Latin America

Leftist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has defeated right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro in Brazil’s contentious presidential race, pulling off a remarkable comeback after a first-round loss that galvanised the country’s political right.

Shortly after 9:00pm Brasilia time on Sunday (00:00 GMT), Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court called the race for Lula, who had earned more than 51 percent of the vote. More than 64 million ballots were cast for the incumbent.

Bolsonaro, meanwhile, netted 48 percent, or north of 59 million ballots. More than 4 million votes separated the two candidates, with the final votes still being counted.

With his victory, Lula has made history. No other politician in modern Brazilian history has lost the first round of a presidential election only to win the second round.

“A historic turning point for democracy,” Edinho Silva, the head of Lula’s Workers’ Party, posted on social media, along with a video of supporters chanting, “Ole, ole, ole, ole, ola! Lula, Lula!”

Still, the vote process was marred by allegations of voter suppression after reports emerged that public transport in some areas had been suspended.

Lula’s allies accused Bolsonaro’s supporters of reducing bus availability, in an attempt dampen the president’s working-class base.

Heavy rains, meanwhile, affected southern areas considered to be Bolsonaro strongholds.

The campaigns of both Lula and Bolsonaro ultimately petitioned the Supreme Court for a voting extension. Polls across the country were kept open two hours later than expected, until 7pm Brasilia time (22:00 GMT).

Sunday’s victory means Lula will retain the presidency of Latin America’s largest country, denying a crucial victory to the region’s right wing.

In recent years, right-wing leaders have swept presidential races in nearby countries like Peru, Colombia, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador. Many have ridden a wave of anti-incumbent energy and enjoyed support from United States President Donald Trump, who returned to office in January 2025.

A former union leader for metalworkers, Lula – at age 80 – will be sworn in on January 5, 2027, when he will beat his own record as the oldest Brazilian president to take the oath of office since the country’s return to democracy.

His victory has earned him an unprecedented fourth non-consecutive term.

Lula came into Sunday’s run-off as an underdog. While he narrowly led pre-election, the first round of voting on October 4 showed him trailing Bolsonaro.

He earned 45 percent of the first-round vote, compared with the right-wing senator’s 47 percent, both tallies short of the 50 percent needed to avoid a run-off.

But in the weeks since, Lula has rallied supporters around cost-of-living issues. He championed a constitutional amendment passed this month that shortened the Brazilian workweek, and floated the possibility of providing free public transport on weekends.

Having entered politics in the 1980s, during the twilight of the country’s military dictatorship, Lula has run for president seven times.

He won two consecutive terms from 2002 through 2010, as well as a third term in 2022, in what was the tightest race in modern Brazilian history up to that point.

His rival in that election, former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, is the father of Senator Bolsonaro, Lula’s adversary in this race.

Jair Bolsonaro has since been sentenced to 27 years in prison for his role in plotting a coup following his loss to Lula.

Despite overseeing a decline in poverty and low unemployment during his third term in office, Lula has faced questions about his age, his ability to combat crime, and the country’s polarised political landscape.

An explosion of household debt has also left many Brazilians feeling their economic circumstances have worsened.

In September, Lula banned online gambling and sport betting apps to address the issue.

While the victory over Bolsonaro cements Lula’s status as one of the most significant and influential figures in Brazil’s modern history, efforts to advance legislative priorities during his fourth term could be stymied by the most right-wing Congress in recent memory.

The Nobel laureate’s homecoming follows national protests demanding free elections.

Venezuela’s opposition leader Maria Corina Machado has successfully returned to the country after more than 10 months in exile.

Machado announced her arrival on social media on Sunday, writing, “I am here. With you.”

The current opposition leader, Edmundo Gonzalez, confirmed the news, writing on X that “our leader, my dear Maria Corina, is on Venezuelan soil”.

The Comando Con Venezuela political organisation shared footage of Machado arriving at a church in Lara, where she was greeted by supporters.

Machado first disappeared from public life after being briefly arrested in January 2025. She re-emerged last December in Norway, where she won the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to challenge Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro. Maduro was abducted from Caracas by the United States military in January 2026.

Venezuela’s Vice President Delcy Rodriguez has stood in as acting president since then, with the endorsement of US President Donald Trump, and has cooperated with his administration regarding reforms in the country, as well as a deal to grant the US control of over 65 billion barrels’ worth of Venezuela’s oil reserves.

