Inequality

Study finds that rates soar to 90 percent in some regions as humanitarian crises compound childhood exploitation.

Nearly two-thirds of South Sudanese children are engaged in the worst forms of child labour, with rates reaching as high as 90 percent in the hardest-hit regions, according to a government study released with the charity Save the Children.

The National Child Labour Study, published on Friday, surveyed more than 418 households across seven states and found that 64 percent of children aged between five and 17 are trapped in forced labour, sexual exploitation, theft and conflict.

The findings reveal a crisis far more complex than poverty alone, intensified by relentless flooding, the spread of disease, and conflict that have uprooted families and left millions on the brink of hunger.

In Kapoeta South, near the border with Uganda, nine out of 10 children work in gold mining, pastoralism and farming instead of attending school, the report said.

Yambio region, the country’s southwest, recorded similarly dire rates, with local conflict and child marriage driving children into labour.

Children typically start with simple jobs before being drawn into increasingly dangerous and exploitative work, the report found. About 10 percent of those surveyed reported involvement with armed groups, particularly in Akobo, Bentiu and Kapoeta South counties.

The types of exploitation children face differ by gender. Boys are more likely to work in dangerous industries or join armed groups, while girls disproportionately face forced marriage, household servitude and sexual abuse.

‘A crisis that goes beyond poverty’

Knowing the law does not stop child exploitation, researchers found.

The surveys showed that 70 percent of children stuck in dangerous or illegal work lives came from homes with adults who were familiar with legal protections. Two-thirds of children were unaware that help existed.

“When nearly two-thirds of a country’s children are working – and in some areas, almost every child – it signals a crisis that goes beyond poverty,” said Chris Nyamandi, Save the Children’s South Sudan country director.

South Sudan’s child labour prevalence vastly exceeds regional patterns. While East Africa has the continent’s worst record at 30 percent, according to ILO-UNICEF data, South Sudan’s 64 percent is more than double that figure.

“Education remains the strongest protective factor,” Nyamandi said, noting that children who attend school are far less likely to be exploited.

The government acknowledged the crisis at the report’s launch in Juba. Deng Tong, undersecretary at the Ministry of Labour, said officials would use the evidence as a “critical foundation for action”.

The report comes as nearly one million people have been impacted by severe flooding across South Sudan, with 335,000 displaced and more than 140 health facilities damaged or submerged.

The country faces a related malaria outbreak with more than 104,000 cases reported in the past week, while 7.7 million people confront acute hunger, the United Nations said.

South Sudan has also been gripped by fears of renewed civil war. A fragile 2018 peace deal between President Salva Kiir and First Vice President Riek Machar appears increasingly strained, with armed clashes now occurring on a scale not seen since 2017, according to UN investigators.

Machar was arrested in March and charged in September with treason, murder and crimes against humanity. He has rejected all charges.

About 300,000 people have fled the country this year as violence has escalated.

The report says 10 small, ocean-dependent nations will experience the biggest increase in dangerous heat days, despite collectively producing only 1 percent of global heat-trapping gases.

A new study by World Weather Attribution and United States-based Climate Central has calculated the increase in dangerous “superhot days” – defined as warmer than 90 percent of comparable days between 1991 and 2020 – due to climate change.

The report, which is not yet peer-reviewed but uses established techniques for climate attribution, was released on Thursday. It highlights the significant effect of the Paris Climate Agreement.

Before the 2015 accord, the world was on track for a catastrophic 4C (7.2F) of warming by the end of the century, which would have resulted in an additional 114 superhot days per year.

By fulfilling current commitments to curb emissions, the world is now heading towards 2.6C (4.7F) of warming. Under this scenario, the Earth will still add 57 superhot days annually by 2100 – nearly two months of dangerously high temperatures – but this is half the increase of the worst-case scenario. Since 2015, the world has already added 11 superhot days on average.

Potsdam Climate Institute Director Johan Rockstrom, who was not part of the research team, said people should not be relieved that we are no longer on the 4-degree warming pre-Paris trajectory because the current track “would still imply a disastrous future for billions of humans on Earth”.

The report does not say how many people will be affected by the additional dangerously hot days, but coauthor Friederike Otto of Imperial College London said “it will definitely be tens of thousands or millions, not less”. She noted that thousands die in heatwaves each year already.

The study also underscores the profound unfairness of the impact of climate change across the world, showing a massive disconnect between carbon pollution and expected heat exposure.

The 10 countries that will experience the biggest increase in dangerous heat days are almost all small, ocean-dependent nations like Panama, the Solomon Islands, and Samoa. These countries are expected to see the largest spikes, with Panama projected to face 149 extra superhot days a year. These 10 nations collectively produce only 1 percent of global heat-trapping gases.

In stark contrast, the top carbon-polluting countries – the United States, China, and India – are predicted to get only between 23 and 30 extra superhot days. Despite being responsible for 42 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide, they will face less than 1 percent of the additional superhot days.

University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who was not part of the study team, said this heat inequality drives “yet another wedge between have and have-not nations”, potentially sowing seeds of geopolitical instability.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed legislation to study inequalities in youth sports, a move likely to draw ire from Republicans who believe the measure is intended to support transgender athletes.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 749, creates a commission to examine whether a new state board or department is needed to improve access to sports regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, income or geographic location.

In an open letter last month to the governor, Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) zeroed in on the term “gender identity.”

“The author and supporters of [this legislation] know if they were upfront and put forth a straightforward bill allowing biological males to compete against young women and girls, it would be easily defeated,” Jones wrote on Sept. 26. “So instead they are trying to establish a stacked commission to indirectly rig the issue in their favor.”

Jones urged Newsom to veto the bill and referenced the governor’s previous remarks about transgender athletes. During the first episode of his podcast “This Is Gavin Newsom,” the governor — a longtime ally of the LGBTQ+ community — acknowledged the struggle faced by transgender people but called transgender women’s participation in women’s sports “deeply unfair” and warned it was hurting Democrats at the polls.

Assemblymember Tina S. McKinnor, who introduced the bill, said Jones should keep his focus on Washington.

“Senator Brian Jones’ time would be better spent writing to the Republican controlled Congress to end the Trump Shutdown and reopen the federal government, rather than attacking trans students,” McKinnor (D-Hawthorne) wrote in an email to The Times.

Legislation referencing gender identity tends to be a lightning rod for controversy nationwide, with opinion polls suggesting Americans hold complex views on transgender issues.

A survey conducted this year by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found 66% of U.S. adults favor laws requiring transgender athletes to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth. At the same time, 56% of adults supported policies protecting transgender people from discrimination in jobs and public spaces.

During legislative committee hearings on the bill, McKinnor focused on the legislation’s potential racial impact. She said last year’s Play Equity Report found 59% of white youth participated in structured sports programs, compared with 47% of Black youth and 45% of Latino youth.

“Participation in youth sports remains unequal despite the well-documented physical, mental and academic benefits,” McKinnor told the Senate Health Committee in July. “These disparities stem from systemic barriers such as financial limitations, uneven program quality, outdated physical education standards and the lack of a coordinated statewide strategy.”

More than two dozen organizations endorsed the bill, including the Los Angeles Rams, city of San Diego, USC Schwarzenegger Institute, YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles and the Boys and Girls Clubs of West San Gabriel Valley and Eastside.

The legislation directs the state public health officer to convene the commission, which will be composed of 10 members appointed by the governor and three appointed by each the speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Committee on Rules. The health officer will also sit on the panel, or appoint their own designee.

Newsom did not issue a statement when his office announced a slate of bills he signed on Monday.

In March, Newsom infuriated the progressive wing of his party when, while hosting conservatives commentator Charlie Kirk on the governor’s podcast, he broke away from many Democrats on the issue of transgender athletes. Newsom, an outspoken champion of LGBTQ+ rights since he was mayor of San Francisco, publicly criticized the “unfairness” of transgender athletes participating in women’s sports.

