legal

The Gulf states have spent years trying to broker peace between Iran and the West: Qatar brokered nuclear talks, Oman provided back-channel diplomacy, and Saudi Arabia maintained direct dialogue with Iran through 2024 and into 2025. Iran attacked them anyway. The idea that the Gulf states have a responsibility, a moral one, to protect Iran from the consequences of its actions because of good neighbourliness is now grotesque in context. Iran did not return good neighbourliness. Iran returned ballistic missiles.

Iran’s position is based on three propositions. First, that Iran acted in lawful self-defence pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter; that host countries relinquished territorial sovereignty by allowing US military bases on their territory; and that the definition of aggression in Resolution 3314 justifies the attack on those bases as lawful military objectives. Each of these propositions is legally flawed, factually skewed, and tactically wrong. Collectively, they add up to a legal argument that, if accepted, would ensure that the Gulf is permanently destabilised, the basic principles of international law are destroyed, and, in a curious twist, the very security threats that Iran is reacting to are reinforced.

The self-defence claim does not meet the required legal threshold

The UN Charter, in Article 51, permits the use of force only in self-defence against an “armed attack”, and this term is not defined by reference to the state invoking it. The International Court of Justice, in cases such as Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States) (1986) and Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States) (2003), has interpreted the requirement of an “armed attack” under Article 51 of the UN Charter restrictively. The Court distinguished between the most grave forms of the use of force, which qualify as armed attacks triggering the right of self-defence, and less grave uses of force that do not. Accordingly, not every use of force, such as minor incidents or limited military activities, amounts to an armed attack. In this light, the mere presence of foreign military bases in Gulf states, maintained for decades under defence agreements with host governments, would not in itself constitute an armed attack against Iran.

Necessity and proportionality are also part of customary international law, requiring that self-defence be necessary and proportional. Iran has not demonstrated either. Targeting the territory of other sovereign Arab states in response to the policy decisions of the United States is neither necessary, since diplomatic and United Nations avenues are still available, nor proportional, since it imposes military consequences on states that are not a party to any conflict with Iran.

Critically, Article 51 also has a mandatory procedural element, in that any state employing self-defence is immediately required to notify the Security Council. Iran has consistently evaded this requirement in each of its escalatory actions. While this may seem to be a minor element, it is in fact the means by which the international community is able to verify and check self-defence claims. A state that evades this requirement is not employing Article 51. It is exploiting the language of Article 51.

Iran’s reading of Resolution 3314 is a fundamental distortion

The provision of Article 3(f) of the Annex to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (1974) states that an act of aggression includes the “action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State”. Iran could rely on this provision to hold the Gulf states that host United States military bases liable for any act of aggression committed from their territories against Iran. Nevertheless, the mere presence of military bases is not sufficient to hold them to be lawful military objectives; this will depend on their actual contribution to military activities against Iran based on the rules of international humanitarian law.

Thus, such an Iranian reading would be wrong on three distinct legal grounds.

First, Resolution 3314 is definitional in nature. The resolution was adopted to assist the Security Council in determining when aggression has taken place, not to confer upon states the unilateral power to punish states deemed to have committed aggression through the use of force. The resolution itself, in Article 2, asserts the power of the Security Council to make the determination of what constitutes aggression. The self-application of Article 3(f) of the resolution is therefore bypassed altogether.

Second, Article 3(f) speaks of the active launching of an attack, not the passive hosting of a military base. The legal distinction is fundamental. A state, in signing a defence treaty with another and hosting the latter’s troops on its soil, is engaging in a measure of sovereignty. A state, actively launching, coordinating, or enabling military strikes against a third party, is engaged in a different matter altogether. Iran has not credibly shown this latter case. The presence of US troops or bases in the Gulf has been a fact for decades, and this has not constituted armed aggression against Iran under any legal standard.

Third, even if Article 3(f) were applicable, the appropriate course would be to bring the matter to the Security Council, not to launch unilateral military strikes. General Assembly resolutions do not override the Charter. Iran cannot rely upon a non-binding resolution defining terms to override the Chapter VII requirements for the use of force or the clear criteria of Article 51.