Calls for elections to be held

Rodriguez’s presidency has extended far beyond the 90-day period she was authorised to serve following Maduro’s removal. But she has yet to call an election despite public demand and despite her promise to do so at the United Nations General Assembly in September. The US maintains that the country is not ready yet.

Earlier this week, thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets to call for elections in the first nationwide opposition protest in nearly two years.

Although the opposition is widely believed to have won Venezuela’s disputed 2024 elections, Trump has cast doubt on Machado’s abilities to lead, claiming in January that she “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country”.

Machado presented Trump with her Nobel medal when visiting him in the White House weeks later, in what she said was “a recognition for his unique commitment with our freedom”. The US leader has repeatedly voiced his desire to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize himself.

Machado has made previous unsuccessful attempts to enter Venezuela. In September, her team said she had made seven attempts in the space of a few weeks.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on X that “the conditions allowing for the safe return of Ms. Machado to Venezuela is the direct result of the U.S. supported reconciliation talks which has already seen hundreds of political prisoners freed and hundreds of political opposition figures return from exile.”

Asked to comment about Machado’s return, Trump told reporters on Sunday, “I don’t know anything about it, but I think she’s a very nice woman.”

“She gave me her Nobel Prize, so how can I say anything else? And I hope she’s safe.”

Polls show another tight race between Lula and Bolsonaro leading into today’s election.

President Lula da Silva rallied in Sao Paulo and Flavio Bolsonaro in Minas Gerais, on the eve of Sunday’s runoff election. The candidates are now polling at 50% each, according to a Datafolha poll.

The pivotal run-off will determine whether Brazilians stick with their left-wing leader or shift towards the right.

Brazil’s presidential candidates Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Flavio Bolsonaro have rallied thousands of supporters in a final show of campaign strength in advance of the country’s closely contested run-off election.

Donning a red hat, Lula addressed hundreds of supporters at Rio de Janeiro’s Copacabana Beach on Saturday, waving a Brazilian flag from a campaign truck as crowds gathered on the final day of campaigning.

“The people must choose either someone who kisses the national flag or someone who kisses the American flag”, the 80-year-old told the crowd as he referenced his opponent’s ties to US President Donald Trump.

Lula is seeking a fourth, non-consecutive term in Sunday’s run-off, which will task Brazilians with determining whether to stick with their incumbent left-wing leader or join a broader regional shift towards the right.

Bolsonaro, a senator and son of former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, secured 47 percent of the vote in the first round, narrowly ahead of Lula’s 45 percent.

Recent polling shows Lula and the younger Bolsonaro remain about even on the eve of the pivotal election.

A CNT/MDA survey released on Saturday revealed Bolsonaro would receive 46.3 percent of the vote compared ⁠with 45 percent for the left-wing ⁠Lula. Last week, ⁠the poll showed a slightly closer race with Bolsonaro leading ⁠Lula 46.8 percent to ⁠45.9 percent.

The poll’s margin of error was 2.2 ‌percentage ‌points.

On Saturday, Bolsonaro’s supporters, including hundreds of motorcyclists wearing Brazil’s yellow national football shirts, gathered in the southeastern state of Minas Gerais.

One of those supporters, Ebert Dorigo, accused Lula’s Workers’ Party (PT) of encouraging dependence on government welfare, arguing a change in direction was needed for the country.

“The values we uphold are nation and family. Our country is divided today because, due to welfare-based policies, some people … haven’t grasped that improvement and achievement come only through hard work,” he told the news agency AFP.

The bitter campaign has exposed deep divisions over economic policy, crime and Brazil’s political future, which Bolsonaro has pledged to tackle with hundreds of thousands of more spots in prison and cuts to government spending.

His father, who served as president from 2019 to 2022, is serving a 27-year prison sentence for attempting a coup after losing that year’s election to Lula.

The two candidates struck a calmer tone during their final debate on Friday, although they traded accusations over the country’s economic difficulties and their respective records.

For some voters, however, the choice has been a difficult one.

“If there were any other candidate, that would be a better option,” Gabriela Ribeiro Viana, an event organiser, told AFP. “But we’re stuck choosing between the worst, the horrible, and the lesser evil”.

The race between Brazil’s president and the right-wing senator has tightened in recent days.