The demonstrations, which started over deteriorating living conditions, have left 22 people dead, according to the UN.

Madagascar’s president, Andry Rajoelina, has dissolved his government in response to mass demonstrations over power and water shortages that turned deadly, with the United Nations reporting that at least 22 people have been killed and more than 100 others were injured.

The protests, which began last week and continued into Monday, were led largely by young people, angry over deteriorating living conditions in the capital, Antananarivo.

Experts say they represent the most serious challenge to Rajoelina’s authority since his re-election in 2023, and the largest wave of unrest the island nation has seen in years.

Crowds gathered at Antananarivo’s main university on Monday, carrying placards and singing the national anthem, before attempting to march into the city centre, according to footage broadcast by the local channel 2424.MG.

Police fired tear gas to disperse the demonstrators, as authorities enforced a dusk-to-dawn curfew that has been in place since last week. Security forces have also used rubber bullets to try to quell the unrest.

Looting has been reported at supermarkets, appliance shops and banks across the capital of 1.4 million people. Homes belonging to politicians have also been attacked in recent days.

The president promises dialogue

In a televised address on Monday, Rajoelina acknowledged the public anger and apologised for his government’s failings. “We acknowledge and apologise if members of the government have not carried out the tasks assigned to them,” he said on state broadcaster Televiziona Malagasy (TVM).

The president promised measures to support businesses that suffered losses during the unrest and said he wanted to open a channel of communication with young people. “I understand the anger, the sadness, and the difficulties caused by power cuts and water supply problems. I heard the call, I felt the suffering, I understood the impact on daily life,” he added.

The demonstrations have been driven by frustration at years of economic hardship. Madagascar, an island nation off Africa’s southeast coast, is one of the region’s poorest countries.

About 75 percent of its 30 million people lived below the poverty line in 2022, according to the World Bank.

Many protesters blame Rajoelina’s government for failing to improve conditions, particularly as frequent power outages and water shortages have disrupted daily life.

Casualties and disputes over figures

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said that casualties included protesters and bystanders killed by security forces, as well as people who died in looting and violence carried out by gangs unconnected to the demonstrations.

Madagascar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected those figures, insisting they were not based on official data but on “rumours or misinformation”.

Organisers say they have taken inspiration from youth-led movements in Kenya, Nepal and Morocco. Demonstrators in Antananarivo waved a flag first used in Nepal earlier this month, when protests forced the country’s prime minister to resign.

The movement in Madagascar has been largely coordinated on social media, particularly Facebook, echoing similar online mobilisation seen in Kenya last year, when sustained demonstrations pushed the government to abandon proposed tax legislation.

From ancient cities to beaches, Spain has something for everyone. Millions of tourists flock to its coastal towns and islands every year to enjoy the sand, sea, and culture. But what about the locals?

In the past decade, rents have almost doubled, but wages have stayed the same. Hundreds of thousands of properties have become holiday lets, and developers are snapping up real estate to cash in on the tourism boom. A housing crisis is in full swing, and homelessness is rising fast. Now, residents are fighting back. Armed with water pistols and lawyers, they are calling on governments to protect their interests. But will it be enough?

People & Power meets some of the people suffering the consequences of Spain’s tourism industry, and those fighting to stay in their homes.

Indonesian President Prabowo’s free meals programme hit by more mass illness as protests against government rock country.

An investigation has been launched after some 400 children became ill after eating free school meals in Indonesia’s western Bengkulu province, in the worst case of mass food poisoning linked to President Prabowo Subianto’s flagship food programme to help pregnant women and children.

The reports of mass illness on Wednesday came as President Prabowo arrived in Beijing, China, for events commemorating the end of World War II, and days after widespread antigovernment protests rocked cities and towns across Indonesia.

Authorities will launch an investigation into the cause of the illness, Bengkulu Province ‘s Vice Governor Mian said.

“We will temporarily suspend operations at this kitchen while we investigate where the weaknesses lie,” said Mian, who goes by a single name.

“This is the domain of the BGN [National Nutrition Agency] investigation team and the authorities,” he said.

Dadan Hindayana, chief of the National Nutrition Agency, which runs the programme, told the Reuters news agency the kitchen in question had only recently started operating, asking staff to evaluate services while waiting for results of tests on the food.

Since its launch, Prabowo’s free school meals programme has been rapidly expanded to reach more than 20 million recipients, and authorities plan to reach 83 million recipients by year-end, budgeting a total cost of 171 trillion rupiah ($10.52bn) for the programme this year.

The president launched the programme in January, but the initiative had already been marred by food poisoning that affected hundreds of people.

Last month, 365 people fell ill from free school meals in Central Java. According to local media reports, laboratory results indicated that the outbreak was a result of poor sanitation.

In the latest mass illness in Bengkulu, children aged from about 4 to 12 were rushed to a local hospital complaining of stomach pain beginning last Thursday, according to a video handout from the local government.

On Wednesday, Prabowo was seen attending a military parade hosted by Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, to mark 80 years since Japan’s defeat at the end of World War II, according to China’s CCTV.

Despite the ongoing street protests at home over his government’s handling of the economy, Prabowo decided he would travel to China, after briefly reconsidering his trip amid the mass unrest.

The Jakarta Post reported on Wednesday that some 10 people are now thought to have died in protests over the weekend, with 20 people missing and 500 injured, according to reports from civic organisations and officials.

In Geneva on Monday, the United Nations called for investigations into the alleged use of disproportionate force by Indonesia’s security forces against demonstrators.

“We are following closely the spate of violence in Indonesia in the context of nationwide protests over parliamentary allowances, austerity measures, and alleged use of unnecessary or disproportionate force by security forces,” UN human rights office spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani said.

“We stress the importance of dialogue to address the public’s concerns,” she said in a statement.

In India, tens of thousands of Muslims and people from marginalised groups have seen their homes and businesses demolished by authorities in what the country’s Supreme Court has called “unconstitutional” and “lawless” attacks.

Representatives of the Hindu nationalist party, the BJP, say the demolitions are in response to illegal encroachment.

But critics say the demolitions target Muslims and other minorities, a claim the BJP denies.

101 East investigates if India’s bulldozers are delivering justice – or demolishing it.

South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa wants people to come together and talk.

He has launched a national dialogue process – billed as citizen-led – for South Africans from all walks of life to decide how to deal with challenges from crime and corruption to poverty and inequality.

But critics say his party, the African National Congress (ANC), has had 30 years in power to do just that.

So, can a conference help to solve longstanding problems in the country?

Will the talks address the divisions in the ANC?

And what’s the next chapter for South African politics?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Lindiwe Zulu – Member of the National Executive Committee of the African National Congress

Imraan Buccus – Senior research associate at the Auwal Socio-Economic Research Institute

William Gumede – Associate professor at the University of the Witwatersrand’s School of Governance

‘It’s important work’

Back at the waste yard, business has died down for the day.

Bamfo and her youngest children, Nkunim, 10, and Josephine, 6, are emptying the last few bottles. She will be in bed by 8pm, rising at midnight for her Bible studies before starting work again at dawn.

Bamfo never thought she would become a waste picker.

She was 19 when she finally gained her school certificate, and by selling oranges, she scraped together enough money for a secretarial course. But she couldn’t afford a typewriter.

While the other girls tapped away at their machines, she drew the keyboard on her exercise book and practiced on that, pressing her fingers into the paper.

Soon, the money ran out. Instead of the office job she dreamed of, she found work breaking stones on a building site.

“At that moment, I see myself – I’m a big loser, and there’s nothing,” says Bamfo, leaning forward on her office chair to keep a watch for any final delivery tricycles. “I see the world is against me.”

Then one morning she woke to find the building site had disappeared overnight, replaced by a dump: Truckloads of water sachets, drinks bottles and nylon wigs.

