Human Trafficking

The United Kingdom’s King Charles III has stripped his brother, Andrew, of the title of prince and ordered him to leave his lavish residence near Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace announced on Thursday. Observers say the Palace is finally taking decisive action over Andrew’s connections to the late sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, and allegations that the two men sexually abused Virginia Giuffre when she was a teenager.

Andrew, 65, the second son of the late Queen Elizabeth and younger brother of King Charles, has faced growing scrutiny over his personal conduct and ties to Epstein. Earlier this month, he was pressured into giving up his title of Duke of York.

“I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life,” Andrew said at the time. He also said he “vigorously den[ies] the accusations” against him.

Buckingham Palace hopes to be seen as taking a decisive step, drawing a line after years of compromising scandals. In 2022, Andrew was removed from numerous royal duties due to his connections to Epstein.

How did Andrew’s ties to Epstein come to light?

Born in 1960, Andrew was once one of the more popular members of the British royal family, known for his military service as a helicopter pilot during the Falklands War in 1982.

For years, however, Andrew’s personal antics have generated embarrassing headlines, testing the patience of the royal family. In 2024, for instance, court documents revealed that a close adviser on Andrew’s business affairs was a suspected Chinese spy.

But it was Andrew’s persistent ties to Jeffrey Epstein that ultimately forced King Charles’s hand and led to Andrew stepping down from his royal duties in 2019. Epstein died by suicide in a US prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

In 2021, Virginia Giuffre – one of the most prominent accusers of Epstein – filed a lawsuit alleging rape and sexual abuse against then-Prince Andrew. She claimed she had been forced to have sex with him on multiple occasions when she was 17, a minor under US law.

Prince Andrew has always denied Giuffre’s allegations, even insisting that a now-infamous photograph that appeared to show them together had been doctored. But in 2022, he agreed to settle the lawsuit, costing him as much as $16m.

Virginia Giuffre died by suicide in April this year. She was 41 years old.

Earlier this month, British newspapers reported that Andrew had emailed Epstein in February 2011 – more than two months after the prince told the BBC he had severed all ties with his former associate.

The email was sent at a time of heightened media coverage of the Epstein scandal, with Andrew telling Epstein they were “in this together” and would “have to rise above it”.

These disclosures ultimately prompted Buckingham Palace’s response on Thursday.

What has Buckingham Palace said?

In a statement released on Thursday night, Buckingham Palace said the King’s brother is now to be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

He will no longer be styled “Prince” or “His Royal Highness (HRH)” and he has lost his dukedom, earldom, barony, military ranks and royal patronages.

It also announced that he is to be evicted from his residence, the sprawling Royal Lodge that was once home to the Queen Mother, near Windsor Castle, west of London.

“His lease on Royal Lodge has, to date, provided him with legal protection to continue in residence. Formal notice has now been served to surrender the lease and he will move to alternative private accommodation,” the palace statement said.

“These censures are deemed necessary… Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse,” it added.

A palace source said the decision was taken by King Charles, but that he had the support of the wider family, including heir-to-the-throne Prince William, in a bid to limit reputational risks to the monarchy.

Elsewhere, culture secretary Lisa Nandy told the BBC’s Question Time programme that the king’s latest decision was a “truly brave, important, and correct step”, sending a “powerful message” to survivors of sexual abuse.

Why has Andrew been evicted from Royal Lodge?

In recent weeks, the British press has been rife with speculation about Andrew’s finances after The Times newspaper reported on October 21 that he had not paid rent on his 30-room mansion – known as Royal Lodge – for two decades.

It was revealed that he had a lease on the property stipulating a “peppercorn rent”: In return for carrying out renovations and maintaining the mansion, Andrew was paying a rent of “one peppercorn” each year.

In a rare political intervention, a British parliamentary committee on Wednesday questioned whether Andrew should still be living in the house, which is owned by the monarch and located 5km (3 miles) south of Windsor Castle.

On October 28, the BBC also revealed that Prince Andrew had hosted Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell – Epstein’s associate, later jailed for sex trafficking – and Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced film producer convicted of rape, at Royal Lodge.

The three visited Andrew’s home in 2006 to celebrate his daughter’s 18th birthday, just two months after a United States arrest warrant had been issued for Epstein over the sexual assault of a minor.

Where will Andrew live now?

It is understood that Andrew will move to a property on the private Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, which will be privately funded by his brother, the king.

The wider Sandringham Estate covers approximately 8,100 hectares (20,000 acres) with 240 hectares (600 acres) of gardens, and the Palace has not stipulated which property he will stay in.

It is also understood that Andrew’s move to Sandringham will take place “as soon as practicable”.

His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson – who still lives at Royal Lodge with him – will also move out of Royal Lodge and make her own living arrangements.

Have other royals in the UK been stripped of their titles in the past?

The stripping of Prince Andrew’s royal titles by King Charles III is unusual in modern British history.

Other royals have relinquished titles voluntarily – such as Princess Diana giving up HRH following her divorce from King Charles – and King Edward VIII, who abdicated from the throne in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson, an American woman who had been divorced twice.

Others have lost their privileges for political reasons – such as Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, for siding with Germany in World War I – but there has not been a case of a reigning monarch or immediate family being stripped of their status for scandal-related reasons.

In that sense, Andrew’s case is the most serious demotion of a senior British royal in recent memory.

The United Kingdom’s Prince Andrew on Friday announced that he would give up the title of the Duke of York days before the publication of a posthumous memoir by Virginia Giuffre, who had accused him of raping her after being trafficked by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Effective immediately, Prince Andrew will no longer sign off as the “Duke of York” or append “KG” – denoting Knight of the Garter – after his name. And the other titles will become inactive as well, like the His Royal Highness (HRH) honorific.

Giuffre, who died by suicide in April at the age of 41, had accused Andrew of forcing her to have sex on three occasions, including when she was underage. Though the disgraced UK prince denied Giuffre’s claims, he paid millions of dollars to settle a civil sexual assault case with her in 2022.

The 65-year-old was stripped of most of his titles and removed from royal duties in 2022 due to his connections to Epstein, who died by suicide in a United States prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. His title decision came as he hit the headlines again in the wake of new revelations about his links to Epstein.

So, why has he “given up” his titles? What does it mean for the UK’s Royal Family? And what are his ties with US child sex offender Epstein?