⁠Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula ⁠da Silva and Senator Flavio Bolsonaro remain about even on the eve of Sunday’s election run-off, shows a CNT/MDA poll.

The right-wing ‌senator, the eldest son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, would receive 46.3 percent of the vote compared ⁠with 45 percent for the leftist ⁠Lula, according to the poll released on Saturday. Last week, ⁠the poll showed Bolsonaro leading ⁠Lula 46.8 percent to ⁠45.9 percent.

MDA surveyed 2,032 people from October 21 to ‌October 23, with a margin of error of 2.2 ‌percentage ‌points.

The poll comes the day after the final debate before the presidential run-off.

The candidates questioned each other on Friday about Brazil’s economy, infrastructure and regional development.

Bolsonaro accused the incumbent of allowing organised crime to expand, driving families into debt and not addressing the higher cost of living.

“He doesn’t know what hunger is,” Brazil’s first working-class president said of Bolsonaro. “He doesn’t know Brazil.”

Sunday’s vote comes after Bolsonaro finished first in the initial round of voting on October 4 with 47 percent to Lula’s 45 percent.

A Datafolha institute survey published on Thursday suggested the pair are now tied with 50 percent support each, compared with Bolsonaro’s four-point lead in polls published two weeks ago.

Polls indicate Brazil’s presidential candidates are neck and neck before Sunday’s voting.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his right-wing rival Flavio Bolsonaro have focused on policy proposals in the final debate before their presidential run-off.

The candidates questioned each other on Friday, two days before the election, about Brazil’s economy, infrastructure and regional development.

Lula challenged his rival’s plan to take a “chainsaw” to public spending in a manner similar to that of Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei.

“I’ll have the same job here [as Milei in Argentina] because you’re leaving the country bankrupt,” Bolsonaro responded.

Bolsonaro, son of former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro, accused the incumbent of allowing organised crime to expand, driving families into debt and not addressing the higher cost of living.

“He doesn’t know what hunger is,” Brazil’s first working-class president said of Bolsonaro, who responded, “Why are things so expensive?”

Lula questioned the senator’s experience, saying, “He doesn’t know Brazil.”

His challenger doubled down on presenting himself as a capable candidate who represented change for the country.

Tense moments

Friday’s debate in Rio de Janeiro, which was broadcast on TV Globo, was notably more diplomatic than their initial face-off on Sunday but also saw its share of personal attacks and tense moments.

Bolsonaro called Lula “Nine Fingers”, a pejorative nickname used by many of his supporters that references an accident the Brazilian president suffered during his time as a metalworker. The 80-year-old leader demanded an apology, which Bolsonaro gave him.

Lula in response called Bolsonaro a vigilante, referring to allegations that his rival has ties to paramilitary groups in Rio de Janeiro. Bolsonaro said he would classify those groups as “narcoterrorists”.

The third tense exchange was between Bolsonaro and the mother of a five-year-old who was killed in a shootout that involved a policeman who had the presidential candidate as his lawyer. Bolsonaro said he doesn’t believe his client was guilty.

Bolsonaro finished first in the initial round of voting on October 4 with 47 percent of the vote to Lula’s 45 percent.

A Datafolha institute survey published on Thursday suggested the pair are now tied with 50 percent support each, compared with Bolsonaro’s four-point lead in polls published two weeks ago.

Both candidates are expected to join supporters in the streets of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo in their last campaign effort before Sunday’s run-off.

President Javier Milei’s role in cryptocurrency launch does not translate into a fraudulent scheme, judge says.

An Argentinian federal judge has dropped a criminal investigation into President Javier Milei and his sister Karina Milei over the collapse of a cryptocurrency he promoted online.

Judge Marcelo Martinez de Giorgi issued the decision on Friday, according to court records, ending an inquiry into Milei’s role in the launch of the $Libra token, which crashed after a brief rally.

“The reported events do not constitute a criminal offence,” the judge said in a ruling. He also wrote that investor losses and the rise and fall in the currency’s price were insufficient to establish fraud.

In his ruling, Martinez de Giorgi said that Milei’s institutional standing could have given the launch “greater impact” when he posted about it, but that does not translate into a fraudulent scheme.

Javier Milei recommended the little-known meme coin in a post on X in February 2025. He later deleted the post and denied any link to the cryptocurrency, whose value soon plunged.