Her five children lay sleeping. Her husband, as usual, had not come home. To buy cassava to make banku – dumpling stew – she needed money urgently.

A friend had told her that factories in the city would buy plastic waste for a few cedis a kilogramme. It was one of the lowliest jobs there were, involving not only backbreaking labour but stigma and shame.

“If you are a woman doing this waste picking, people think you have no family to care for you,” she says. “They think you are bad. They think you are a witch.”

She came home one day to find her husband had abandoned her. But not before he had called her father to tell him his daughter had become a “vulture”.

Estrangement from her father only compounded the shame. To escape her neighbours’ taunts, Bamfo moved with her children to the other side of the city.

There, she took over her small yard, buying waste from pickers and selling it on to factories and recycling plants. Bit by bit, she built a wooden house. Eventually, she plucked up the courage to phone her father.

“I said, ‘Come and see the work I do. See that it is not something to feel bad about.’”

When he saw the yard and the tricycle teams that had become Bamfo’s business, Nkosoo Waste Management (“nkosoo” is Twi for “progress”), he couldn’t help but be impressed.

“You are not a woman, you are a man,” she recalls him telling her once, half admiring and half accusing. “The heart that you have – even your brother doesn’t have that heart.”

Now she hopes to pass on some of her resilience. King, her supervisor at the yard, slept on a nearby dumpsite as a small child and says Bamfo and her waste business saved him. “I cannot say a bad thing about her. She is my mother.”

As night settles on Accra, the polluting plastic tide has crept a little higher. But Bamfo has, she says, found dignity in the fight to keep it at bay.

“It is important work we do,” she says. “Sometimes I feel very sad and bad about not getting the education I wanted. But we clean the city. I think of that.”

This story was produced in partnership with SourceMaterial

Bulawayo, Zimbabwe – When Lloyd Muzamba was critically injured in a car accident on the Harare–Bulawayo highway in 2023, he needed an urgent blood transfusion to save his life. Despite being admitted at Mpilo Central Hospital, the biggest public health facility in Zimbabwe’s Matabeleland region, a shortage of supplies meant the doctors didn’t have enough for him.

In desperation, Muzamba’s family turned to their only other option – a nearby private hospital that sold them the three pints of blood. But at a cost of $250 per pint, Muzamba – who earned a $270 monthly salary and had no savings – could not afford it.

With time running out, the family had to make a plan. Eventually, Muzamba’s uncle sold a cow for $300 and asked other relatives to contribute the balance.

Two years on, the now recovered Muzamba says the incident has left him psychologically wounded, as he worries about other emergencies when people may need lifesaving blood.

“Three pints can be a small number; others might need more than that. But due to the costs involved, it becomes life-threatening,” said the 35-year-old, who works in a hardware store in Bulawayo.

“I could not get the blood without paying or making a payment plan. It was a painful experience for an ordinary Zimbabwean like me.”

Muzamba’s is not an isolated case.

With ongoing currency woes, rising costs of living and high levels of poverty, desperate Zimbabweans in need of care face life-threatening delays due to financial barriers. This includes blood shortages – despite supplies being free in public health facilities.

Tanaka Moyo, a mother of two in the capital Harare, also experienced the stress of needing to pay for emergency blood supplies during the delivery of her second child.

After excessive postpartum haemorrhaging, the 38-year-old street vendor needed four pints of blood.

Together with her husband, a security guard, she had struggled to raise money for the birth of their child. The sudden need for a blood transfusion was a shocking unplanned cost.

“My husband ran around and borrowed money from a microfinance institution. The interests are steep and conditions stringent, but he had to act quickly,” said Moyo.

“At the hospital, they insisted the blood was free – but it was not available.”

Plaxedes Charuma, a gynaecologist in Bulawayo, says “postpartum haemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal mortality”. The prevalence of the condition means that hospitals should always have supplies on hand to deal with maternal blood loss emergencies that arise, health experts say.

According to the Community Working Group on Health (CWGH), a network of civic health organisations in Zimbabwe, the country faces a high demand for blood transfusions, and those most affected are pregnant women.

“About half a million pregnancies are expected in Zimbabwe, and in some of these, there is excessive blood loss, requiring transfusion of at least three pints of blood,” said Itai Rusike, CWGH’s executive director.

“Maternal mortality in Zimbabwe remains unacceptably high,” Rusike told Al Jazeera. “Timely blood transfusion prevents maternal deaths, which in Zimbabwe stands at 212 women dying per every 100,000 live births.”

‘Free blood for all’

Generally, there are two major types of blood transfusions: allogeneic and autologous. Autologous transfusion refers to self-same blood donation by an individual for their own use later. Allogeneic transfusion, which is the most common in Zimbabwe, involves administering blood donated by one person to another who matches their blood type.

The National Blood Service Zimbabwe (NBSZ) is the body that oversees blood donation and distribution in the country. It operates as an independent not-for-profit entity, but it is mandated by law to collect, process and distribute blood throughout Zimbabwe.

While the Ministry of Health and Child Care is permanently represented on its board of directors, NBSZ functions independently of hospitals and government health institutions. It is not present in every facility, but maintains decentralised distribution from five regional centres: Harare, Bulawayo, Gweru, Masvingo and Mutare.

Historically, patients in Zimbabwe paid for blood, but over the years the government worked on lowering costs – from $150 a pint in 2016 and prior to $50 by 2018.

The government then went a step further in July that year, deciding that blood would be made free at all public health institutions.

“The free blood for all move is going ahead as planned and mechanisms have already been put in place to finance the move, and come July 1 [2018], blood will be available for free,” said then-Minister of Health and Child Care Dr David Parirenyatwa during the June 2018 World Blood Donor Day celebrations.

However, despite the policy, hospitals continue to face shortages.

This May, there was a critical lack of blood in public hospitals, a situation that threatened the lives of thousands of people, the Ministry of Health and Child Care said in a statement. Al Jazeera contacted ministry spokesperson Donald Mujiri to ask about the shortage and the implementation of the free blood policy, but he did not respond to our requests for comment.

NBSZ, meanwhile, said that May’s shortage was due to operational and systemic challenges that disrupted its ability to carry out routine blood collection activities.

“Without timely financial support, we faced constraints in mobilising outreach teams, securing fuel, and procuring essential supplies,” Vickie Maponga, NBSZ communications officer, told Al Jazeera.

“Additionally, the crisis was exacerbated by a seasonal dip in donations, particularly from youth, who make up over 70 percent of our donor base.”

These shortages regularly result in patients on the front line needing to buy blood at private clinics. In most cases, the patient is physically transferred to the private facility for the transfusion, where they pay the costs. In some cases, the patient pays and the private hospital sends the blood to them in the public hospital.

Crucial blood donations

The World Health Organization (WHO) aims to ensure that all countries practicing blood transfusions obtain their blood supplies from voluntary blood donors.

The NBSZ told Al Jazeera that a sustainable blood supply in Zimbabwe depends on cultivating a culture of regular, voluntary donations, particularly among the youth and underserved communities.

The service has a mobile outreach model, through which it brings blood donation drives directly to schools and communities. To further engage the youth, Maponga said they also started a club that “encourages young people to commit to donating blood at least 25 times in their lifetime”.

“We also integrate blood donation awareness into school programmes and partner with tertiary institutions to maintain continuity post-high school,” she said.

Ivy Khumalo, 32, is one of those who has been donating blood since she was in high school. But she says the lack of blood donation centres around her now limits her ability to give as an adult.

“As a school child, it was [first started] as a result of peer pressure, but I found it fascinating,” Khumalo said. “It was only when I was an adult that I made a personal decision to continue donating out of love to save life and help those in need.”

But since moving from Bulawayo to Hwange, she said, donating blood has become expensive as the nearest centre is in Victoria Falls, over 100km (62 miles) away.

NBSZ says it routinely deploys mobile blood drives around the country. It also says it offers donors incentives.