What has the disgraced prince said?

“I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life,” Andrew added in the statement.

“With His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me,” he said, adding that the continued accusations against him “distracted” the royal family.

He also used the statement, released via the Royal Family’s channels, to “vigorously deny the accusations” against him, as he has maintained.

What difference does it make to him?

Andrew had moved back to a largely private life in recent years, even though he remains part of the family, even if ceremonially, as brother of King Charles and uncle to Prince William and Prince Harry.

He has been shunned from using other titles given to him on his wedding day – the Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh. Theoretically, Andrew will retain the dukedom – that can only be removed by an act of parliament – but he will not use it.

Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York and Andrew’s ex-wife, would also not use her title. The titles of their two daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, will remain unaffected.

The couple will continue to live in the 30-room Royal Lodge mansion in Windsor, a Grade II-listed property.

However, the property has been leased from the Crown Estate, meaning he cannot sell it – as he did with Sunninghill Park home in 2007 for 15 million pounds ($20m) to Timor Kulibayev, the son-in-law of the then-president of Kazakhstan.

The 12-bedroom house near Windsor Castle was given to the disgraced prince as a wedding present from Queen Elizabeth.

What to know about Andrew?

Prince Andrew, earlier the Duke of York, is the second son and third child of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip – making him the younger brother of King Charles III.

Born in 1960, he was once one of the more popular members of the British royal family, known for his military service as a Royal Navy helicopter pilot during the Falklands War in 1982.

But in recent years, Andrew has largely withdrawn from public life following intense scrutiny over frequent scandals. His ties to the convicted sex offender Epstein – which pushed him to step down from his royal duties in 2019 – has resurfaced after the release of new Epstein files in September.

Andrew was stripped of his military titles and royal patronages in 2022 after a US judge allowed a civil sexual abuse case against him to move to trial. He was also stripped of his role as the Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, one of the oldest regiments in the British army, by the queen.

Widely believed to be the late queen’s “favourite” child, other titles held by the disgraced royal will be rendered dormant – leaving “prince” as his only remaining title, one that cannot be stripped since he was born the son of a queen.

What are the accusations against Andrew?

In 2021, Giuffre, one of the most prominent accusers of Epstein, filed a civil lawsuit against Prince Andrew in a US court, alleging that he had sexually abused her on multiple occasions, including when she was 17 years old – a minor under US law.

She claimed she was trafficked by Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite, and forced to have sex with the prince in London, New York, and the US Virgin Islands.

Prince Andrew has denied all allegations – even insisting that a now-infamous photograph that appeared to show them together was doctored.

The case was settled out of court in early 2022, with Andrew reportedly paying about 12 million pounds ($16m) – then causing widespread backlash over whether UK taxpayers’ money was used for the payout.

In April this year, Giuffre was found dead at her home near Perth, Australia. Her family confirmed the death as a suicide, attributing it to the emotional toll of her past abuse and ongoing personal struggles.

Last Friday, the US House Oversight Committee also released documents from Epstein’s estate showing “Prince Andrew” listed as a passenger on the convicted sex offender’s private jet, the Lolita Express, from Luton to Edinburgh in 2006.

What does Giuffre’s posthumous memoir say?

On Tuesday, Giuffre’s posthumous memoir goes on sale, where she details her time with the prince and Epstein. In the excerpts published by several media organisations, Giuffre wrote that Andrew believed sex with her was his “birthright”.

In the book, Nobody’s Girl, Giuffre describes her meetings with the prince – and also recounts what unfolded in London during their meet-up.

“Back at the house, [Ghislaine] Maxwell and Epstein said goodnight and headed upstairs, signalling it was time that I take care of the prince. In the years since, I’ve thought a lot about how he behaved. He was friendly enough, but still entitled – as if he believed having sex with me was his birthright.

“He seemed in a rush to have intercourse. Afterward, he said thank you in his clipped British accent. In my memory, the whole thing lasted less than half an hour,” she writes in her memoir.

“The next morning, Maxwell told me: ‘You did well. The prince had fun.’ Epstein would give me $15,000 for servicing the man the tabloids called ‘Randy Andy’.”

Giuffre’s family has lauded the decision of Andrew being forced to relinquish his titles as “vindication for Virginia”.

“We, the family of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, believe that Prince Andrew’s decision to give up his titles is vindication for our sister and survivors everywhere,” they said in a statement.

“Further, we believe it is appropriate for King Charles to remove the title of Prince.”

What were Andrew’s ties with US sex offender Epstein?

Prince Andrew is reported to have had a longstanding association with Epstein, a convicted child sex offender and financier from the US.

The relationship reportedly began in the 1990s, with Andrew socialising with Epstein in elite social circles in both the UK and the US. He is reported to have stayed at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, his private Caribbean island, and flown on Epstein’s private jet on multiple occasions. Andrew was also listed on another flight to West Palm Beach, Florida, in 2000.

Epstein’s close associate, British socialite Maxwell, facilitated introductions between Andrew and other prominent figures, drawing him further into Epstein’s network. Maxwell is serving 20 years in prison for sex trafficking.

The association came to public scrutiny after Giuffre in 2021 accused Andrew of sexual abuse.

In an infamous 2019 interview with BBC Newsnight, Andrew said he broke off his friendship with Epstein in December 2010.

But the release of new documents last month shows Andrew reportedly sent a mail three months after the interview. In the email, Andrew appeared to tell Epstein “we are in this together” after the two men were photographed together strolling in New York.

In 2008, Epstein had pleaded guilty to charges of solicitation of prostitution and of solicitation of prostitution with a minor, for which he served 13 months in jail.

Epstein was found dead in his cell at a federal jail in Manhattan in August 2019, awaiting a trial on sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide.

Has the prince been part of other scandals?

Andrew has been mired in a number of other scandals, including an instance of his “close confidant” being banned from the UK over allegations he was a Chinese spy.

Andrew reportedly held meetings in 2018 and 2019 with Cai Qi, a member of China’s ruling political bureau.

Cai was suspected by the UK government of being the recipient of sensitive information allegedly passed to China by two British nationals accused of spying for Beijing.

Human rights groups say the government risks breaching international law by denying people the right to claim asylum.

A British court has temporarily blocked the deportation of an asylum seeker to France, dealing an early setback to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s plan to return people who arrive in the United Kingdom on small boats.