The judge also dismissed an investigation into US businessman Hayden Davis, who described himself as a “launch adviser” for the token. Davis has acknowledged that he held close to $100m after the crash and denies any wrongdoing.

“For the first time in history, a President of the Nation was investigated with complete freedom, resulting in absolute proof of his innocence,” read a post shared on X by the official presidential office.

“The question that remains is this: Who will take responsibility for having wasted Argentine taxpayers’ money and the President of the Nation’s time in a failed attempt at an institutional coup?”

Milei’s friendship with Trump

Milei is one of US President Donald Trump’s closest allies. Trump firmly backed him a year ago and has called him his “favourite president”.

Trump made clear the support hinged on a victory for Milei’s party.

“I’m with this man because his philosophy is correct,” he said ahead of a White House lunch with the Argentinian leader last year. “If he wins, we’re staying with him. And if he doesn’t win, we’re gone.”

Earlier this month, Milei urged Trump to emerge stronger from the US midterm elections, saying the vote mattered for the West as a whole.

Austerity at home

Since taking office in 2023, Milei has laid off thousands of state employees, shut ministries, cut subsidies and reduced government-funded programmes. The measures were meant to fight high inflation, which has fallen to about 2 percent a month.

Milei says his plan is working, claiming that Argentina has grown for 27 consecutive months and is expanding at four times its historical rate.

When the coin crashed, Milei said he had acted “in good faith” and accused his political rivals of trying to exploit the situation.

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

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

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

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

When is the second round of voting?

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

What happened during the first round?

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

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

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

Who is Lula?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is Flavio Bolsonaro?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has happened since the first round?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do polls show?

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

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

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

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

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

Thousands of Venezuelans have taken to the streets in several cities to demand free elections and other political changes, in the first nationwide opposition protest in nearly two years.

US President Donald Trump and acting President Delcy Rodriguez have said there would be elections, but no date has been set for a vote to decide on a successor for Nicolas Maduro, after the former Venezuelan president was captured by US forces in a military raid in January.

Opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, who has been outside the country for nearly a year after living in hiding following a contested 2024 election, has said elections must take place by July 2027.

Her Vente Venezuela movement organised the protest, which took place in the capital Caracas and other cities, including Valencia, Maracay, San Cristobal and Maracaibo.

“Seeing this makes me happy because I know change is possible,” said 18-year-old cosmetology student Leosmary Hernandez, as she gathered with hundreds of others in northern Maracay. “I’ve been through so many hardships, so many problems because of the dollar, and difficulties studying. I have high hopes for my country and for our next leader and president, Maria Corina.”

“I went out to protest before, when things were much tougher, and I’m even less afraid today because I want my voice to be heard,” she added.

Since January 3, the country has been led by interim President Delcy Rodriguez of the long-governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

PSUV leaders have been accused of carrying out human rights abuses against political dissidents, including arbitrary arrest, imprisonment and torture.

After the United States launched a military operation to abduct and jail former President Nicolas Maduro, the PSUV remained in power with the support of the White House.

US President Trump has backed Rodriguez’s leadership, despite her having been Maduro’s vice president.

His administration has maintained an active role in Venezuela, exerting control over its oil resources and pressuring the Rodriguez government for reforms.

Minimal security presence

Venezuela’s socialist movement, in power since 1999 under late President Hugo Chavez and then Maduro, has in the past deployed security forces against protesters, but government forces had minimal presence at protest sites on Thursday, and in many smaller cities demonstrators dispersed before dark.

The ruling Socialist Party called for its supporters to march from Caracas’ Plaza Venezuela, the same place the opposition planned to gather two hours later, to a location near the presidential palace to commemorate Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, known for his close ties to the security services, was pictured on state television attending the march, while the opposition supporters moved their protest to a nearby location.

US-backed talks continue

Talks between a faction of the opposition and the interim government, aimed at remaking the top court and the electoral council ahead of eventual elections, held their latest session this month, but changes could take significant time.

The negotiations, backed by the US, do not include Machado’s political movement, though she has said she will not stand in the way of their progress.

Machado’s proxy Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia claims to have won the 2024 election according to vote tallies by the opposition. But the government, which never released full counts, backed Maduro, as did the country’s legal and electoral institutions.