“Regular donors who meet specific criteria such as having made at least 10 donations, with the most recent within the past 12 months, qualify for free blood and blood products for themselves and their immediate family members … in times of medical need,” explained Maponga.

However, for keen donors like Khumalo, the effort to reach a far-off donation site is a barrier to entry.

“In such circumstances, it is no longer a free donation as I spent money going there. In the end, most of us decide to stay home despite the passion for blood donation,” she said.

CWGH’s Rusike says the NBSZ and Ministry of Health and Child Care must urgently devise innovative and sustainable ways to increase the number of eligible blood donors.

“The government should utilise the Health Levy Fund of 5 percent tax on airtime and mobile data as it was set up to specifically subsidise the cost of blood and assist public health institutions to replace obsolete equipment and address the perennial drug shortages in our public health institutions,” he said. “That money should be ring-fenced and used for its intended purpose in a more accountable and transparent manner.”

Promises and shortages

Authorities say that as of mid-2025, Zimbabwe’s national blood supply is showing good progress, and NBSZ has already collected over 73 percent of its half-year target (the 2025 annual target is 97,500 units).

The blood service also says the Ministry of Health and Child Care plays a central role in both subsidising and overseeing the cost of blood within the public health sector.

“Since 2018, this [free blood policy] is made possible through a government-funded coupon system, which absorbs the full cost of $250 per unit, resulting in zero cost to the recipient [in public hospitals],” said Maponga.

The NBSZ maintains that it operates on a cost recovery basis. It says the entire chain of collecting, processing and distributing a pint of blood costs $245. The agency charges $250, making a $5 profit per pint.

However, prices at some private facilities can reach as much as $500 per pint, Zimbabweans say. This has sparked heated debate on social media, as the high cost remains far out of reach for many people.

“NBSZ does not have regulatory authority over how those institutions price their services to patients,” said Maponga, explaining that while blood itself is donated freely, the journey from “vein to vein” involves a complex and resource-intensive process.

Observers, however, say more can be done to lower the costs of blood transfusions.

“At closer look, the whole chain of blood transfusion can cost less than $150 by strategically deploying available resources, use of financial donor stakeholders like corporates, and also holding the government accountable to fund the whole process,” said Carlton Ntini, a socioeconomic justice activist in Bulawayo.

The issue of free blood in the public hospitals is noble, Ntini said, but without full implementation, it remains a false hope and only benefits the “lucky” few, as shortages are the order of the day.

“In reality, any amount above $50 per pint of blood will still be high to Zimbabweans, and it’s a death sentence,” he said.

Meanwhile, for patients, the cost of essentials only adds to an already stressful situation.

Muzamba was fortunate in that his family did not claim back the money they gave him for his blood transfusion. But Moyo and her husband struggled to settle their $1,000 loan debt, which escalated to $1,400 after interest.

“It psychologically drained me more than the physical pain as I wondered, ‘Where would I get such money in this economy?’” said Moyo. “The government must own up to its promises – it’s not only about being free, but must be accessible.”

Labour Minister Marta Elena Feito Cabrera’s comments dismissing poverty in the Caribbean island nation trigger angry backlash.

Cuban Labour and Social Security Minister Marta Elena Feito Cabrera has resigned after saying there are no beggars in Cuba, only people pretending to be.

Cuba’s presidency said in a post on social media on Wednesday that Feito had “acknowledged her errors and submitted her resignation” over her “lack of objectivity and sensitivity” in addressing issues that are “at the centre of political and governmental management”.

The news came a day after Feito made the comments about poverty in the island nation to deputies in a National Assembly committee.

“We have seen people, apparently beggars, [but] when you look at their hands, look at the clothes these people are wearing, they are disguised as beggars. They are not beggars,” Feito said.

“In Cuba, there are no beggars,” she said.

The minister added that people cleaning car windscreens live “easy” lives and they use the money they make to “drink alcohol”.

Feito also lashed out against those who search through rubbish dumps, saying they are recovering materials “to resell and not pay tax”.

The remarks quickly went viral, prompting calls for Feito’s impeachment and a wave of criticism in a country experiencing a tough economic situation in recent years.

Even Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel was critical.

Without mentioning her by name but referring to the meeting at the National Assembly committee in which Feito participated, Diaz-Canel said on his X account: “The lack of sensitivity in addressing vulnerability is highly questionable. The revolution cannot leave anyone behind; that is our motto, our militant responsibility.”

Cuba blames its economic woes on a Cold War-era United States trade embargo, which complicates financial transactions and the acquisition of essentials, such as fuel and spare parts. The US imposed the embargo in 1960 after the Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel Castro.

The embargo is widely criticised with 185 of 193 countries at the United Nations voting to condemn it.

US President Donald Trump recently tightened sanctions on the island’s Communist Party-run government, pledging to restore a “tough” policy towards the Caribbean country.

Former US President Barack Obama took considerable steps to ease tensions with Cuba during his time in office, including restoring US-Cuba relations and making the first visit by a US president to the country in 90 years. Cuba has also faced an energy crisis and blackouts in recent months as supplies of subsidised Venezuelan oil have become increasingly precarious as Venezuela grapples with its own economic woes.

Last week, the US Department of State imposed sanctions against Diaz-Canel as well as the luxury high-rise Hotel Torre K in central Havana.

Travel and tourism are important to Cuba’s struggling economy with millions of tourists visiting the island nation each year.

According to the UN Conference on Trade and Development, Cuba had a gross domestic product of $9,296 per person in 2019, making it an upper middle income country.

On July 3, the United States House of Representatives passed President Donald Trump’s signature tax cut and spending package, which he has called the “One Big Beautiful Bill“.

The bill combines tax reductions, spending hikes on defence and border security, and cuts to social safety nets.

Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries warned that the bill “hurts everyday Americans and rewards billionaires with massive tax breaks”.

Trump’s erstwhile ally, billionaire Elon Musk, publicly opposed the bill, arguing it would bloat expenditure and the country’s already unmatched debt.

Trump is expected to sign the bill into law on Friday, July 4 – the US’s independence day – at 4pm ET.

Here’s what’s next – and whom the bill will affect:

How have taxes been lowered?

The main goal of the bill was to extend Trump’s first-term tax cuts.

In 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which lowered taxes and increased the standard deduction for all taxpayers, primarily benefitting higher-income earners.

More than a third of the total cuts went to households with an income of $460,000 or more.

The top 1 percent (roughly 2.4 million people) received average tax cuts of about $61,090 by 2025 – higher than any other income group. By contrast, the middle 60 percent of earners (78 million people) saw cuts in the range of $380 to $1,800.

Those tax breaks were set to expire this year, but the new bill has made them permanent. It also adds some more cuts Trump promised during his latest campaign.

For instance, there is a change to the US tax code called the State and Local Taxes deduction.

This will let taxpayers deduct certain local taxes (like property taxes) from their federal tax return.

Currently, people can only deduct up to $10,000 of these taxes. The new bill would raise that cap from $10,000 to $40,000 for five years.

Taxpayers will also be allowed to deduct income earned from tips and overtime, until 2028, as well as interest paid on loans for buying cars made in the US from this year until 2028.

Elsewhere, the estate tax exemption will rise to $15m for individuals and $30m for married couples.

In all, the legislation contains about $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.

How big are social welfare cuts?

To help offset the cost of the tax cuts, Republicans plan to scale back Medicaid and food assistance programmes for low-income families.

Their stated goal was to focus these programmes on certain groups – primarily pregnant women, people with disabilities and children – while also reducing what they deem to be waste, including by limiting access to immigrants.

Currently, more than 71 million people depend on Medicaid, the government health insurance program.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill would leave an additional 17 million Americans without health cover in the next decade.

While Medicaid helps Americans suffering from poor health, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps poor people afford groceries.

About 40 million Americans currently receive benefits through SNAP, also known as food stamps.

The CBO calculates that 4.7 million SNAP participants will lose out over the 2025-2034 period, due to program reductions.