The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, crossed the English Channel on August 12 and was due to be removed on Wednesday under a “one in, one out” pilot scheme agreed between the UK and France in July.

But on Tuesday, London’s High Court granted him an interim injunction preventing his removal, pending a full hearing of his trafficking claim.

Judge Clive Sheldon ruled: “I am going to grant a short period of interim relief. The status quo is that the claimant is currently in this country and has not been removed.

“So, I make an order that the claimant should not be removed tomorrow at 9am, but that this matter should come back to this court as soon as is reasonably practical in light of the further representations that the claimant … will make on his trafficking decision.”

“The removal takes place against the backdrop of the recently signed agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the French Republic.

“It seems to me there is a serious issue to be tried with respect to the trafficking claim and whether or not the Secretary of State has carried out her investigatory duties in a lawful manner.”

The case follows a decision by the UK’s National Referral Mechanism (NRM) – which identifies and assesses victims of slavery and human trafficking – asking the man to submit further evidence in relation to his claim.

The ruling is a setback for Prime Minister Starmer, who has made stopping small boat crossings central to his government’s agenda.

His approach has drawn criticism from rights groups, who accuse him of bowing to pressure from the far right following attacks on asylum-seeker accommodation.

The UK-France scheme is also seen by analysts as part of the government’s attempt to blunt the growing support of the anti-immigrant Reform UK party, which has been climbing in opinion polls.

Under the plan, people arriving in Britain would be returned to France, while the UK would accept an equal number of recognised asylum seekers with family ties in Britain.

Downing Street has defended the plan, calling it a “fair and balanced” system designed to reduce irregular migration.

It insisted it expects deportations to begin “imminently”, with the prime minister’s official spokesman saying “for obvious reasons we’re not going to get into a running commentary on operational details before that”.

Human rights groups say the government risks breaching international law by denying people the right to claim asylum in the UK.

The T visa, an underutilized lifeline for immigrant survivors of human trafficking, is experiencing a sharp rise in applications, despite increasing processing times and deportation risks.

Also known as T nonimmigrant status, the visa allows people who have experienced severe forms of human trafficking to remain in the country for up to four years if they are helpful to law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of their trafficker. Approved applicants can work in the U.S., are eligible for certain state and federal benefits, and can apply for a green card after three years on the visa (or earlier if the criminal case is closed).

Julie Dahlstrom, founder and director of the Human Trafficking Clinic at Boston University, said increased awareness of the visa and the courts’ expanding definitions of trafficking may have contributed to the increase, along with mounting barriers to other pathways for immigrant relief.

Congress created the T visa in 2000 as part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, intending to bolster law enforcement agencies’ capabilities to prosecute human trafficking crimes while offering protections to survivors. The same law also established the U visa, which provides legal status for victims who have suffered substantial abuse as a result of serious crimes including trafficking, domestic violence and sexual assault. U visa applicants must also be willing to assist law enforcement in their investigation of these crimes.

“Many [applicants] are eligible for the U visa as well, but they’re taking now over 20 years for an individual to get access … so I think that has influenced lawyers and survivors, if they are eligible for the T visa … to go ahead and also file T visa applications,” Dahlstrom said. “Especially under the Trump administration, we’ve seen more barriers to asylum access, special immigrant juvenile status access, so I expect we’ll continue to see that move.”

USCIS updated the T visa rules in August 2024 with a process called called bona fide determination that gave survivors earlier access to benefits while their application is pending approval. It also granted them deferred action, which places individuals on a lower priority for removal proceedings.

Erika Gonzalez, training and technical assistance managing attorney from the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking, explained that although early access to benefits had existed in the federal statute, it was never implemented because applications were processing fast enough to not need it.

“They have updated the [bona fide determination] process to now have a formal process to engage with, and it does parallel with the sharp increases in filing,” Gonzalez said.

As T visa applications rose, so too did approvals. Last year, the number of approvals broke 3,000 for the first time though it still fell short of the 5,000 cap.

Processing times for T visas have also increased, jumping from a median of 5.9 months in 2014 to 19.9 months this fiscal year.

Denial rates for T visas, meanwhile, have fluctuated.

“We were seeing increased denial rates under the prior Trump administration and then improved rates under Biden,” Dahlstrom said.

Denials can leave T visa applicants vulnerable to deportation. In 2018, USCIS began allowing removal proceedings if an application was rejected with a notice to appear (NTA).

According to a 2022 report co-written by Dahlstrom, which obtained USCIS data through Freedom of Information Act litigation, USCIS issued a total of 236 NTAs to denied T visa applicants from 2019 to 2021. President Biden rescinded this policy with a January 2021 executive order, but last February, USCIS published new guidance once more expanding the circumstances where the agency could issue NTAs.

These policies, alongside escalated coordination between law enforcement and other agencies, have heightened fear among survivors applying for the T visa, Dahlstrom explained.

“We are seeing in real time the results of including requirements around law enforcement engagement, especially when there’s greater cooperation with ICE and greater concerns about deportation,” Dahlstrom said. “These programs are being politicized and, in some ways, weaponized if you’re denied and you’re placed in proceedings.”

Since February’s policy update, at least one person has self-deported after Immigration and Customs Enforcement denied her stay despite her pending T visa application.

So far in the fiscal year 2025, USCIS has approved 1,035 T-visas and rejected 693, which surpasses the number rejected in each of the last four years.

“It’s too early to tell what we’re going to see, but if we continue to see these numbers, it’s both going to mean a rise in denials and very few cases adjudicated amidst more and more applications being filed, which is really troubling,” Dahlstrom said. “These are statutorily protected programs, but what they can do is really slow them down, make them ineffective just in the way that they’re processing applications.”

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

Rescue operations are ongoing to find dozens more missing, local authorities say.

At least 54 African refugees and migrants have died and dozens remain missing after a boat capsized off the coast of Yemen, according to health authorities in Abyan governorate in the south of the country.

Abdul Qader Bajamil, director of the health office in Zanzibar, said on Sunday that rescue teams had recovered 54 bodies from the beaches there and surrounding areas, while 12 survivors were transferred to Shaqra Hospital.

The boat carrying around 150 people, mostly from Ethiopia, capsized in the Arabian Sea off the coast of Shaqra, in the Abyan governorate, due to strong winds on Saturday evening.