Sovereignty cannot be dictated by a neighbour’s strategic preferences

Iran, in invoking the principle of good neighbourliness, asks the Arab Gulf states to deny the United States basing rights. Good neighbourliness is a two-way principle, and it does not allow for interference in the internal affairs of other states, certainly not interference in the decisions of other states simply because they are deemed inconvenient to the interfering state. All UN states possess the inherent right to conclude defence treaties with whomever they choose, and this is so regardless of the opinion of their neighbours.

The asymmetry of Iran’s position is striking and self-disqualifying. Iran itself has active military relationships with Russia and China. Iran arms, finances, trains, and supports the activities of non-state military actors in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force operates openly in various states, and this has been extensively documented in United Nations Panels of Experts reports, as well as other international monitoring reports. According to the standards that Iran applies to the Gulf states, any state that hosts the activities of the IRGC, the transfer of Iranian arms, or the coordination of Iranian proxies on its soil would be engaging in aggression against third parties. Iran will not accept this principle when it is applied to itself. A legal principle that is unacceptable to the party to whom it would be applied is not a legal principle at all; it is a political tool.

A doctrine that defeats Iran’s own strategic interests

From the perspective of international relations theory, Iran’s position follows the logic of offensive realism, which seeks to remove the external balancing architecture of regional neighbours by claiming it to be hostile in nature. However, this approach is empirically self-defeating.

Under balance of threat theory, states react to offensive capability, geographic proximity, and aggressive intentions. Iran’s doctrine, in asserting the right to strike any state that hosts forces it perceives as a threat, drives each and every threat variable to maximum levels for each and every state in the region. The obvious consequence, evident in the data, is that the states in the region and external powers are becoming more, rather than less, securely integrated. The Fifth Fleet’s permanent base in Bahrain, the UAE’s negotiations over F-35s, Saudi Arabia’s deployments of THAADs, and Qatar’s expansion of the Al Udeid base are reactions to Iran’s escalation, not causes of it.

From the perspective of constructivism, the legitimacy of a legal argument is also partly based on the normative credibility of the state that presents the argument. The record of Iran’s compliance with IAEA regulations, including the enrichment of uranium to a purity level of 60 percent or more in 2023–2024, interference with inspections, the removal of monitoring cameras, and the overall violation of the non-proliferation regime, has undermined the credibility of the state significantly. A state that is itself a violator of the legal regime cannot claim the role of a law-abiding state seeking protection under the norms of the legal regime.

Iran’s legal rationale was always theoretically wrong. What has occurred since February 28, 2026, has made Iran’s actions morally and politically wrong. Iran did not simply target US military assets. The reality of the situation is now documented and undeniable. Ballistic missiles and drones were launched against Gulf states in the opening days of the conflict. This marked the first time one actor had simultaneously attacked all six GCC states. Iran escalated its attacks in deliberate stages. Day 1: Iranian missiles were fired against military bases. Day 2: Iranian missiles were fired against civilian infrastructure and airports. Day 3: Iranian missiles were fired against the energy sector. Days 3 and 4: The US Embassy in Riyadh was attacked by Iran. International airports in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Kuwait were attacked by Iranian missiles, resulting in the suspension of flights throughout the region. Videos from Bahrain documented an Iranian Shahed drone attacking an apartment building. This is not self-defence. This is the collective punishment of sovereign nations that went to extraordinary lengths to avoid the conflict.

The rationale provided by Iran falls flat when one considers the actions Iran itself took. Its doctrine held that only targets involved in the preparation or launch of an attack against Iran were legitimate targets. Civilian airports are not military bases. Hotels in Palm Jumeirah are not military command centres. An apartment complex in Manama is not a weapons storage facility. By Iran’s own stated legal rationale, none of these targets was legitimate, yet they were attacked. This was not a legal doctrine at all; it was a pretext for coercion, and the conduct of war revealed this to be the case.

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

US and Israeli strikes against Iran, which have sparked a regional war, likely violate the UN Charter’s prohibition on aggression and lack any valid legal justification, experts say.

“This is not lawful self-defence against an armed attack by Iran, and the UN Security Council has not authorised it,” the United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion of human rights and “counterterrorism”, Ben Saul, told Al Jazeera.