Changes to Medicaid and SNAP could become permanent provisions, with no sunset clauses attached to them.

A recent White House memo pointed to more than $1 trillion in welfare cuts from the new bill – the largest spending reductions to the US safety net in modern history.

Will there be new money for national security?

The bill sets aside about $350bn, to be spread out over several years, for Trump’s border and national security plans. This includes:

• $46bn for the US-Mexico border wall
• $45bn to fund 100,000 beds in migrant detention centres
• Billions more to hire an extra 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents by 2029, as part of Trump’s plan to carry out the largest mass deportation effort in US history.

Will clean energy be affected?

Republicans have rolled back tax incentives that support clean energy projects powered by renewables like solar and wind, instead giving tax breaks to coal and oil companies.

These “green” tax breaks were a part of former President Joe Biden’s landmark Inflation Reduction Act, which aimed to tackle climate change and reduce healthcare costs.

A tax break for people who buy new or used electric vehicles will expire on September 30 this year, instead of at the end of 2032 under current law.

How will the bill affect the US debt profile?

The legislation would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, from $36.2 trillion currently (which amounts to 122 percent of gross domestic product or GDP), going beyond the $4 trillion outlined in the version passed by the House in May.

Washington cannot borrow more than its stated debt ceiling. But since 1960, Congress has raised, suspended or changed the terms of the debt ceiling 78 times, facilitating more leverage and undermining the US’s long-term fiscal stability.

In his first term, Trump oversaw a roughly $8 trillion increase in the federal debt, which surged due to 2017 tax cuts and emergency spending, approved by Congress, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Debt as a share of GDP was already higher last year than it was anytime outside of World War II, the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis or the COVID-19 pandemic. Deficit concerns contributed to Moody’s downgrading of the US credit score in May.

For its part, the White House claims the new tax bill will reduce projected deficits by more than $1.4 trillion over the next decade, in part by spurring additional growth. But economists on both sides of the aisle have strongly disputed that.

Indeed, according to the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, interest payments on national debt will rise to $2 trillion per year by 2034 owing to the legislation, crowding out spending on other goods and services.

How did the House of Representatives vote on the bill?

The lower house of the US Congress voted by a margin of 218 to 214 in favour of the bill on Thursday.

All 212 Democratic members of the House opposed the bill. They were joined by Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who broke from the Republican majority.

On July 1, the Senate narrowly passed the bill by a 51–50 vote, with the deciding vote cast by Vice President JD Vance.

Who will benefit the most?

According to Yale University’s Budget Lab, wealthier taxpayers are likely to gain more from this bill than lower-income Americans.

They estimate that people in the lowest income bracket will see their incomes drop by 2.5 percent, mainly because of cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, while the highest earners will see their incomes rise by 2.2 percent.

Our appetite for data is growing fast. And so is the number of data centres filled with computer servers.

They store and process the data generated by our online activity, from social media to shopping to cloud storage.

And they consume massive amounts of water and electricity.

Big Tech companies are building data centres in places like drought-stricken Queretaro, in Mexico.

We met some of the locals who are struggling to get by on rationed water as more of these thirsty facilities are built nearby.

Dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, President Donald Trump’s signature policy bill would slash taxes, largely benefitting the wealthiest Americans.

To pay for it, federal spending would be reduced, including on Medicaid, food stamps and student loans. Supporters say the bill could jumpstart economic growth and create jobs.

Critics, including some Republicans, say millions of Americans would pay the price. And the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would actually add an estimated $3.3 trillion to debt over a decade.

Why did Canada scrap its digital tax on US tech companies?

Plus, Nigeria’s tax reform.

The United States Senate is debating President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill“, which promises sweeping tax breaks, as Republicans hope to pass it before Friday’s Independence Day holiday.

On Saturday, the Senate voted 51-49 to open debate on the latest 940-page version of the bill,  despite two Republican senators joining the Democrats to oppose the motion. Trump’s Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate, and Democrats hold 47.

What’s next if the Senate passes the bill?

On May 22, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed an earlier version of the bill in a 215-214 vote.

That bill has been revised by the Senate, and both chambers of Congress must pass the same legislation for it to become law. If the Senate passes its version, then members from both chambers would work to draft compromise legislation that the House and Senate would have to vote on again. Republicans hold 220 seats and Democrats hold 212 in the House.

If the compromise bill is passed, it would advance to Trump, who is expected to sign it into law.

So, who would be some of the winners and losers if the bill – opposed by Democrats and some conservatives – becomes law?

Who would benefit from the bill?

The groups who would benefit include:

High-income households

The bill would extend tax cuts that Trump introduced during his first term. While Trump has pitched this as a gain for the American people, some will benefit more than others.

More than a third of the total cuts would go to households with an annual income of $460,000 or more. About 57 percent of the tax cuts would go to households with a yearly income of $217,000 or more.

According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Senate bill would slash taxes on average by about $2,600 per household in 2026. “High-income households would receive much more generous tax benefits”, its analysis said.

Families with children

If the bill does not pass, the child tax credit, currently at $2,000 per child per year, would drop to $1,000 in 2026.

However, if the current version of the Senate bill passes, the child tax credit will permanently increase to $2,200. This is a smaller increase than the $2,500 in the version of the bill that the House approved.

Traditional car manufacturers

Makers of traditional petrol-driven cars could benefit from the bill because the Senate version seeks to end the tax credit for purchases of electric vehicles (EVs), worth up to $7,500, starting on September 30.

This could decrease consumer demand for EVs, levelling the playing field for cars that run on petrol or diesel.

Workers who receive tips

Tips will not be taxed if the bill passes.

Currently, workers – whether waiters or other service providers – are required to report all tips in excess of $20 a month to their employers, and those additional earnings are taxed.

This bill would end that.

Who would lose out because of the bill?

Some of the groups that would not benefit include:

Food stamp recipients

The Senate version of the bill proposes slashing the food stamps programme, called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), by $68.6bn over a decade, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Food stamps help low-income families buy food. In the 2023 fiscal year, 42.1 million people per month benefited from the programme, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Medicaid beneficiaries

The Senate version of the bill proposes federal funding cuts by $930bn to Medicaid, the largest US programme providing healthcare to low-income people. These are cuts to budget outlays by 2034.

The bill says that starting in 2026, able-bodied adults under the age of 65 will be required to work 80 hours a month to continue to receive Medicaid, with the exception of those who have dependent children.

More than 71 million low-income Americans were enrolled in Medicaid for health insurance as of March.

EV manufacturers

The EV tax credit would end on September 30 if the Senate version of the bill passes. The House version aims to phase out the tax credit by the end of 2025.

Billionaire Elon Musk, who owns the EV manufacturer Tesla, has voiced his opposition to the bill online. “I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” Musk wrote on X on June 3.

He doubled down on his criticism before the Senate deliberations on the bill on Saturday.

“The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country,” Musk wrote on X, a platform he owns.

The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!

Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future. https://t.co/TZ9w1g7zHF

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 28, 2025

Fiscal conservatives

Some conservatives have criticised the bill, saying it would inflate the country’s enormous debt.

The CBO estimated that the Senate version would raise the national debt by $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034. Under the House version, the CBO estimated a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt over a decade.

The current US national debt stands above $36 trillion and represents 122 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP).

Violence begets violence, so many religions say. Americans should know. After all, the United States – a nation founded on Indigenous genocide, African enslavement and open rebellion against an imperial power to protect its wealthiest citizens – cannot help but be violent. What’s more, violence in the US is political, and the violence the country has carried out overseas over the generations has always been connected to its imperialist ambitions and racism. From the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites on June 21 to the everyday violence in rhetoric and reality within the US, the likes of President Donald Trump continue to stoke the violent impulses of a violence‑prone nation.