Bajamil noted that authorities were making arrangements to bury the victims in an area near the city, while search operations continued amid difficult conditions.

The waterways between Yemen and the Horn of Africa are a common but perilous route for refugees and migrants travelling in both directions. The area saw a spike in Yemenis fleeing the country after the civil war broke out in 2014.

Houthi rebels and government forces reached a truce deal in April 2022 that has resulted in a decrease in violence and the slight easing of the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

Meanwhile, some of those fleeing conflict in Africa, particularly in Somalia and Ethiopia, have sought refuge in Yemen or have sought to travel through the country to the more prosperous Gulf countries. The route remains one of the “busiest and most perilous” migration routes in the world, according to the United Nations’ International Organization for Migration (IOM).

To reach Yemen, people are taken by smugglers on often dangerous, overcrowded boats across the Red Sea or the Gulf of Aden.

According to the IOM, more than 60,000 refugees and migrants arrived in Yemen in 2024, marking a significant drop from the previous year’s total of 97,200.

The decreased numbers come amid increased patrols of the waters, according to an IOM report released in May.

This is a deadly route that has killed hundreds over the past two years. According to the IOM, 558 people died along the route last year.

Over the past decade, at least 2,082 people have disappeared along the route, including 693 known to have drowned, according to the IOM. Yemen currently houses around 380,000 refugees and migrants.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the accomplice in the abuse of underage girls by high-society sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, has been moved to a minimum security facility in Texas, the United States Bureau of Prisons said, triggering an angry reaction from some of the pair’s victims.

Maxwell, a former girlfriend of Epstein, was moved from the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Tallahassee – a low-security prison in Florida – to the minimum security Federal Prison Camp in Bryan, Texas, the Bureau of Prisons said on Friday.

“We can confirm Ghislaine Maxwell is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Federal Prison Camp [FPC] Bryan in Bryan, Texas,” a Bureau of Prisons spokesman said, without providing an explanation for the transfer.

Maxwell’s lawyer, David Oscar Markus, also confirmed the move but declined to discuss the reasons for the transfer.

Maxwell was convicted in 2021 of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein – a one-time friend to the powerful and influential in the US – and was sentenced to 20 years in prison for her crimes.

Two women who said they were sexually abused by Epstein and Maxwell, and the family of another accuser who recently took her own life, condemned Maxwell’s surprise prison transfer.

“It is with horror and outrage that we object to the preferential treatment convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell has received,” Annie and Maria Farmer and the family of Virginia Giuffre said in a statement.

“Without any notification to the Maxwell victims, the government overnight has moved Maxwell to a minimum security luxury prison in Texas,” the victims said.

“Ghislaine Maxwell is a sexual predator who physically assaulted minor children on multiple occasions, and she should never be shown any leniency,” they said.

“This move smacks of a cover-up. The victims deserve better,” they added.

‘Government cover-up in real time’

The Bryan prison camp in Texas is a minimum security institution, the lowest of five security levels in the US federal prison system. Such facilities have limited or no perimeter fencing, whereas low security facilities, such as FCI Tallahassee, have double-fenced perimeters and higher staff-to-inmate ratios than prison camps, according to the bureau.

Maxwell’s move comes after Deputy US Attorney General Todd Blanche — President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer – interviewed Maxwell for two days at a Florida courthouse last week in a highly unusual meeting between a convicted felon and a high-ranking Department of Justice official.

Blanche has declined so far to say what was discussed, but Maxwell’s lawyer, Markus, said she answered every question she was asked.

Maxwell has reportedly offered to testify before Congress about Epstein if given immunity and has also reportedly been seeking a pardon from the US president, who was once a close friend of Epstein, who took his own life in prison in 2019.

Tim Hogan, a senior Democratic National Committee adviser, denounced what he alleged was a “government cover-up in real time”.

“Donald Trump’s FBI, run by loyalist Kash Patel, redacted Trump’s name from the Epstein files – which have still not been released,” Hogan said.

“While Trump and his administration try to cover up the heinous crimes included in those files, they’re simultaneously doing favours for convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell,” Hogan said.

MAGA base up in arms

Trump has faced weeks of mounting demands from Democrats and many of his conspiracy-minded supporters to be more transparent about the Epstein case after the Justice Department said last month that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the investigation into the high-profile sex trafficker.

Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) base has also been up in arms since the FBI and Justice Department said recently that Epstein had not blackmailed any prominent figures, and that he did not keep a “client list”.

Trump also ignited further furore this week when he told reporters he fell out with Epstein after the sex offender “stole” female employees from a spa at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

One of those employees was Giuffre, who accused Epstein of using her as a sex slave and took her own life at her home in Australia in April.

Giuffre’s family issued a statement this week appealing to Trump not to consider pardoning Maxwell, who they called a “monster who deserves to rot in prison for the rest of her life”.

In an interview on Friday night, Trump said that nobody had asked him to grant clemency to Maxwell, but he “had a right to do it”.

“I’m allowed to do it, but nobody’s asked me to do it. I know nothing about it. I don’t know anything about the case, but I know I have the right to do it,” Trump said in an interview.

A collection of letters gifted to the deceased, high-profile sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, on his birthday in 2003 includes a birthday note bearing US President Donald Trump’s signature, the Wall Street Journal (WSG) reported on Thursday.

Trump denies having written the letter and, on Thursday, told Attorney General Pam Bondi to request a court release of the transcripts of all grand jury testimony in the Epstein case.

The WSJ claims have reignited intrigue about Trump’s relationship with Epstein. We break down how closely, exactly, the two men associated with each other over the years.

What was in Trump’s birthday letter to Epstein?

According to the WSJ report, Epstein was gifted a leather-bound collection of letters and notes for his 50th birthday in 2003.

This had been compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s associate and partner, who was later charged as Jeffrey Epstein’s accomplice in his sexual abuse operation. She was found guilty in 2021 and is now serving a 20-year prison sentence handed down in 2022.

The letter included typewritten text in the third person. It also featured a drawing of a woman’s breasts and was signed “Donald”. The drawing appeared to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker, the WSJ reported.

The letter ended with: “Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

Al Jazeera could not independently verify the authenticity of the letter.

Following the revelations about the letter, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “The Wall Street Journal printed a FAKE letter, supposedly to Epstein. These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don’t draw pictures.