“Preventive disarmament, counterterrorism and regime change constitute the international crime of aggression. All responsible governments should condemn this lawlessness from two countries who excel in shredding the international legal order.”

The administration of United States President Donald Trump did not seek authorisation from the UN Security Council – or even from domestic lawmakers in Congress – for the war.

And Iran did not attack the US or Israel prior to the strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several other senior officials, as well as hundreds of civilians.

Yusra Suedi, assistant professor in International law at the University of Manchester, said there are grounds to believe that the attacks against Iran amount to a crime of aggression.

“This was an act of use of force that was unjustified,” Suedi told Al Jazeera.

International law is a set of treaties, conventions and universally accepted rules that govern relations between countries.

Imminent threat?

The Trump administration has argued that Iran posed a threat to the US with its missile programme and nuclear programme, arguing that military action was necessary.

But the UN Charter prohibits unprovoked attacks against other countries.

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,” the founding document of the UN says.

Rebecca Ingber, a professor at Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University who previously served as an adviser to the US Department of State, said that the prohibition of the use of force is a “bedrock” principle of international law that allows for only limited exceptions.

“States may not use force against the territorial integrity of other states except in two narrow circumstances — when authorised by the UN Security Council or in self-defence against an armed attack,” said Ingber.

Suedi said one instance in which the use of force can be legal is when a country seeks to thwart an imminent attack by another state.

Trump has said that the goal of the war is to “defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime”.

But Suedi cast doubt over that assertion.

“Imminence in international law is really understood to be something that is instant, something that is overwhelming, something that leaves really no other choice but to act first, something that is pretty much happening now,” Suedi said.

She noted that Trump himself had said repeatedly that the June 2025 US attacks on Iran “obliterated” the country’s nuclear programme, and that Tehran and Washington were holding talks when the war broke out on Saturday.

“There really was no evidence of an imminent threat, and that the attack was a pre-emptive strike,” Suedi told Al Jazeera.

“If it’s pre-emptive, it means that you are acting to counter something that is in the future, hypothetical, speculative, and that is not imminent, but that’s exactly what happened here. That is illegal under international law.”

US officials, including Trump, have said that Iran was building a ballistic missile arsenal to protect its nuclear programme and later build a nuclear bomb.

‘Scattershot’ arguments

Trump has also said that he is seeking “freedom” for the Iranian people, as the US president’s aides have described the regime in Tehran as brutal.

In January, Iran responded to a wave of anti-government protests with a heavy security crackdown. The violence killed thousands of people.

Trump encouraged the demonstrators to take over government buildings at that time, promising them that “help is on the way”.

Experts say a humanitarian intervention to help protesters in Iran would have required UN Security Council authorisation to cross the legal threshold.

“The rationales have been scattershot,” Brian Finucane, a senior adviser for the US programme at the International Crisis Group, said of the US justifications for the strikes.

“Certainly none of them amount to a serious international legal argument.”

Beyond the possible breaches of the UN Charter, the US-Israeli attacks risk violating provisions of international humanitarian law that are meant to shield civilians from war.

An Israeli or US attack on a girls’ school in the southern Iranian city of Minab on Saturday killed at least 165 people, local officials have said.

“Civilians are already paying the price for this military escalation,” Annie Shiel, US Director at Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), told Al Jazeera in an email.

“We are seeing deeply alarming reports of attacks on schools and critical civilian infrastructure in Iran and across the region, with devastating casualties, including many children. These strikes risk igniting a wider regional catastrophe.”

Embrace of military power

The strikes on Iran are the latest instance yet of Trump’s reliance on the brute force of the US military power to promote his global agenda.

During Trump’s second term, the US has threatened to use military force to seize the Danish territory of Greenland, killed at least 150 people in a campaign targeting alleged drug trafficking vessels in Latin America, and abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a military attack that killed at least 80 people.

The legality of all of these policies has been questioned domestically and internationally, with UN experts saying that the boat strikes amount to extrajudicial killings.

Trump told The New York Times in January that he is driven by his own morality.

“I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people,” the US president said at that time.