The US news cycle serves as continual confirmation. In June alone, there have been several high‑profile shootings and murders. On June 14, Vance Boelter, a white male vigilante, shot and killed former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, after critically wounding State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. That same day, at a No Kings mass protest in Salt Lake City, Utah, peacekeepers with the 50501 Movement accidentally shot and killed Samoan fashion designer Arthur Folasa Ah Loo while attempting to take down Arturo Gamboa, who was allegedly armed with an AR‑15.

On June 1, the start of Pride Month, Sigfredo Ceja Alvarez allegedly shot and murdered gay Indigenous actor Jonathan Joss in San Antonio, Texas. On June 12, Secret Service agents forcibly detained and handcuffed US Senator Alex Padilla during Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s news conference in Los Angeles.

Mass shootings, white vigilante violence, police brutality, and domestic terrorism are all normal occurrences in the United States – and all are political. Yet US leaders still react with hollow platitudes that reveal an elitist and narcissistic detachment from the nation’s violent history. “Such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America. God bless the great people of Minnesota…” said Governor Tim Walz after Boelter’s June 14 shootings. On X, Republican Representative Derrick Van Orden wrote: “Political violence has no place in America. I fully condemn this attack…”

Despite these weak condemnations, the US often tolerates – and sometimes celebrates – political violence. Van Orden also tweeted, “With one horrible governor that appoints political assassins to boards. Good job, stupid,” in response to Walz’s message. Senator Mike Lee referred to the incident as “Nightmare on Waltz Street” before deleting the post.

Political violence in the US is commonplace. President Trump has long fostered it – such as during a presidential debate in Philadelphia, when he falsely claimed Haitian immigrants “eat their neighbours’ pets”. This led to weeks of threats against the roughly 15,000 Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. On June 9, Trump posted on Truth Social: “IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT… harder than they have ever been hit before.”

That led to a federally-sanctioned wave of violence against protesters in Los Angeles attempting to end Trump’s immigration crackdowns, including Trump’s takeover and deployment of California’s National Guard in the nation’s second-largest city.

But it’s not just that Trump may have a lust for political violence and is stoking such violence. The US has always been a powder keg for violence, a nation-state that cannot help itself.

Political violence against elected officials in the US is too extensive to list fully. Assassins murdered Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James A Garfield, William McKinley, and John F Kennedy. In 1804, Vice‑President Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Populist candidate Huey Long was assassinated in 1935; Robert F Kennedy in 1968; Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was wounded in 2011.

Many assassins and vigilantes have targeted those fighting for social justice: Dr Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Elijah Parish Lovejoy, Marsha P. Johnson, and civil‑rights activists like Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, Viola Liuzzo, and Fred Hampton. Jonathan Joss and Arthur Folasa Ah Loo are more recent examples of marginalised people struck down in a white‑supremacist society.

The most chilling truth of all is that, because of the violent nature of the US, there is no end in sight – domestically or overseas. The recent US bomb mission over Iran is merely the latest unprovoked preemptive attack the superpower has conducted on another nation. Trump’s unilateral use of military force was done, presumably, in support of Israel’s attacks on Iran, allegedly because of the threat Iran poses if it ever arms itself with nuclear weapons. But these are mere excuses that could also be violations of international law.

It wouldn’t be the first time the US has sought to start a war based on questionable intelligence or reasons, however. The most recent example, of course, is the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a part of George W Bush’s “preemptive war” doctrine, attacking Iraq because they supposedly had a stockpile of WMDs that they could use against the US in the future. There was never any evidence of any stockpile of chemical or biological weapons. As many as 2.4 million Iraqis have died from the resulting violence, statelessness, and civil war that the initial 2003 US invasion created. It has not gone unnoticed that the US mostly bombs and invades nation-states with majority people of colour and non-Christian populations.

Malcolm X said it best, a week after Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F Kennedy in 1963: “Being an old farm boy myself, chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad; they’ve always made me glad.” Given that Americans consume nine billion chickens a year, that is a huge amount of retribution to consider for the nation’s history of violence. Short of repealing the Second Amendment’s right-to-bear-guns clause in the US Constitution and a real commitment towards eliminating the threat of white male supremacist terrorism, this violence will continue unabated, with repercussions that will include terrorism and revenge, domestically and internationally. A country with a history of violence, elitism, and narcissism like the US – and an individual like Trump – cannot divorce themselves from their own violent DNA, a violence that could one day consume this nation-state.

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

Several protesters were killed and at least 400 others were wounded on Wednesday when antigovernment protests in the capital, Nairobi turned deadly.

Kenyan officials have not disclosed the number of casualties. Reports from media and rights groups varied, placing the number of dead between eight and 16.

This is the latest outbreak of violence in the East African country where young demonstrators have frequently taken to the streets in recent months to protest myriad issues including police brutality, government corruption and high taxes.

The demonstrations on Wednesday were held to mark the bloody June 25, 2024, protests against tax rises when police opened fire on large numbers of protesters, killing at least 60, according to rights groups.

Here’s what we know:

What happened during the protests?

Thousands took to the streets in Nairobi, Mombasa, Kisii and several other major Kenyan cities in the early hours of Wednesday to mark the anniversary of the violent 2024 anti-tax protests, particularly the killing of 60 protesters, on June 25 last year.

Bearing Kenyan flags, the protesters chanted slogans like “Ruto Must Go” and “Occupy Statehouse” in opposition to President William Ruto’s government and referring to his official residence.

Banks and schools in Nairobi’s central business district were shut in anticipation of the protests, and police had cordoned off the State House, as well as the parliament building, with layers of barbed wire. Last year, protesters broke into the parliament block, chasing out politicians and setting parts of the building on fire.

Wednesday’s march was largely peaceful at first – and much smaller compared with last year’s protests. Scenes in Nairobi, however, turned violent later on, after “goons” or men believed to be undercover security officials and armed with whips and clubs attacked the protesters. Police also used live fire, rubber bullets, water cannon and tear gas to disperse the demonstrators.

Shops and businesses in central Nairobi were also attacked, looted and burned by unidentified groups among the demonstrators. Some protesters also burned security barricades in the city and physically attacked suspected plain-clothed officers.

In Kikuyu town, about 20km (12.5 miles) from Nairobi, protesters stormed and torched local government buildings, including a police station and courtroom. Some were arrested by the police but have not been identified. In other cities, including Mombasa, marches remained peaceful.

Clashes were also reported in the towns of Matuu and Mlolongo in the eastern Machakos County, approximately 100km (62 miles) from the capital. Violence was also reported in Karatina, Nyeri County.

How many people have been killed?

Figures vary and the Kenyan authorities have not confirmed the number of dead.

According to a joint statement issued on Wednesday evening by the Kenya Medical Association, Law Society of Kenya, and the Police Reforms Working Group, eight people were killed, most of them in Nairobi. The group said 400 others were being treated for injuries, including three police officers. Of those, 83 people sustained serious injuries, including at least eight protesters treated for gunshot wounds.

However, Irungu Houghton, the head of Amnesty Kenya, told Reuters that 16 people had died, adding that this figure had been verified by the global rights watchdog and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR).

Security guard Fred Wamale Wanyonyi, who was on duty guarding a mall in central Nairobi, was one of those confirmed killed, according to rights groups.

What were the protests about?

Protesters had gathered to mark the anniversary of last year’s anti-tax protests, in which some 60 people were killed by police, although no officials have been punished.

Activists said it was important for Kenyans to remember the bloody protests of 2024.

“It is extremely important that the young people mark June 25th because they lost people who look like them, who speak like them … who are fighting for good governance,” Angel Mbuthia, chair of the youth league for the opposition Jubilee Party, told the AFP news agency.

On Wednesday, demonstrators were also demanding the overthrow of Ruto’s government and called for an end to police brutality, corruption and general economic hardship in the country.

Protester Osman Mohamed told Al Jazeera at the scene of the protests that he was there to demand better from the country’s leaders.