“I told Rupert Murdoch it was a Scam, that he shouldn’t print this Fake Story. But he did, and now I’m going to sue his a** off, and that of his third rate newspaper. Thank you for your attention to this matter! DJT.”

He also wrote: “Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval. This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!”

Soon after Trump’s statement, Bondi announced on X that the Justice Department planned to request the unsealing of grand jury transcripts in court on Friday.

Here’s what we know about how well the two men really knew each other.

1980s: Trump and Epstein are friends

in 2002, Trump told the New York Magazine that he had been friends with Epstein since about the late 1980s.

In the 1980s, Trump was a businessman and a real estate mogul.

“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,” Trump said.

“He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life,” Trump continued.

1990s: Trump and Epstein are spotted at parties together, flying together

Through the 1990s, the two men were spotted socialising at high-profile gatherings.

In November 1992, Trump threw a party with NFL cheerleaders at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. He had invited NBC to record the event.

The tape from the party, published by NBC online in 2019, shows Trump laughing with Epstein, their conversation drowned by the really loud music.

In 1997, Epstein and Trump were seen together at the Victoria Secret “Angels” party in New York.

Trump also frequently flew on Epstein’s private jets – seven times in total between 1993 and 1997 – according to flight logs presented as evidence during Maxwell’s trial.

This included four times in 1993, once in 1994, once in 1995 and once in 1997. The flights were between Palm Beach and New York, and they included a stop in Washington, DC.

2000s: The two continue to party, Trump’s name in Epstein files

There are pictures of the two men at a party at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in 2000.

These images also feature Maxwell and Trump’s now wife, then known as Melania Knauss.

In January 2024, about 950 pages of court documents identifying associates of Epstein were made public.

Trump was mentioned in these documents, but was not accused of anything.

Virginia Giuffre, one of the women who accused Epstein of sexual abuse, told the court that she was working at Mar-a-Lago when she was recruited by Maxwell to become Epstein’s masseuse at the age of 16.

Giuffre said that Epstein and Maxwell groomed her into performing sexual acts with adult men, including Prince Andrew.

Johanna Sjoberg, another woman who accused Epstein of sexual abuse, recalled a 2001 flight from Florida on which she and Virginia Giuffre, then underage, were among the passengers.

Due to a storm, the plane diverted to Atlantic City, where they visited one of Trump’s casinos.

Sjoberg said of Giuffre: “I did not know anything about how old you had to be to gamble legally. I just knew she could not get in because of an ID issue, so she and I did not gamble.”

Giuffre died by suicide in April this year.

2003: Trump’s birthday letter to Epstein

The WSJ published the text of a letter allegedly written by Trump for Epstein’s birthday. It appears to be in script form:

“Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything.

Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.

Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is.

Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.

Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.

Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?

Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.

Donald: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

According to the report, Trump told the WSJ on Tuesday that he did not write the letter, and threatened to sue the publication. “I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women,” he told the Journal.

“The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J Trump that the supposed letter they printed by President Trump to Epstein was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued,” Trump reiterated in a post on his Truth Social platform.

Rupert Murdoch controls the WSJ’s publisher, News Corp.

2004: Trump and Epstein have a real estate dispute

In 2004, Trump and Epstein had a falling out over a foreclosed oceanfront mansion in Palm Beach.

The Washington Post reported that Trump had outbid Epstein on the property.

Since that date, there was sparse public evidence of the two men interacting.

2006: Epstein faces criminal charges

In 2005, Florida police investigated claims Epstein had sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl after the girl’s parents made the complaint.

Epstein was charged by Palm Beach police officials with multiple counts of unlawful sex with a minor.

However, the State Attorney took the unusual step of referring the case to a grand jury, which indicted Epstein on a single count of soliciting prostitution.

In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to charges involving a single victim. He served 13 months in jail under a work-release programme that permitted him to leave during the day for work and return to jail at night.

2019: Epstein is jailed again and dies in prison

During Trump’s first presidential term in 2019, federal prosecutors in New York charged Epstein with sex trafficking.

In July 2019, Trump was asked by a reporter about Epstein, to which he responded: “Well, I knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him. I mean, people in Palm Beach knew him. He was a fixture in Palm Beach.”

Trump added: “I had a falling out with him a long time ago. I don’t think I’ve spoken to him for 15 years.”

Epstein died in a Manhattan jail cell on August 10, 2019.

During an interview after Epstein’s death, Trump said about the case: “I want a full investigation, and that’s what I absolutely am demanding.”

2025: Trump’s shifting stance on the ‘Epstein list’

In 2024, while campaigning for the election, Trump said he would release information about the Epstein case.

He also appointed Pam Bondi to be the Attorney General.

During an interview with Fox News in February, Bondi was asked, “The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients, will that really happen?”

She responded, “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review.”

However, on July 7, the US Department of Justice released a memo stating that a government review had found no evidence that Epstein had a specific “secret client list”.

The memo also reaffirmed that Epstein had died by suicide, a claim that many conspiracy theorists among Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) base disbelieve. They believe Epstein was murdered because he had sensitive information about powerful figures, and that this was covered up.

When Trump and Bondi were questioned by reporters about the July 7 memo, Trump said: “I can’t believe you’re asking a question on Epstein at a time like this, where we’re having some of the greatest success and also tragedy, with what happened in Texas,” referring to flash floods that roiled the southern US state over the weekend before the memo was released, killing 109 people.

“It just seems like a desecration,” Trump added.

Trump recently expressed anger towards his supporters over Epstein conspiracy theories.

“Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don’t even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don’t want their support anymore!” he wrote on his Truth Social platform on Monday.

Joypurhat/Dhaka, Bangladesh, and New Delhi/Kolkata, India – Under the mild afternoon sun, 45-year-old Safiruddin sits outside his incomplete brick-walled house in Baiguni village of Kalai Upazila in Bangladesh, nursing a dull ache in his side.

In the summer of 2024, he sold his kidney in India for 3.5 lakh taka ($2,900), hoping to lift his family out of poverty and build a house for his three children – two daughters, aged five and seven, and an older 10-year-old son. That money is long gone, the house remains unfinished, and the pain in his body is a constant reminder of the price he paid.

He now toils as a daily labourer in a cold storage facility, as his health deteriorates – the constant pain and fatigue make it hard for him to carry out even routine tasks.

“I gave my kidney so my family could have a better life. I did everything for my wife and children,” he said.