Machado has for years sought US support, aligning with hawks in the Trump team who argued that Maduro, through alleged links to drug gangs, represented a direct threat to US national security. Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are facing drug and torture charges in the US. They have pleaded not guilty.

US federal judge blocked wall’s construction on Texas-Mexico border amid an ongoing legal battle.

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow it to resume plans to build a border wall through the Big Bend region of West Texas, as part of its anti-immigration policy to strengthen security on the border with Mexico.

The Justice Department filed an emergency request on Wednesday asking the court to lift a federal judge’s injunction in a lower court that has halted construction while a lawsuit against the project, brought by an environmental group and other challengers, plays out.

The Department of Homeland Security plans include vehicle barriers, patrol roads, lighting and detection technology in and around Big Bend National Park.

Big Bend has about 805km (500 miles) of border, and, according to opponents of the project who have sued the administration, accounts for about 1 percent of migrant arrests.

Landscape, historic church

The lawsuit, filed by plaintiffs including the Center for Biological Diversity and a Big Bend-area river guide, seeks to preserve the landscape, protect a historic church, and challenge the federal government’s waivers of environmental and historical laws to fast-track the $1.7bn project.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and current Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who issued the waivers between February and July, found the region to be an “area of high illegal entry”, requiring additional barriers to control the border.

US District Judge Kathleen Cardone issued an injunction in El Paso on October 2 halting work “until and unless Defendants comply with all applicable laws,” she wrote in her order.

In a later opinion, the judge found that the waivers exceeded the authority of Noem and Mullin.

The Justice Department in its request urged the Supreme Court to pause or overturn Cardone’s injunction.

The Supreme Court has not yet responded to this appeal.

“Even assuming that the secretary’s waiver authority implicates a question of ‘vast economic and political significance,’ Congress did clearly authorize the secretary both to build border barriers and to waive legal requirements in order to facilitate their expeditious construction,” the Justice Department wrote.

In August, the administration paused construction in Big Bend after the project drew bipartisan criticism over its potential impact on the park’s landscape and wildlife.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Publisher Boreal says investigations confirmed the Hatian-Canadian Thelyson Orelien used AI in his breakthrough novel.

The publisher of best-selling Haitian-Canadian writer Thelyson Orelien says it has severed its professional relationship with the author after confirming he used artificial intelligence to help write his novel, “It Was Either That or Die”.

Boreal said on Wednesday that it conducted a further investigation after allegations surfaced in September to determine whether AI was used to write the novel.

“New information, confirmed over the past few days, indicates that artificial intelligence was used in the writing process” of the novel, a Boreal statement said.

Orelien had previously denied allegations surrounding his breakthrough novel, and last week, the Canadian publisher said it was standing by the 38-year-old writer.

Boreal said it did not know the extent of AI’s use in the writing process “and we will likely never have a definitive answer”.

It said it gathered all the working versions of the novel and hired an outside party to analyse the various drafts.

“The results obtained this week revealed traces of AI tags in the metadata of certain documents,” Boreal said.

The publisher said it had tried to work with Orelien to gather the evidence necessary to prove his innocence.

That effort was inconclusive, and Orelien “subsequently announced that he would not provide any further information,” the publisher said.

‘Slander and heresy’

Orelien’s novel about migration, known by its original French title “C’etait ca ou mourir”, had been scheduled for translation in more than 20 countries.

France’s top book prize, the Goncourt, removed “C’etait ca ou mourir” from its shortlist after tests with the AI detector Pangram indicated a 100 percent probability that it contained computer-generated text.

But Orelien called the allegations “slander and heresy” in a statement sent to AFP earlier this month.

“Here and there I did use tools for research, particularly for foreign idioms,” he said.

“But not a single sentence in this book was created by a machine, nor the meaning or the structure of a story that comes from my gut,” Orelien said.

On Wednesday, he stood firm, telling the French newspaper Liberation that he had used AI “in the creative process” for “historical research”.

The author said he began writing the book in late 2017, before AI services such as ChatGPT were widely available.

When the allegations first surfaced in September, Orelien said he suspected racism was behind the attacks on him.

Faecal bacteria are contaminating water in wells and sinkholes in Mexico’s Yucatan state, which are a vital source of drinking water, according to a report by Greenpeace, a global environmental organisation.

The report, published on Tuesday, said nearby pig farms and municipal wastewater were likely sources of the pollution in the southeastern coastal state.