“The government is taking us as a joke. They don’t want to listen to us … they don’t listen to us as citizens. We are the people, and they’re supposed to listen because of the power of the people,” he said.

Tensions had risen in recent weeks after 31-year-old blogger and teacher Albert Ojwang died in police custody between June 7 and 8. He had been arrested for allegedly insulting deputy police chief Eliud Lagat, and the police initially told his family he had died from self-inflicted wounds.

Ojwang’s killing prompted outrage and protests across the country, with people calling for the officers involved to be punished. Lagat, who denies any wrongdoing, stepped down from his post last week pending the outcome of an investigation. Three officers were charged with Ojwang’s murder this week.

How have the authorities responded to these protests?

The protests were anticipated, and authorities had been informed of them, rights activists said. Elijah Rottok of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights told Al Jazeera that protest organisers had received assurances from government officials that they would be allowed the space to protest peacefully. Despite this, he said, there was clear evidence of excessive force in the police response.

“We’ve seen a deliberate use of force to suppress (protests),” he said. “We are condemning the excessive use of force … They need to abide by the rule of law and ensure that human rights are upheld at all times.”

Authorities shut down live coverage of the protests on Wednesday afternoon, but that directive was later overturned by Nairobi’s High Court, which ordered the Communications Authority of Kenya to restore signals to three independent television stations.

Ruto, who was attending a burial in the coastal town of Kilifi on Wednesday, called for the demonstrations to remain peaceful in a statement.

“Protests should not be to destroy peace in Kenya. We do not have another country to go to when things go wrong. It is our responsibility to keep our country safe,” he said.

What were the June 2024 protests about?

Violent protests shook the country starting on June 18, 2024, after Ruto announced a controversial Finance Bill, a tax law that many said would make essential commodities costlier, as the country was gripped by an economic crisis that had seen the value of the Kenyan shilling drop by 22 percent.

Young people largely led the protests, which went on for more than a week, but older Kenyans also filled the streets in anger. Although lawmakers removed certain clauses from the bill before passing it into law, the protests continued, with demonstrators calling for Ruto to step down. Officials insisted higher taxes were needed for the government to fulfil loan agreements with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

On June 25, protesters broke into the Kenyan parliament, where lawmakers were convening. The demonstrators ransacked the building and set its entrance on fire. In response, the police opened fire, killing at least 60 people and abducting several others, including some journalists.

Ruto withdrew the bill on June 26, but the violence continued. Human Rights Watch has reported that following the protests, the bodies of some of those missing have turned up in rivers, forests and mortuaries, and showed signs of torture and mutilation. Some abductees told the rights group they were taken by officials who forced them to reveal the names of protest leaders.

What will happen next?

Calm returned to Nairobi on Thursday morning, although devastation was evident.

Smoke was still rising from at least 10 torched buildings in downtown Nairobi as business owners returned to ransacked and looted stores in the central business district.

In parliament, Ruto assented to the new Finance Bill 2025, from which tax rises had been removed. However, a controversial proposal which will see the Kenya Revenue Authority provided with access to taxpayers’ personal and financial data was included.

It’s unclear yet if or how lawmakers plan to address the protesters’ demands.

‘Brutal funding cuts leave brutal choices,’ says aid chief, as humanitarian appeal slashes and priorities refocused.

The United Nations has announced sweeping cuts to its global humanitarian operations, blaming what it described as the “deepest funding cuts ever” for a drastic scaling back of its aid ambitions.

In a statement released on Monday, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said it was now appealing for $29bn in aid – down sharply from the $44bn it had requested in December – and would refocus on the most critical emergencies under a “hyper-prioritised” plan.

The move follows a steep decline in funding from key donors, with the United States – historically the largest contributor – having slashed foreign aid under the administration of President Donald Trump.

Other donors have since followed suit, citing global economic uncertainty. So far this year, the UN has received only $5.6bn, a mere 13 percent of what it initially sought.

This comes as humanitarian needs soar in conflict zones, including Sudan, Gaza, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Myanmar.

“Brutal funding cuts leave us with brutal choices,” said undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, Tom Fletcher.

“All we ask is 1 percent of what you spent last year on war. But this isn’t just an appeal for money – it’s a call for global responsibility, for human solidarity, for a commitment to end the suffering,” he added.

OCHA said remaining aid efforts would be redirected towards the most urgent crises and aligned with planning already under way for 2025 to ensure maximum impact with limited funds.

“We have been forced into a triage of human survival,” Fletcher said. “The math is cruel, and the consequences are heartbreaking. Too many people will not get the support they need, but we will save as many lives as we can with the resources we are given.”

Millions of people around the world are unable to have the number of children they desire, and financial constraints, lack of quality healthcare and gender inequality are some of the barriers to reproductive choices, according to a UN report.

The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) unveiled its State of the World Population report on Tuesday, warning that a rising number of people are being denied the freedom to start families due to elevated living costs, wars and lack of suitable partners and not because they reject parenthood.

Roughly 40 percent of respondents cited economic barriers – such as the costs of raising children, job insecurity and expensive housing – as the main reason for having fewer children than they would like, according to the report based on an online survey conducted by the UN agency and YouGov.

Fertility rates have fallen to below 2.1 births per woman – the threshold needed for population stability without immigration – in more than half of all countries that took part in the survey.

On the flip side, life expectancy continues to grow across almost all regions of the world, according to the survey conducted in 14 countries that are home to one-third of the world’s population.

Right-wing nationalist governments, including in the United States and Hungary, are increasingly blaming falling fertility rates on a rejection of parenthood.

But the 2025 State of the World Population report found most people did indeed want children. The survey findings indicated that the world is not facing a crisis of falling birth rates but a crisis of reproductive agency.

How was the study conducted?

UNFPA surveyed 14,000 people from four countries in Europe, four in Asia, three in Africa and three in the Americas.

The study examined a mix of low-, middle- and high-income countries and those with low and high fertility rates.

They were picked to try to represent “a wide variety of countries with different cultural contexts, fertility rates and policy approaches”, according to the report’s editor, Rebecca Zerzan.

South Korea, which is included in the study, has the lowest fertility rate in the world. The report also looked at Nigeria, which has one of the highest birth rates in the world.

The other countries included, in order of population size, are India, the US, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Germany, Thailand, South Africa, Italy, Morocco, Sweden and Hungary.

The survey is a pilot for research in 50 countries later this year.

When it comes to age groups within countries, the sample sizes in the initial survey are too small to make conclusions.

But some findings are clear.

What were the key findings from the report?

According to UNFPA, 39 percent of people said financial limitations prevented them from having a child.

Job insecurity and fear of the future – from climate change to war – were cited by 21 percent and 19 percent of respondents, respectively, for reasons to avoid reproducing.

Elsewhere, 13 percent of women and 8 percent of men pointed to the unequal division of domestic labour as a factor in having fewer children than desired.

Only 12 percent of people cited infertility or difficulty conceiving for not having the number of children they wanted.

That figure was higher in countries like Thailand (19 percent), the US (16 percent) and South Africa (15 percent).

In many cases, there were significant differences in responses depending on which country people were reporting from.

But for Natalia Kanem, executive director at UNFPA, a universal finding from the report is that “fertility rates are falling in large part because many feel unable to create the families they want.”

In South Korea, three in five respondents reported financial limitations as an obstacle to having children.

It was just 19 percent in Sweden, where both men and women are entitled to 480 days of paid parental leave per child, which may also be transferred to grandparents.

Still, birth rates in Sweden are among the lowest in the world.

Zerzan pointed out that one factor alone does not account for falling fertility rates.

“I fully agree with that,” said Arkadiusz Wisniowski, professor of social statistics and demography at the University of Manchester.

“The decision to have a child is complex. Yes, it’s about money. But it’s also about time and access to the right kind of childcare,” he told Al Jazeera.

What role can immigration play?