At the time, it didn’t seem like a dangerous choice. The brokers who approached him made it sound simple – an opportunity rather than a risk. He was sceptical initially, but desperation eventually won over his doubts.

The brokers took him to India on a medical visa, with all arrangements – flights, documents, and hospital formalities – handled entirely by them. Once in India, although he travelled on his original Bangladeshi passport, other documents, such as certificates falsely showing a familial relationship with the intended recipient of his kidney, were forged.

His identity was altered, and his kidney was transplanted into an unknown recipient whom he had never met. “I don’t know who got my kidney. They [the brokers] didn’t tell me anything,” Safiruddin said.

By law, organ donations in India are only permitted between close relatives or with special government approval, but traffickers manipulate everything – family trees, hospital records, even DNA tests – to bypass regulations.

“Typically, the seller’s name is changed, and a notary certificate – stamped by a lawyer – is produced to falsely establish a familial relationship with the recipient. Forged national IDs support the claim, making it appear as though the donor is a relative, such as a sister, daughter, or another family member, donating an organ out of compassion,” said Monir Moniruzzaman, a Michigan State University professor and a member of the World Health Organization’s Task Force on Organ Transplantation, who is researching organ trafficking in South Asia.

Safiruddin’s story isn’t unique. Kidney donations are so common in his village of Baiguni, that locals know the community of less than 6,000 people as the “village of one kidney”. The Kalai Upazila region that Baiguni belongs to is the hotspot for the kidney trade industry: A 2023 study published in the British Medical Journal Global Health publication estimated one in 35 adults in the region has sold a kidney.

Kalai Upazila is one of Bangladesh’s poorest regions. Most donors are men in their early 30s lured by the promise of quick money. According to the study, 83 percent of those surveyed cited poverty as the main reason for selling a kidney, while others pointed to loan repayments, drug addiction or gambling.

Safiruddin said that the brokers – who had taken his passport – never returned it. He didn’t even get the medicines he had been prescribed after the surgery. “They [the brokers] took everything.”

Brokers often confiscate passports and medical prescriptions after the surgery, erasing any trail of the transplant and leaving donors without proof of the procedure or access to follow-up care.

The kidneys are sold to wealthy recipients in Bangladesh or India, many of whom seek to bypass long wait times and the strict regulations of legal transplants. In India, for example, only about 13,600 kidney transplants were performed in 2023 – compared with an estimated 200,000 patients who develop end-stage kidney disease annually.

Al Jazeera spoke with more than a dozen kidney donors in Bangladesh, all of whom shared similar stories of being driven to sell their kidneys due to financial hardship. The trade is driven by a simple yet brutal equation: Poverty creates the supply, while long wait times, a massive shortage of legal donors, the willingness of wealthy patients to pay for quick transplants and a weak enforcement system ensure that the demand never ceases.

The cost of desperation

Josna Begum, 45, a widow from Binai village in Kalai Upazila, was struggling to raise her two daughters, 18 and 20 years old, after her husband died in 2012. She moved to Dhaka to work in a garment factory, where she met and married another man named Belal.

After their marriage, both Belal and Josna were lured by a broker into selling their kidneys in India in 2019.

“It was a mistake,” Josna said. She explained that the brokers first promised her five lakh taka (about $4,100), then raised the offer to seven lakh (around $5,700) to convince her. “But after the operation, all I got was three lakh [$2,500].”

Josna said she and Belal were taken to Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences in Kolkata, the capital of India’s West Bengal state, where they underwent surgery. “We were taken by a bus through the Benapole border into India, where we were housed in a rented apartment near the hospital.”

To secure the transplant, the brokers fabricated documents claiming that she and the recipient were blood relatives. Like Safiruddin, she doesn’t know who received her kidney.

Despite repeated attempts, officials at Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences have not responded to Al Jazeera’s request to comment on the case. Kolkata police have previously accused other brokers of facilitating illegal kidney transplants at the same hospital in 2017.

Josna said her passport and identification documents were handled entirely by the brokers. “I was OK with them taking away the prescriptions. But I asked for my passport. They never gave it back,” she said.

She stayed in India for nearly two months before returning to Bangladesh – escorted by the brokers who had her passport, and still held out the promise of paying her what they had committed to.

The brokers had also promised support for her family and even jobs for her children, but after the initial payment and a few token payments on Eid, they cut off contact.

Soon after he was paid – also three lakh taka ($2,500) – for his transplant, Belal abandoned Josna, later marrying another woman. “My life was ruined,” she said.

Josna now suffers from chronic pain and struggles to afford medicines. “I can’t do any heavy work,” she said. “I have to survive, but I need medicine all the time.”

‘In front of this gang’s gun’

In some cases, victims have become perpetrators of the kidney scam, too.

Mohammad Sajal (name changed), was once a businessman in Dhaka selling household items like pressure cookers, plastic containers and blenders through Evaly, a flashy e-commerce platform that promised big returns. But when Evaly collapsed following a 2021 scam, so did his savings – and his livelihood.

Drowning in debt and under immense pressure to repay what he owed, he sold his kidney in 2022 at Venkateshwar Hospital in Delhi. But the promised 10 lakh taka ($8,200) never materialised. He received only 3.5 lakh taka ($2,900).

“They [the brokers] cheated me,” Sajal said. Venkateshwar Hospital has not responded to repeated requests from Al Jazeera for comment on the case.

There was only one way he could earn what he had thought he would get for his kidney, Sajal concluded at the time: by joining the brokers to dupe others. For months, he worked as a broker, arranging kidney transplants for several Bangladeshi donors in Indian hospitals. But after a financial dispute with his handlers, he left the trade, fearing for his life.

“I am now in front of this gang’s gun,” he said. The network he left behind operates with impunity, he said, stretching from Bangladeshi hospitals to the Indian medical system. “Everyone from the doctors to recipients to the brokers on both sides of borders are involved,” he said.

Now, Sajal works as a ride-share driver in Dhaka, trying to escape the past. But the scars, both physical and emotional, remain. “No one willingly gives a kidney out of hobby or desire,” he said. “It is a simple calculation: desperation leads to this.”

Acknowledging the cross-border kidney trafficking trade, Bangladesh police say they are cracking down on those involved. Assistant Inspector General Enamul Haque Sagor of Bangladesh Police said that, in addition to uniformed officers, undercover investigators have been deployed to track organ trafficking networks and gather intelligence.