In recent years, both Democratic and Republican US administrations have also continued to send Israel billions of dollars of weapons despite the Israeli military’s genocidal war on Gaza, which has been documented by rights groups and UN experts.

Ingber, the law professor, said that the use of wanton military force has contributed to a sense of impunity for powerful states and has degraded the international law system that has sought to place some constraints on conflict since the end of World War II.

“The prohibition on the use of force is a relatively recent innovation in the span of things. This rule is policed through the actions and reactions of states, and it feels fragile right now,” she said. “Do we want to go back to a world where states could use force as a tool of policy?”

Iran itself has lashed out against countries across the region in response to the US strikes, launching missiles and drones at military bases as well as civilian targets – including airports, hotels and energy installations.

“In the context of war, from the moment that the first strike was launched, the rules of warfare apply, and they’re very clear that civilian objects and spaces cannot be targeted,” Suedi said.

She said Iran also appears to have violated international law with its response.

Suedi told Al Jazeera that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza have been showing the “unravelling fragility” of international law.

The war on Iran “is a next episode in that very worrying trend”, she said.

Jeffrey Feltman, former US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, questions the legal basis and endgame of the US-Israel war on Iran, saying he does not believe Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States that would justify war.

Early on Monday, a suspected Iranian drone crashed into the runway at the United Kingdom’s RAF Akrotiri base in southern Cyprus. British and Cypriot officials said the damage was limited. There were no casualties.

Hours later, two drones headed for the base were “dealt with in a timely manner”, according to the Cypriot government.

The incidents came as Prime Minister Keir Starmer signalled on Sunday that the UK was prepared to support the United States in its confrontation with Iran – raising the prospect that it could be drawn deeper into a war it did not choose by its closest ally.

In a joint statement with the leaders of France and Germany, Starmer said the European group was ready to take “proportionate defensive action” to destroy threats “at their source”.

Later, in a televised address, he confirmed that Westminster approved a US request to use British bases for the “defensive purpose” of destroying Iranian missiles “at source in their storage depots, or the launches which are used to fire the missiles”.

But his agreement did little to placate US President Donald Trump, who said the decision came too late.

UK-based military analyst Sean Bell cautioned against reading too much into the Akrotiri incident.

“I understand the projectile that hit Cyprus was not armed, it hit a hangar [with] no casualties, and appears to have been fired from Lebanon,” he said, citing sources.

Al Jazeera was not able to independently verify the claim.

The broader context, he argued, is more consequential.

The US has taken the action “and everybody else is having to deal with the fallout”, he said.

Iran’s military strength lies in its extensive ballistic missile programme, he said, adding that while some have the range to threaten the UK, they do not extend far enough to strike the US.

“I don’t think [US] President Trump has yet made the legal case for attacking Iran, and … international law makes no discrimination between a nation carrying out the act of war and a nation supporting that act of war, so you’re both equally complicit,” he said.

Bell said that Washington likely reframed the issue, communicating to London that, whatever triggered the escalation, US forces were now effectively defending British personnel in the region.

That shift, he suggested, provided a legal basis to “not to attack Iran, but to protect our people”, allowing the UK to approve US operations from its bases under a “very, very clear set of instructions” tied strictly to national interest and defence.

UK officials ‘tying themselves in knots’

However, concerns of complicity had reportedly shaped earlier decisions, according to Tim Ripley, editor of the Defence Eye news service, who said the British government initially concluded that US and Israeli strikes on Iran did not meet the legal definition of self-defence under the United Nations Charter.

When Washington requested the use of bases such as RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, UK, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, Starmer is understood to have consulted government lawyers, who advised against participation.

Up until Starmer’s televised address, in which he approved the US request, the UK had not considered the campaign a war of self-defence, said Ripley. While Washington’s legal reasoning has not changed, the war’s trajectory has.

Iranian retaliatory strikes – which have seen drones and missiles targeting Gulf states – have placed British expatriates and treaty partners under direct threat.

“The basis of our decision is the collective self-defence of longstanding friends and allies, and protecting British lives. This is in line with international law,” Starmer said.