When deaths outpace births, that is an indication that fertility rates are falling. “That’s not currently true at the global level,” Wisniowski said. “But it is true for numerous countries around the world, especially wealthier nations.”

“And some governments are having to navigate the reality of falling birth rates against the backlash against immigration. Clearly, immigrants can fill labour market gaps, and there is evidence they contribute to economic growth,” he said.

“But it’s no panacea.”

What can governments do about this?

“We can see both the problem and solution clearly,” the UNFPA report noted. “The answer lies in reproductive agency, a person’s ability to make free and informed choices about sex, contraception and starting a family – if, when and with whom they want.”

UNFPA warns against simplistic and coercive responses to falling birth rates, such as baby bonuses or fertility targets, which are often ineffective and risk violating human rights.

“We also see that when people feel their reproductive choices are being steered, when policies are even just perceived as being too coercive, people react and they are less likely to have children,” Kanem said.

Instead, the UN body urged governments to expand choices by removing barriers to parenthood identified by their populations.

Its recommended actions included making parenthood more affordable through investments in housing, decent work, paid parental leave and access to comprehensive reproductive health services.

“The recommendations [in the report] are all good,” Wisniowski said. “They would all empower people to try and achieve their family-linked aspirations. But these comprehensive policies will come with a cost.”

For years, labour economists have warned that falling fertility poses a threat to future prosperity because it increases fiscal pressures due to ageing populations – when the number of pensioners in relation to workers rises.

“Governments may need to tax working people more or take on more debt to address the reality of fewer young people,” Wisniowski noted. “But fertility isn’t something that you can easily tinker with. We are facing considerable uncertainty.”

Seoul, South Korea – After six hours of emergency martial law, hundreds of days of protests, violence at a Seoul court and the eventual impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol, South Korea is now hours away from choosing a new leader in the hope of restoring stability to an unsettled nation.

From 6am to 8pm on Tuesday (21:00 to 11:00 GMT), South Koreans will vote for one of five presidential candidates in a race led largely by the opposition Democratic Party’s Lee Jae-myung. He is followed in the polls by the governing People Power Party candidate Kim Moon-soo.

The election – involving 44.39 million eligible voters – is expected to see either of these two top contenders replace Yoon. The expelled former president last week attended his fifth court hearing where he faces charges of leading an insurrection and abusing power due to his failed imposition of martial law on December 3.

If convicted, Yoon could face a maximum penalty of life in prison or even the death sentence.

Participation in the election is predicted to be at an all-time high amid the political turmoil resulting from the brief imposition of military rule, which still resonates in every corner of society and has sharply divided the country along political lines. There are those who still support Yoon and those who vehemently oppose his martial law decision.

The Democratic Party’s Lee is currently the clear frontrunner, with Gallup Korea’s latest poll on May 28 placing his support at 49 percent, compared with People Power Party Kim’s 36 percent, as the favourite to win.

Early voting, which ended on Friday, had the second-highest voter turnout in the country’s history, at 34.74 percent, while overseas voting from 118 countries reached a record high of 79.5 percent.

Lee Jae-myung’s second chance

In the last presidential election in 2022, Yoon narrowly edged out Lee in the closest presidential contest in South Korea’s history.

After his crushing defeat in 2022 to a voting margin of just 0.73 percentage points, Lee now has another chance at the top office, and to redeem his political reputation.

About a month ago, South Korea’s Supreme Court determined that Lee had spread falsehoods during his 2022 presidential bid in violation of election law.

In addition to surviving a series of bribery charges during his tenure as mayor of Seongnam and governor of Gyeonggi Province, which he claimed were politically motivated, Lee also survived a stabbing attack to his neck during a news conference in Busan last year.

Fortunately for Lee, the courts have agreed to postpone further hearings of his ongoing trials until after the election.

On the campaign trail this time around, Lee addressed his supporters from behind bulletproof glass, with snipers positioned on rooftops, scanning the crowds for potential threats, as counterterrorism units patrolled on foot.

Lee has also been joined on his campaign by conservative lawmakers, his former opponents, who have publicly supported his run for office numerous times during the past month, seeing him as a path back to political stability.

People Power Party candidate Kim was served an especially hard blow when his parliamentary colleague, Kim Sang-wook, defected from the party in early May to join Lee’s Democratic Party.

According to polling data from South Korea’s leading media outlet Hankyoreh, only 55 percent of conservative voters who supported Yoon in the 2022 election said they would back the People Power Party’s Kim this time around.

While such shifts represent the crisis that the mainstream conservative party is facing after the political fallout from Yoon’s botched martial law plan and removal from office, it also testifies to Lee’s appeal to both moderate and conservative voters.

Future president faces ‘heavy burden’

“The events of the martial law, insurrection attempt and impeachment process have dealt a heavy blow to our democracy,” said Lim Woon-taek, a sociology professor at Keimyung University and a former member of the Presidential Commission on Policy Planning.

“So, the new president will receive a heavy burden when assuming the president’s seat,” Lim told Al Jazeera.

Youth unemployment, social inequality and climate change have also become pressing issues that Yoon’s administration failed to tackle.

According to recent research, South Korea’s non-regular workers, including contract employees and part-timers, accounted for 38 percent of all wage and salary workers last year.

Lee has promised to champion business-friendly policies, and concentrate on investment in research and development and artificial intelligence, while refraining from focusing on divisive social issues such as the gender wars.

His stance has shifted considerably from his time moving up the political ranks when he promoted left-wing ideas, such as a universal basic income.

Events on the night of the declaration of martial law on December 3, also helped cement Lee’s image as a political freedom fighter. A former human rights lawyer, Lee was livestreamed scaling the walls of the National Assembly as the military surrounded the compound, where he rallied fellow legislators to vote and strike down Yoon’s decision to mobilise the military.

Among Lee’s most central campaign pledges has been his promise to bring to justice those involved in Yoon’s martial law scheme and tighten controls on a future president’s ability to do the same. Lee also wants to see a constitutional amendment that would allow presidents to serve two four-year terms, a change from the current single-term five years.

While Lee’s closest challenger, Kim, has agreed on such policies and made sure to distance himself from Yoon, the former labour-activist-turned-hardline-conservative has also said the former president’s impeachment went too far.

Trump, tariffs and South Korea’s new direction

The election also unfolds as United States President Donald Trump has proposed a series of tariffs on key South Korean exports such as steel, semiconductors and automobiles.

In the face of those threats, Lee has promised to stimulate demand and growth, while Kim has promised to ease business regulations. Kim also emphasised his plan to hold an immediate summit meeting with Trump to discuss the tariffs.

Lee, on the other hand, has promised a more pragmatic foreign policy agenda which would maintain relations with the US administration but also prioritise “national interests”, such as bridging closer relations with neighbouring China and Russia.

On North Korea, Lee is determined to ease tensions that have risen to unprecedented heights in recent years, while Kim has pledged to build up the country’s military capability to counter Pyongyang, and wants stronger security support from the US.

Lee has also promised to relocate the National Assembly and the presidential office from Seoul to Sejong City, which would be designated as the country’s new administrative capital, continuing a process of city-planning rebalancing that has met a series of setbacks in recent years.

Another major issue that Keimyung University’s Lim hopes the future leader will focus more on is the climate situation.

“Our country is considered a climate villain, and we will face future restrictions in our exports if we don’t address the immediate effects of not keeping limits on the amount of our hazardous outputs,” Lim said.

“The future of our country will really rest on this one question: whether the next president will draw out such issues like the previous administration or face the public sphere and head straight into the main issues that are deteriorating our society.”

The results of Tuesday’s vote are expected to emerge either late on Tuesday or in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

In the 2022 election, Yoon was proclaimed the winner at 4:40am the morning after election day.

With Lee the clear frontrunner in this election, the outcome could be evident as early as Tuesday night.

But enhanced surveillance at polling stations this year due to concerns raised about counting errors may be a factor in slowing down any early announcement of the country’s next president.