“A range of chemical and microbiological indicators reveal a complex mosaic of severe, localised organic pollution,” it said.

Greenpeace called for an immediate moratorium on new industrial livestock operations and farm expansions in the peninsular state, which was once home to the ancient Maya civilisation.

With no above-ground rivers, groundwater is the Yucatan’s only freshwater source, and the area’s porous limestone bedrock lets pollutants quickly seep into the aquifer.

Laboratory results

The global environmental watchdog group commissioned an independent laboratory to test water at 17 sites near the state capital, Merida, in August.

The sites included household and farm wells, community water points and cenotes, the natural sinkholes that dot the Yucatan Peninsula, which is one of Mexico’s most popular tourist destinations.

According to the report, every sample showed some degree of contamination likely linked to faecal waste, and several sites appeared heavily polluted. Total coliform bacteria reached the test’s upper limit in 16 of 17 samples, and faecal coliforms did so in 13.

However, the tests cannot show whether the waste came from people or animals, and leaking septic tanks and municipal sewage may also contribute to contamination.

Greenpeace said, however, that separate testing using Pig2Bac, a pig-specific DNA marker method, detected pig faecal matter in samples analysed at laboratories at Johns Hopkins University in the US and Mexico’s National Autonomous University (UNAM).

Greenpeace said the results raise “critical accountability questions” about nearby pig farms.

Maya communities joined Greenpeace in demanding action from environmental authorities over the contamination.

Industrial pig farms

A UN report published in July found that there are more than 500 industrial pig farms across Yucatan state with more than 50,000 animals, many located near the lands and territories of Indigenous Peoples.

Marcos Orellana, a former UN special rapporteur who authored the report, said waste and chemicals from industrial farms “find their way very quickly” into the water communities use for bathing, cooking and drinking. He said most farms lack required permits and that regional government initiatives “remain insufficient”.

“The contamination of the waters that have sustained Mayan culture for millennia is predominantly coming from the industrial operations of the growth of animals,” Orellana said.

But Antonio Zumarraga, vice president of the Yucatan Citizen Scientific Water Observatory, defended the local pork industry, saying the sector has invested in water treatment and supports conservation programmes. He blamed local authorities for their inaction.

“It’s an issue that, as long as it doesn’t carry political weight for the government, they won’t do anything about it,” Zumarraga said.

The Yucatan state government was not available for comment, while Mexico’s national water commission, CONAGUA, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Merida’s Association of Pig Farmers also did not respond to a Reuters request for comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political instability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cuba is once again in the United States’s crosshairs. Washington’s operation in Venezuela at the start of the year is largely seen to have paved the way for a similar undertaking on the Caribbean island. Recent media reports have revealed US military activity nearby while US officials have repeatedly said they want “Cuba to be free”.

When and how the US may strike is still unclear. But indications are that the Cuban Revolution may be nearing its end. That is reason enough to pause and reflect on the outsized role this nation of 10 million has played on the world stage.

When thinking of the Cuban presence on the global geopolitical scene, the figure of Eshu, the most powerful spirit in Cuban Santeria comes to mind. Derived from the beliefs of the Yoruba people, Eshu is a divine messenger, the guardian of the crossroads and mediator between the past and the future.

In stories, Eshu is often portrayed as a mischievous elder, one whose antics are used to teach humility and morality. As a character, Eshu is a classic trickster, an archetype commonplace to many traditions that functions to challenge established norms, subvert power structures and reveal hidden truths.

It’s hard to imagine a more apt analogy for Cuba than Eshu, the trickster, foil to US hegemony. At its best, trickster Cuba forced an open debate on what kind of world we might aspire to and held the empire to account, at times even pushing the US towards its better angels, however begrudgingly. At its worst, it held up an uncomfortable mirror to US power.

It is a potent formula, one struck upon from the very earliest days of the revolution. In September 1960, just a year after taking Havana, Cuban leader Fidel Castro found himself visiting New York to address the United Nations General Assembly. Wary of his anti-imperialist rhetoric, a Cold War-obsessed US government put pressure on several prominent hotels to refuse service to Castro and his entourage. But the Cubans were not to be deterred. Instead, they went uptown to Harlem and found a place at the Hotel Theresa.