According to Ripley, several Gulf governments, which maintain defence relationships with the UK, sought protection, allowing London to focus on protecting British personnel and partners rather than endorsing a broader campaign. However, with memories of the Iraq War hanging over Westminster, British ministers have stopped short of explicitly backing the US bombing campaign.

British officials are “tying themselves in knots” trying to describe a position that is neither fully participatory nor detached, he said.

US-UK: A strained relationship

Starmer on Monday told Parliament that the UK does not believe in “regime change from the skies” but supports the idea of defensive action.

But Ripley warned that any arrangement allowing US warplanes to operate from British air bases carries significant risks.

Iran’s missile systems are mobile and launchers mounted on trucks, he said. From RAF Fairford or Diego Garcia, US aircraft face flight times of seven to nine hours to reach Iranian airspace, necessitating patrol-based missions.

Once airborne, pilots may have only minutes to act. The idea that a US crew would pause mid-mission to seek fresh British legal approval is unrealistic, he said.

London must rely on Washington’s assurance that only agreed categories of “defensive” targets will be struck. If an opportunity arose to eliminate a senior Iranian commander in the same operational zone, the temptation could be strong. Yet such a strike might fall outside Britain’s stated defensive mandate. The aircraft would have departed from British soil, and any escalation could implicate the UK, Ripley said.

Bell highlighted another weakness: Britain has no domestic ballistic missile defence system.

If a ballistic missile were fired at London, he said, “We would not be able to shoot it down.”

Intercepting such weapons after launch is notoriously difficult, reinforcing the argument that the only reliable defence is to strike before launch.

The UK, therefore, occupies a grey zone: legally cautious, operationally exposed and strategically dependent on US decisions, it does not fully control.

Beyond the legal and military dilemmas, Starmer must also contend with a sceptical public.

A YouGov poll conducted on February 20 found that 58 percent of Britons oppose allowing the US to launch air strikes on Iran from UK bases, including 38 percent who strongly oppose.

Just 21 percent support such a move, underscoring limited domestic backing for deeper involvement.

London, United Kingdom – Legal experts have documented almost 1,000 incidents in which pro-Palestine voices have been allegedly targeted in the United Kingdom, data that they say represents a “systematic effort” to repress the country’s solidarity movement.

The European Legal Support Center (ELSC) said on Wednesday that it has verified 964 cases of “anti-Palestinian repression” from January 2019 until August 2025, including students being investigated over their solidarity, activists being arrested, employees facing disciplinary procedures and artists having their events cancelled.

The findings of the study, carried out in collaboration with researchers at Forensic Architecture, are a “sample indicative of a far wider and deeper pattern”, said the group comprising lawyers and legal officers.

The ELSC pitched the report as an Index of Repression, a database that is open to the public.

“We’re launching this database to show that repression of the Palestine solidarity movement in Britain is pervasive,” Amira Abdelhamid, ELSC’s director of research and monitoring, told Al Jazeera.

One documented case involves a University of Warwick student who was reported to police by their university for carrying a sign that drew parallels between Israel and Nazi Germany during a campus rally in November 2023.

The student was arrested for “racial aggravation against the Jewish community” and investigated by their university. But in January 2024, after the ELSC stepped in, the police dropped the student’s caution and deleted all associated records. The university confirmed in March that there would be no further disciplinary action.

ELSC said “Zionist advocacy” groups, journalists and media outlets were involved in 138 incidents – including UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), a pro-Israel organisation that it said played a part in 29 of the documented cases.

“The goal of this analysis is to denaturalise this politically produced process,” the group said. “This strategic targeting across sectors represents a kind of division of repressive labour. It aims to dismantle solidarity at every stage, from the formation of political consciousness in universities and schools, to its expression in culture, to its organisation in public spaces.”

Another incident involved a football club’s kit manager who was dismissed after posting his views about Israel’s conduct on social media.

The case of Dana Abuqamar, a University of Manchester student, is also analysed in the database. The Home Office revoked her visa after she told Sky News that, after 16 years of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, “We are both in fear (of) how Israel will retaliate … but also we are full of pride.”

She later clarified that her comments were not in support of the October 7 attacks into southern Israel, during which more than 1,000 people were killed. The UKLFI reported her to the police and her university, but in 2024, she won a human rights appeal.

