the peace of the graves.”

The group and the government had been meeting in Mexico prior to the suspension of the talks. “If the accords we had in Mexico are still there, I believe our central command would agree [it] could open up the way for a political solution to this conflict”, Commander Ricardo tells Al Jazeera.

US drugs threat

But it’s not just the fight with the Colombian state that has armed groups here on alert. The United States military campaign against alleged drug vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific – and the US’s aggressive posture towards the government of neighbouring Venezuela – have brought an international dimension to what was once an internal Colombian conflict.

The administration of US President Donald Trump refers to these people not as guerrillas but “narco-terrorists”, and has not ruled out the possibility of attacking them on Colombian soil.

The US operation, which began in early September, has killed more than 62 people, including nationals from Venezuela and Colombia, and destroyed 14 boats and a semi-submersible.

Some of the commanders have an extradition request from the US, and the government says they are wanted criminals.

The US strikes against boats allegedly carrying drugs in the Caribbean and the military build-up in the region to ramp up pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro are seen by the ELN as another act of US imperialism.

The US government claims one of those boats belonged to the ELN. “Why don’t they capture them and show the world what they captured and what they are they trafficking?” Commander Ricardo asks. “But no, they erase them with a bomb.”

He also warns about the possibility of the ELN joining in the fight against the US. “In the hypothesis that Trump attacks Venezuela, we will have to see how we respond, but it’s not just us,” he says. “[It’s] all of Latin America because I am sure there are going to be many, many people who will grab a weapon and fight because it’s too much. The fact that the United States can step over people without respecting their self-determination has to end.”

The ELN was inspired by the Cuban revolution. But over the years, it has been involved in kidnappings, killings, extortion, and drug trafficking.

Commander Silvana, who joined the group when she was a teen, says the ELN is not like other armed groups in the country.

“Our principles indicate that we are not involved in drug trafficking,” she says. “We have told this to the international community. What we have is taxes in the territories we have been controlling for over 60 years. And if there is coca, of course, we tax it, too.”

Colombia has been a crucial US ally in the region over the decades in the fight against drug trafficking. But Petro has increasingly questioned the US policy in the Caribbean, arguing that Washington’s approach to security and migration reflects out-of-date Cold War logic rather than the region’s current realities.

He has criticised the US military presence and naval operations near Venezuela, warning that such tactics risk increasing tensions instead of promoting cooperation.

Trump has accused Petro, who is a former guerrilla, of being a drug trafficker himself.

Petro responded angrily, writing on X, “Colombia has never been rude to the United States. To the contrary, it has loved its culture very much. But you are rude and ignorant about Colombia.”

Colombia’s Foreign Ministry also condemned Trump’s remarks as offensive and a direct threat to the country’s sovereignty, and vowed to seek international support in defence of Petro and Colombian autonomy.

The belligerent US approach to Venezuela and Colombia, both led by leftist presidents – and the heightened possibility of a US military intervention – risk turning a local Colombia conflict into a broader regional one.

Everyone on the ground is now assessing how they will respond if the US government gives its military the green light to attack Venezuela.