Photographers and TV camera people flocked there. A media sensation ensued. And Castro used the opportunity to draw comparisons between the plight of the Cuban delegation and that of Black Americans being refused service in the segregated South.

This landed like a bomb in the middle of the burgeoning civil rights movement. It was an awkward contrast, not just because of the optics but because of the location, not in the heart of Jim Crow, but in a liberal northern city, New York, the cradle of American civilisation. This was the first, but not the last time that Cuba, the trickster, would strike.

In the following years, the revolutionary government developed its programme of Cuban Internationalism, which inevitably stood as a counter to US soft power efforts in the developing world through organisations like the Peace Corps and USAID.

Cuba would send as many as  400,000 doctors, not to mention engineers, agricultural technicians and other professionals, to 164 countries across the world. This material solidarity garnered great affection for Cuba among many countries in the Global South, countries as disparate as Venezuela, South Africa and Vietnam, where characters like Castro and Che Guevara are as recognisable as national heroes like Simon Bolivar, Nelson Mandela and Ho Chi Minh. In these same countries, American leaders are remembered too, often in far less flattering terms.

Other examples of Cuba’s trickster antics abound. Perhaps most notable is the Cuban armed forces’ sound military defeat of the Bay of Pigs invasion, which, while carried out by Cuban exiles, was supported and funded directly by the CIA.

There is also the revolution’s support for the Palestinian liberation movement and the antiapartheid struggle even as the US provided diplomatic cover and military aid to Israel and the apartheid regime in South Africa.

From 1975 to 1991, more than 300,000 Cuban soldiers fought alongside forces in Angola, eventually emerging victorious in a proxy conflict with the US. Operation Carlota, as it was called, would not only liberate Angola and neighbouring Namibia, but it would precipitate the downfall of South African apartheid as well. According to former South African President Nelson Mandela, Cuba’s intervention in Angola “destroyed the myth of the invincibility of the white oppressor”.

Castro himself has carried the spirit of Eshu. The Cuban leader reportedly survived more than 600 assassination attempts and died of natural causes at the age of 90.

And there are the many ways that Cuba has defied the “third world” label so often foisted upon it by beating the US in literacy rates, infant mortality and life expectancy at various points in its revolutionary history.

But beyond all of this, there is the sheer fact of the revolution’s survival. For more than 60 years, the US has imposed a severe economic embargo against the island. The embargo – the world’s longest – has been intensified at various points, specifically after the fall of the Soviet Union as Cuba reeled from a profound economic crisis.

Despite this regime of maximum pressure from the world’s largest superpower, the revolution nevertheless persevered through the crisis of the 1990s by diversifying  and liberalising the economy and by drawing upon its well-established programme of internationalism in the Global South. Not only that, but it managed a nationwide sustainable agricultural revolution in the process, a feat for any nation, but perhaps unsurprising for Cuba, given its trickster nature.

But tricksters also work in unexpected, even contradictory ways. Despite these accomplishments, the denial of political rights and the repression of the freedoms of expression and assembly have been the Cuban Revolution’s greatest failings.

Speech is not free in Cuba. Access to information and the internet is heavily restricted, and recent popular protests have been violently extinguished.

Such dynamics have long been pointed to by detractors as evidence of Cuba’s inherent authoritarian nature. But in this regard, Cuba is not the US’s opposite, but rather its peer.

The US in 2026 is a country facing its own rash of unfreedoms: comical levels of corruption; the erosion of democratic institutions; the embrace of AI and the panopticon surveillance it enables; continual attacks on free speech, voting rights and the media; extrajudicial killings of US citizens by masked agents of the state; and an increasingly monarchical presidency. All of which is to say nothing about the spectre of the infamous detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, still home to 15 detainees from the “global war on terror”, raised once more in relation to President Donald Trump’s brutal immigration crackdown.

One cannot help but be struck by the ways that the Trump administration appears to emulate countries like Cuba or Russia or Iran that it rhetorically maligns.

But in this way, Cuba carries on in its role as the foil to American power. In its repression, it reflects the creeping authoritarian inclinations that characterise the Trump administration. Tricksters, after all, are themselves morally ambiguous. And if the greatest flaw of the US has always been that it fails consistently to live up to its most laudable ideals, then in this sense, it is no different to Cuba and its revolution.