“The main immediate goal of this anti-Palestinian repression is to depoliticise the movement, to make it seem as though it’s not a legitimate political and ethical struggle, but rather a security problem, a problem of so-called anti-Semitism or a breach of compliance,” ELSC’s Abdelhamid said.“I don’t think that has succeeded … two years on we still see people resisting the repression happening in Britain [and] speaking up and acting for Palestine and against the genocide.”

Since Israel’s onslaught on Gaza began in October 2023, tens of thousands of Britons have rallied in support of Palestine.

According to YouGov, one in three Britons have “no sympathy at all for the Israeli side in the conflict” after Israel killed more than 70,000 people in two years and decimated the Gaza Strip.

The government, led by Labour leader Keir Starmer, has long been accused of cracking down on pro-Palestine solidarity because of a wave of arrests during demonstrations and due to its proscription of Palestine Action as a “terror” organisation – a ruling recently deemed unlawful by the High Court.

In January, Human Rights Watch said that its research found a “disproportionate targeting of certain groups, including climate change activists and Palestine protesters, undermining the right to protest freely and without fear of harassment”.

Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum has warned she could take possible legal action following comments from right-wing tech billionaire Elon Musk, accusing her of ties to cartels.

At her morning news conference on Tuesday, the president was asked for her response to Musk’s statements a day prior. Musk had described her as being beholden to the cartels.

“Well, we are considering whether to take any legal action,” she began. “The lawyers are looking into it.”

She then proceeded to describe the allegations that she leads a “narco-government” as “absurd” and demonstrably false.

“It falls apart all on its own,” she said, dismissing the accusation as hackneyed. “They don’t even know what to invent any more, right? Honestly, it’s laughable.”

Sheinbaum has faced criticism for her national security policies following a spate of cross-country violence over the weekend.

Killing of El Mencho

The violence erupted after the death on Sunday of a top cartel leader, Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, known by the nickname El Mencho.

The Mexican military had tracked El Mencho to the town of Tapalpa in central Mexico. He died while en route to medical care after being shot by authorities.

Members of El Mencho’s criminal organisation, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, responded to the news of his death with road blocks, arson and clashes with security forces. Dozens of people were killed in the violence.

Musk was among the online commentators criticising Sheinbaum’s handling of Mexico’s security in the aftermath of the attacks.

His posts came in response to a video clip circulating on social media, showing Sheinbaum advocating for alternatives to the militaristic “war on drugs” approach.

“She’s just saying what her cartel bosses tell her to say,” Musk wrote in response to the video.

“Let’s just say that their punishment for disobedience is a little worse than a ‘performance improvement plan’.”

A vocal critic of left-wing governments like Sheinbaum’s, Musk is closely aligned with United States President Donald Trump, who has likewise pushed for more military action against cartels.

In September, for instance, Trump’s State Department listed Mexico as an area of concern for drug-trafficking and outlined steps it expected to see to address the issue.

“Much more remains to be done by Mexico’s government to target cartel leadership, along with their clandestine drug labs, precursor chemical supply chains, and illicit finances,” the State Department wrote.

“Over the next year, the United States will expect to see additional, aggressive efforts by Mexico to hold cartel leaders accountable and disrupt the illicit networks engaged in drug production and trafficking.”

Trump himself has accused Sheinbaum of inefficacy in her campaign to crack down on illicit drug trafficking.

“She’s not running Mexico. The cartels are running Mexico,” Trump told Fox News in the hours after launching a January 3 military operation to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

“She’s very frightened of the cartels. They’re running Mexico. I’ve asked her numerous times, ‘Would you like us to take out the cartels?’”

Sheinbaum has repeatedly refused the prospect of unilateral US intervention, arguing it would violate Mexican sovereignty. Still, Trump has repeatedly warned that the US is considering military strikes on Mexican soil.

“Something’s going to have to be done with Mexico,” he told Fox News.

Upping the pressure

Sheinbaum, however, has defended her administration’s track record. Faced with US tariffs in February 2025, she deployed nearly 10,000 members of Mexico’s National Guard to the country’s northern border to crack down on fentanyl trafficking.