“This issue is under our watch, and we are taking action as required,” he said.

Sagor said that police have arrested multiple individuals linked to organ trafficking syndicates, including brokers. “Many people get drawn into kidney sales through these networks, and we are working to catch them,” he added.

Across the border, Indian law enforcement agencies, too, have cracked down on some medical professionals accused of involvement in kidney trafficking. In July 2024, the Delhi Police arrested Dr Vijaya Rajakumari, a 50-year-old kidney transplant surgeon associated with a Delhi hospital. Investigations revealed that between 2021 and 2023, Dr Rajakumari performed approximately 15 transplant surgeries on Bangladeshi patients at a private hospital, Indian officials said.

But experts say that these arrests are too sporadic to seriously dent the business model that underpins the kidney trade.

And experts say Indian authorities face competing pressures – upholding the law, but also promoting medical tourism, a sector that was worth $7.6bn in 2024. “Instead of enforcing ethical standards, the focus is on the economic advantages of the industry, allowing illegal transplants to continue,” said Moniruzzaman.

‘More transplants mean more revenue’

In India, the Transplantation of Human Organs Act (THOA) of 1994 regulates organ donations, permitting kidney transplants primarily between close relatives such as parents, siblings, children and spouses to prevent commercial exploitation. When the donor is not a near relative, the case must receive approval from a government-appointed body known as an authorisation committee to ensure the donation is altruistic and not financially motivated.

However, brokers involved in kidney trafficking circumvent these regulations by forging documents to establish fictitious familial relationships between donors and recipients. These fraudulent documents are then submitted to authorisation committees, which – far too often, say experts – approve the transplants.

Experts say the foundation of this illicit system lies in the ease with which brokers manipulate legal loopholes. “They fabricate national IDs and notary certificates to create fictitious family ties between donors and recipients. These papers can be made quickly and cheaply,” said Moniruzzaman.

With these falsified identities, transplants are performed under the pretence of legal donations between relatives.

In Dhaka, Shah Muhammad Tanvir Monsur, director general (consular) at Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that the country’s government officials had no role in the document fraud, and that they “duly followed” all legal procedures. He also denied any exchange of information between India and Bangladesh on cracking down on cross-border kidney trafficking.

Over in India, Amit Goel, deputy commissioner of police in Delhi, who has investigated several cases of kidney trafficking in the city, including that of Rajakumari, the doctor, said that hospital authorities often struggle to detect forged documents, allowing illegal transplants to proceed.

“In the cases I investigated, I found that the authorisation board approved those cases because they couldn’t identify the fake documents,” he said.

But Moniruzzaman pointed out that Indian hospitals also have a financial incentive to overlook discrepancies in documents.

“Hospitals turn a blind eye because organ donation [in general] is legal,” Moniruzzaman said. “More transplants mean more revenue. Even when cases of fraud surface, hospitals deny responsibility, insisting that documentation appears legitimate. This pattern allows the trade to continue unchecked,” he added.

Mizanur Rahman, a broker who operates across multiple districts in Bangladesh, said that traffickers often target individual doctors or members of hospital review committees, offering bribes to facilitate these transplants.​ “Usually, brokers in Bangladesh are in touch with their counterparts in India who set up these doctors for them,” Rahman told Al Jazeera. “These doctors often take a major chunk of the money involved.”

Dr Anil Kumar, director of the National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation (NOTTO) – India’s central body overseeing organ donation and transplant coordination – declined to comment on allegations of systemic discrepancies that have enabled rising cases of organ trafficking.

However, a former top official from NOTTO pointed out that hospitals often are up against not just brokers and seemingly willing donors with what appear to be legitimate documents, but also wealthier recipients. “If the hospital board is not convinced, recipients often take the matter to higher authorities or challenge the decision in court. So they [hospitals] also want to avoid legal hassles and proceed with transplants,” this official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, organ trafficking networks continue to adapt their strategies. When police or official scrutiny increases in one location, the trade simply moves elsewhere. “There is no single fixed hospital; the locations keep changing,” Moniruzzaman said. “When police conduct a raid, the hospital stops performing transplants.

“Brokers and their network – Bangladeshi and Indian brokers working together – coordinate to select new hospitals at different times.”

Porous borders and the fallout

For brokers and hospitals that are involved, there is big money at stake. Recipients often pay between $22,000 and $26,000 for a kidney.

But donors get only a tiny fraction of this money. “The donors get three to five lakh taka [$2,500 to $4,000] usually,” said Mizanur Rahman, the broker. “The rest of the money is shared with brokers, officials who forge documents, and doctors if they are involved. Some money is also spent on donors while they live in India.”

In some cases, the deception runs even deeper: traffickers lure Bangladeshi nationals with promises of well-paying jobs in India, only to coerce them into kidney donations.

Victims, often desperate for work, are taken to hospitals under false pretences, where they undergo surgery without fully understanding the consequences. In September last year, for instance, a network of traffickers in India held many Bangladeshi job seekers captive, either forced or deceived them into organ transplants, and abandoned them with minimal compensation. Last year, police in Bangladesh arrested three traffickers in Dhaka who smuggled at least 10 people to New Delhi under the guise of employment, only to have them forced into kidney transplants.

“Some people knowingly sell their kidneys due to extreme poverty, but a significant number are deceived,” said Shariful Hasan, associate director of the Migration Programme at BRAC, formerly the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, one of the world’s largest nongovernmental development organisations. “A rich patient in India needs a kidney, a middleman either finds a poor Bangladeshi donor or lures someone in the name of employment, and the cycle continues.”

Vasundhara Raghavan, CEO of the Kidney Warriors Foundation, a support group in India for patients with kidney diseases, said that a shortage of legal donors was a “major challenge” that drove the demand for trafficked organs.

“Desperate patients turn to illicit means, fuelling a system that preys on the poor.”

She acknowledged that India’s legal framework was aimed at preventing organ transplants from turning into an exploitative industry. But in reality, she said, the law had only pushed organ trade underground.

“If organ trade cannot be entirely eliminated, a more systematic and regulated approach should be considered. This could involve ensuring that donors undergo mandatory health screenings, receive postoperative medical support for a fixed period, and are provided with financial security for their future wellbeing,” Raghavan said.