With the US poised and ready and with the conditions in Cuba deteriorating rapidly, we may be witnessing the final days of the revolution. That begs the question: When the day comes that Eshu no longer guards the crossroads, what then? What becomes of the world when there is nothing but unquestioned empires and techno-feudal overlords? Without tricksters to confound their power, will we revert to the revanchist past or tumble into some kind of dystopian future?

If and when the revolution finally falls, there will no doubt be cheering on the streets of Miami. But there will be tears elsewhere – tears not just for the revolution, but for the alternative that it represented, however flawed. Perhaps if the US had listened more or differently, they would have heard the lesson that Eshu was trying to teach.

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

Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro fired off a barrage of personal attacks during their first debate a week before a tight presidential run-off.

In a chaotic exchange on Sunday, the two men called each other “liar” multiple times, accused each other of corruption, dragged up various scandals, and clashed on issues from public security to healthcare.

Lula said Bolsonaro was “a habitual liar” and a “thug”, and physically distanced himself on stage from the candidate he called a “militiaman”, alluding to his alleged ties to Rio de Janeiro’s paramilitary groups.

Bolsonaro, who led the first-round election with 47 percent to Lula’s 45 percent, said it was better to keep Lula at a distance “because my wallet could be stolen”.

Throughout the debate, Bolsonaro, 45, the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, paced behind Lula, shaking his head, smirking and scoffing as his adversary spoke.

The 80-year-old Lula, who is seeking a fourth term, demanded an explanation regarding a corruption investigation involving the older Bolsonaro, a question his opponent dodged.

The younger Bolsonaro responded by calling Lula a “clown”, and then parried by bringing up a potential corruption case involving one of the president’s sons.

Jair Bolsonaro has been under house arrest while serving a 27-year sentence connected to efforts to overturn the 2022 election, which he lost to Lula.

Cost of living, public spending in focus

Flavio Bolsonaro hammered away at the top concerns of Brazilians, such as the cost of living and crime, and accused Lula of “reckless spending” to get re-elected, referring to various social measures the president has announced during the campaign.

Lula countered by asking Bolsonaro about his plans to emulate the drastic public spending cuts implemented by Argentina’s right-wing president, Javier Milei.

Bolsonaro dodged the question throughout the debate and pivoted to different topics.

When his father’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic came up, Bolsonaro admitted that this “wasn’t an area where we saw the best results during Bolsonaro’s presidency. I’ll offer a mea culpa here.”

Lula also sought to portray his opponent as out of touch with poor Brazilians, saying Bolsonaro had never used the country’s public healthcare system or taken a bus.

“My opponent only knows about buses from books. He has never even stepped foot on one. He has no idea what the world of work is like,” Lula said.

Voters show their colours

Ahead of Sunday’s debate, supporters of each candidate gathered en masse in public to show their allegiance.

Pro-Bolsonaro crowds wearing Brazil’s national colours of yellow, green and blue packed Paulista Avenue in Sao Paulo’s financial centre, where the candidate addressed the crowd.

Lula supporters wearing red, symbolic of his Workers’ Party, filled Brasilia’s plaza of government buildings, while students backing the president protested against Bolsonaro in Rio de Janeiro.

“We need the current government to remain in power. If another government comes in, we’re, excuse my language, screwed,” said Lula supporter Sonia Maria at the Brasilia rally.

“I don’t like bandits. Out with Lula!” said Bolsonaro backer Vera de Sousa in Sao Paulo.

Also on Sunday, Brazil’s federal police asked the country’s Supreme Court to open an investigation into Bolsonaro over a money laundering accusation involving a lawyer close to him.

The presidential candidate is already under investigation for his links to Daniel Vorcaro, a disgraced former banker who financed a movie about Jair Bolsonaro’s life.

Lula spent 580 days in prison in ⁠2018 and 2019 on a corruption conviction that was later annulled over flaws in the investigation and legal proceedings.

Polls suggest a close race for the October 25 run-off, with Flavio Bolsonaro holding a slight advantage after finishing nearly 2 percentage points ahead of Lula in the first round on October 4.

Both candidates hope to engage the 33 million voters who stayed home in the first ⁠round, equal to about one in five eligible voters.

Sunday’s debate was the first between Lula and Bolsonaro after the candidates both ⁠declined previous opportunities. A second debate is scheduled for October 23, just ahead of the runoff.