She has also taken targeted military actions against cartels, though she has argued that the process should be focused on prosecuting criminals, rather than killing them in law enforcement operations.

Her administration has also overseen the extradition of dozens of Mexican nationals suspected of crimes in the US. In January 2025, for instance, 37 people were sent to the US. In April and August, groups of 13 and 14 suspects were transferred, respectively.

Sunday’s capture and killing of El Mencho was the fulfilment of a decades-long goal for the Mexican government, which has long sought his arrest.

Still, on Monday, Trump briefly posted a message on his Truth Social platform indicating that he expected Sheinbaum to do more.

“Mexico must step up their effort on Cartels and Drugs,” he wrote in a post that was later removed.

Sheinbaum, meanwhile, used Tuesday’s news conference to dismiss the criticism as out of touch with what was happening in Mexico. She added that what matters to her is the opinion of the Mexican people, not Musk.

“The vast majority of people recognise the work of the armed forces and the work we are doing every day, not only in security, but for the good of the country, for the wellbeing of all Mexicans,” she said. “That is what will guide us.”

KATIE Price has proudly brandished a pregnancy test days after claiming she’s pregnant with her sixth baby.

The Sun exclusively revealed the former glamour model said I Do with businessman Lee Andrews in a plush ceremony in Dubai last month.

Over the weekend, it was revealed the pair made their marriage legal in a second ceremony.

Now Katie, 47, has taken to her bathroom to tease the next steps in their relationship.

Last week she appeared to confirm she is expecting as she claimed “I’m having his baby”.

The parent of five’s new video saw her posing in a white T-Shirt, holding a test with her pink manicured fingers.

AISLE BE BACK

Moment Katie Price & new hubby exchange vows in second wedding ceremony

I DO… AGAIN

Katie Price’s marriage made legal FIVE days ago in 2nd ceremony despite fears

Her huge wedding ring was on full display in the clip, which saw her brush her dark locks over her shoulder and flash a smile to the camera.

Yet she covered up the window box on the test, meaning the verdict could not be seen.

She then said: “Hey guys so all the speculation.

“If you want to see the truth subscribe and you will see the answer”.

She then flashed a pose to end the clip and added a subscription box.

Katie married Lee after two weeks of knowing him.

She then stunned fans by appearing to confirm that she’s expecting his baby just hours after meeting his dad.

In her apparent baby announcement, Katie was also quick to take a swipe at Lee’s ex partner Alana Percival, who he was engaged to last year.

In a shock rant, Katie took to social media and said: “Alana I know rejection doesn’t feel nice and I’m married to Lee Andrews the man you want and will never have again.

“Your constant lies and put downs is clearly showing how bitter you are, go live your life little girl.

Who is Katie Price’s husband Lee Andrews?

KATIE Price tied the knot with Lee Andrews in January 2026. Yet who is he?

• Katie Price has married businessman fiancé Lee Andrews in a whirlwind wedding
• It is the fourth time Katie, 47, has been a bride. She has also been married to Peter Andre, Alex Reid and Kieran Hayler
• Katie and Lee met just after being introduced on social media
• Lee claimed he is a billionaire in a failed clip from his acting career
• He now claims to be a Dubai-based businessman
• Yet The Sun has unmasked him as a fantasist who faked celebrity links using AI-generated photos and recently talked about marrying two other women
• Failed actor is just another title to add to Lee’s questionable CV, after he claimed to have once worked as the Director of Philanthropy at The Prince’s Trust (now The King’s Trust)
• Lee also shared images – since proven to be AI – of him working with Elon Musk and Kim Kardashian
• It’s been revealed shameless Lee told former girlfriends that he had studied at Cambridge University, and has a PhD in biotechnology science
• But The Sun has seen a response from the university explaining it could not find a record of Lee being registered as a student with a date of birth they had provided
• His LinkedIn profile says Lee has been a Member of the Board of Advisors to the Labour Party since 2015
• Lee was also mocked for repeating the exact same wedding proposal on Katie – that he did for another woman just four months ago.

“I know the truth and your now embarrassing yourself, go and have the little respect for yourself that’s left.