Back in Kalai Upazila, Safiruddin nowadays spends most of his time at home, his movements slower, his strength visibly diminished. “I am not able to work properly,” he said.

He says there are nights when he lies awake, thinking of the promises the brokers made, and the dreams they shattered. He doesn’t know when, and if, he will be able to complete the construction of his house. He thought the surgery would bring his family a pot of cash to build a future. Instead, his children have been left with an ailing father – and he with a sense of betrayal that Safiruddin can’t shake off. “They took my kidney and vanished,” he said.

Reporting for this story was supported by a grant from Journalists for Transparency.

At a major United Nations conference focused on international criminal law, world experts came together to raise a powerful warning: children are facing growing threats in the digital world. The 34th Session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) brought attention to how modern technologies, while often beneficial, are also being used to harm and exploit the most vulnerable members of society—our children.

The International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES), an organization in special consultative status with the UN (EcoSoc) that works on international policy issues, shared its recent findings during the session. Their presentation focused on how online platforms, digital tools, and artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly being used by criminals to target and exploit minors around the world. The institute’s “Global Mini Study on Technology and Abuse,” postulated and supervised by its mission head, Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic, highlighted how widespread and serious this issue has become.

According to IFIMES, digital child exploitation is not just a distant or rare problem. It is happening now, in real-time, on the same apps and platforms that children use for learning, playing, and socializing. From social media and messaging apps to online games and video platforms, digital spaces have become hunting grounds for people who wish to do harm.

Having all this in mind, the institute decided to conduct its own global, interdisciplinary, cross-sectional, and multi-spatial program on ‘Understanding AI and Robotics.’ With the consortium of its global partners and under the supervision of Philipe Reinisch, Dr. Ing. (SR4.0 CEO), IFIMES starts its first 8-week course on 22 May. 

A Worrying Trend

The Global Mini Study presented by IFIMES shows how technology is playing a double role in today’s world. On one hand, it unites both individuals and communities, supports education, and provides endless opportunities to learn. On the other hand, it can be used in harmful ways—especially when it comes to children and those most vulnerable.

The study compiled research from many parts of the world, including Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and diaspora communities. It found that criminals are using advanced digital tools to reach and recruit children. One of the most disturbing developments is the use of AI-generated images and videos, also known as “deepfakes.” These can make it look like a child is involved in something they were never a part of and have become a tactic to scare, control, and exploit children into doing things against their will.

Encrypted messaging apps and hidden online communities—sometimes called the “dark web”—are also being used to carry out these crimes in secret. This makes it harder for law enforcement and child protection agencies to track and stop the abuse.

Why It Matters:

During the UN session, IFIMES highlighted astonishing estimates that 55 million people are trafficked each year worldwide. While trafficking is not a new phenomenon, the internet has added new ways for it to expand and develop. While children from all backgrounds are at risk, those who are already vulnerable—such as kids who have been displaced by war, natural disasters, or poverty—face even greater danger. Without strong social supports, digital literacy, or parental guidance, they can become easy targets and increasingly vulnerable.

These crimes are not just happening in hidden corners of the internet. They are taking place in the everyday digital lives of millions of children, often without the knowledge of parents, teachers, or caregivers. Predators can strike through something as common as a chat message or a friend request.

Gaps in Protection

Although there are international agreements in place—such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—IFIMES argues that real-world protections still lack proper checks and balances. Many countries have signed important treaties that say they will protect children, but implementation often falls short.

Some countries have well-elaborated legislation and also its enforcement to keep minors safe online, but others lack the resources or political will to enforce these protections. In many cases, laws are outdated and don’t consider newer technologies like generative AI, encrypted messaging, or the borderless nature of these crimes. This leaves children exposed and governments playing catch-up.

Four Key Global Challenges

IFIMES identified four major trends that explain why digital child exploitation is such a growing problem:

1. Technology as a Double-Edged Sword: The same tools that help educate and connect children are also being used to harm them. Algorithms that keep people engaged can also expose them to traffickers looking to enact harm.
2. Legal and Policy Gaps: Despite efforts, many legal systems are not ready to handle the complexity of online crimes. International cooperation is limited, and the international community lacks proper checks and balances to monitor, evaluate, and protect children from exploitation online.
3. Vulnerable Children at Greater Risk: Children who are displaced by war or disasters often lack adult supervision or stable environments. Without access to safety nets or digital education, they become easy targets online.
4. Need for Global Partnerships: Governments cannot solve this issue alone. IFIMES stresses the need for collaboration among tech companies, schools, civil society, and international organizations to create safer online environments.

What Needs to Be Done

To respond to these challenges, IFIMES Director Prof. Zijad Becirovic is calling for stronger global cooperation and new ideas to better protect everyone (particularly minors) in the digital world. The organization recommends

• Clear Rules for Data Use: Children’s personal data must be handled carefully. Governments and companies should follow rules about how they collect and use this information.
• Holding Platforms Accountable: Social media and major tech companies should take responsibility for what happens on their platforms. There must be accountability for gaps in protection.
• AI That Respects Children’s Rights: As AI becomes more common, it’s important to set rules and regulations that protect children from misuse, such as fake images and online threats.
• Cross-Sector Collaboration: Solutions should involve everyone and be horizontal—from government agencies and police to tech developers, teachers, parents, and youth themselves. Long-lasting solutions will come from a global response.

A Call for Urgent Action

“This is a global emergency,” said Jenna Ellis, IFIMES Information Officer, speaking on behalf of the institute’s director, Prof. Zijad Becirovic. “We must take immediate steps to make the digital world safer for children. This means new laws, better education, stronger partnerships, and a shared sense of responsibility.”

The session at the UN ended with a clear message: online child exploitation is not just a legal issue; it’s a moral and generational issue, and it is everyone’s responsibility to find a solution. Children everywhere deserve to be safe—not just in their homes and schools in the digital spaces they use every day, and we must commit to monitoring, evaluation, and capacity building at all levels. The global response must be uniform and supported by all sectors and states—public, private, individual, or corporate. Collaboration is not an option when it comes to finding universal and lasting solutions.

IFIMES is committed to sharing its findings with countries and organizations around the world and is offering support to any group that wants to act. The institute hopes that this global effort will grow into a powerful movement that protects children and ensures that technology becomes a force for good—not harm—and is there to support all sectors and individuals involved in resolution along the way.