“I know all about you and who you are.

“At least I’m the real woman he has found and deserves, but please just enjoy watching us build our empire as I’m having his child.

“I’ll enjoy the ride and big d*** energy now, I’m in the saddle.

“He’s the most beautiful human I know who never took anything from you.”

Katie furiously added: “Now disappear back under that bridge you irrelevant little troll.”

While Lee also appeared to confirm the baby news by sharing a picture of him and Katie and writing: “Perfect couple, soon to be triple.”

Over the weekend, he shared an image seemingly showing him cradling Katie’s tummy with his hand.

Katie was previously issued a warning by Lee’s exes Alana and Crystal Janke, who he dated at the same time last year. 

Last month Alana, 32, and Crystal, 40, told The Sun exclusively how they were hoodwinked by the businessman — branding him a lying swindler who preys on women.

After the fake video of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt fighting went viral, a surge of AI-generated content from Seedance 2.0 flooded the internet.

Some fans were using the new AI video generator, backed by ByteDance, to refashion the finales for shows like “Game of Thrones” and “Stranger Things.” Others created battle scenes between iconic superheroes like Wolverine and Superman or between a Transformer and Godzilla.

As these Seedance videos amassed millions of views on social media, industry guilds like SAG-AFTRA and the Motion Picture Assn. have criticized the AI platform that was launched last week. Now, many major Hollywood studios are threatening to take legal action against ByteDance, the same Chinese parent that oversees TikTok.

Netflix, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount and Disney have all sent individual cease and desist letters, detailing the unauthorized reproduction of each of the studios’ copyrighted intellectual property.

Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery were the latest studios to send cease and desists letter to ByteDance on Tuesday.

Netflix calls Seedance “a high-speed privacy engine” and says that they “will not stand by and watch ByteDance treat our valued IP as free, public domain clip art,” as stated in the letter. The streamer also cites the illegal use of sets derived from “Squid Game,” costumes from “Bridgerton” and character design from “KPop Demon Hunters.”

Warner Bros. Discovery looks to repurposed content, including characters from the “Harry Potter” and “Lord of the Rings” franchises, as well as superheroes like Batman, as “ blatant infringement” by ByteDance. The studio argues that it’s clear that their AI technology was trained on Warner Bros. copyrighted material “without authorization.”

“But the users are not the ones at the root cause of the infringement; they are merely building on the foundation of infringement already laid by ByteDance as Seedance comes pre-loaded with Warner Bros. Discovery’s copyrighted characters,” wrote the studios’ legal executive vice president Wayne Smith. “That was a deliberate design choice by ByteDance.”

Disney and Paramount were the first of the studios to call out ByteDance, sending their letters last Friday and Saturday. Disney accuses ByteDance of loading its Seedance service “with a pirated library of Disney’s copyrighted characters from Star Wars, Marvel, and other Disney franchises.”

“Over Disney’s well-publicized objections, ByteDance is hijacking Disney’s characters by reproducing, distributing, and creating derivative works featuring those characters. ByteDance’s virtual smash-and-grab of Disney’s IP is willful, pervasive, and totally unacceptable,” Disney’s attorney David Singer wrote, per Axios.

Paramount’s cease and desist letter was reviewed by The Times and makes similar assertions about ByteDance’s unapproved use of copyrighted material.

ByteDance has since pledged to implement more safeguards to protect copyrighted material in response to these letters.

“ByteDance respects intellectual property rights and we have heard the concerns regarding Seedance 2.0,” a company spokesperson said in a statement shared with CNBC. “We are taking steps to strengthen current safeguards as we work to prevent the unauthorized use of intellectual property and likeness by users.”

But with or without the safeguards, Dan Purcell, chief executive of Midnight Labs, an AI-powered company that specializes in IP protection for high-value entertainment, said these letters might be a bit of a delayed reaction from the studios.

“Once synthetic content is generated, it spreads instantly and at a massive scale. By the time lawyers engage, the damage is done,” said Purcell in a statement. “The only path forward is strict licensing, real-time enforcement, and consequences that actually hurt. Reactive letters won’t fix this. The industry needs to move at the speed of AI — not the speed of litigation.”